American Jobs Act - Opinions

[ICWS]

I'm curious to what you guys and gals in general think about the American Jobs Act, also known as Obama's jobs plan. I've been having debates with some liberal friends about this, as I don't think his jobs plan a good thing. I basically argued to them that such a plan will just add more to the nation's debt and won't reach its goal of creating more wealth and jobs for people, as the government isn't the one who creates jobs that generate wealth, it's the free market that creates this, therefore I argued that a better way for to Obama to create jobs would be a combination of reducing government spending and cutting taxes on labor and capital.

I showed these liberal friends of mine two editorial articles from the Washington Times that opined somewhat the same way that I did about the jobs act and what is a better way to create jobs:

1. KUHNER: Obama and the lunatic left - Washington Times
2. RAHN: How to create jobs now - Washington Times

So what do you all think about the American Jobs Act and what do you think is best way to create jobs in the U.S.?

[555-04Q2]

So what do you all think about the American Jobs Act and what do you think is best way to create jobs in the U.S.?

Quite simple. The US needs to start realising / accepting that it will forever be in decline now. China, Brazil, India etc are the new superpowers in the making. People in the US need to start earning realistic salaries and live in houses they can afford and drive one or two normal cars not five V8's with boats attached to them. The US is no longer competitive in the world market for manufacturing basic goods and is relying on its speciality fields, finance houses and its vast war machine to keep its edge. But that will change too in time, hell it's happening right before all our eyes.

As these two sayings go, "It's time to wake up to reality" and "It's easy to move up in life, but it's hard to come back down".

And before I get taken apart by a few of our resident rednecks around here, this is just my opinion

[Rollo]

it's the free market that creates this, therefore I argued that a better way for to Obama to create jobs would be a combination of reducing government spending and cutting taxes on labor and capital.

The Free Market HAS created jobs and wealth:
ExxonMobil has just posted two consecutive quarters of $10bn profits, the first time they've done that in history.
General Electric posted worldwide profits of $14.2 bn
JPMorgan Chase posted worldwide profits of $4.8 bn

U.S. Corporate Profits Hit Record in Third Quarter - NYTimes.com
American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.
The report was here:
News Release: Gross Domestic Product

Why the hell should American firms employ Americans when they can employ people overseas at far cheaper rates?

The truth is that thousands of jobs have been created, just not in the United States.
The median income in the United States for FY2010 was $46,300. The median income in the Thailand for FY2010 was $4,400.
Cutting taxes on labor and capital even if you reduced them to zero still isn't good enough. If anything you should go to your employer and be demanding a pay cut right now.

You earn too much money. Stop being so selfish, demand LESS.

[Rollo]

as the government isn't the one who creates jobs that generate wealth

Would you care to explain what the actual difference is between a Government employed Policeman and a Privately employed "Rent-A-Cop" on an identical salary? Both would do exactly the same job at exactly the same pay.

[ICWS]

Quite simple. The US needs to start realising / accepting that it will forever be in decline now. China, Brazil, India etc are the new superpowers in the making. People in the US need to start earning realistic salaries and live in houses they can afford and drive one or two normal cars not five V8's with boats attached to them. The US is no longer competitive in the world market for manufacturing basic goods and is relying on its speciality fields, finance houses and its vast war machine to keep its edge. But that will change too in time, hell it's happening right before all our eyes.

As these two sayings go, "It's time to wake up to reality" and "It's easy to move up in life, but it's hard to come back down".

And before I get taken apart by a few of our resident rednecks around here, this is just my opinion

Your opinion is fair; I'm not amongst the resident rednecks you speak of, but nevertheless I think there's some truth to your opinion, as our excessive consumerism, as you mentioned, is a big reason why the recession occured and, in some people's minds, why the recession is still occuring.

[ICWS]

Would you care to explain what the actual difference is between a Government employed Policeman and a Privately employed "Rent-A-Cop" on an identical salary? Both would do exactly the same job at exactly the same pay.

Security guards ("Rent-A-Cops") only have the power to apprehend and detain suspects, police officers can do this as well as make legal arrests and serve arrest warrants. Security guards are typically less educated than a police officer; they usually only need a high school diploma whereas many police officers have college education and degrees in criminal justice. Security guards are only required to protect the property and people of the business that employs them, police officers are required to protect all property and people and enforce the laws of their county and city. Lastly, security guards are confined to securing and patrolling the business' property they're assigned to, while police officers can enter and conduct legal searches of private homes and buildings... Also, police officers typically have salaries twice as big as security guards' salaries, at least here in the United States.

This is an instance in which the government hires someone and gives them a better salary than what a private business would give them for a similar job. Of course, police officers are in higher demand and have more risks that come with the job than a security guard does, so it makes sense that they would have a higher salary.

[ICWS]

The Free Market HAS created jobs and wealth:
ExxonMobil has just posted two consecutive quarters of $10bn profits, the first time they've done that in history.
General Electric posted worldwide profits of $14.2 bn
JPMorgan Chase posted worldwide profits of $4.8 bn

U.S. Corporate Profits Hit Record in Third Quarter - NYTimes.com
American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.
The report was here:
News Release: Gross Domestic Product

Why the hell should American firms employ Americans when they can employ people overseas at far cheaper rates?

The truth is that thousands of jobs have been created, just not in the United States.
The median income in the United States for FY2010 was $46,300. The median income in the Thailand for FY2010 was $4,400.
Cutting taxes on labor and capital even if you reduced them to zero still isn't good enough. If anything you should go to your employer and be demanding a pay cut right now.

You earn too much money. Stop being so selfish, demand LESS.

This is a fair opinion, especially in regards to explaining why American companies would rather employ people overseas at cheaper rates than hire Americans at more expensive rates.

[Rollo]

This is an instance in which the government hires someone and gives them a better salary than what a private business would give them for a similar job. Of course, police officers are in higher demand and have more risks that come with the job than a security guard does, so it makes sense that they would have a higher salary.

No. I asked:
[i]what the actual difference is between a Government employed Policeman and a Privately employed "Rent-A-Cop" on an identical salary?

You've made a distinction between a Government and Private employee. What I'm asking is, if you assume they do the same job for the same pay, WHY do you make that distinction?
You seem to imply that the Government is a consumer.

[anthonyvop]

The decline will stop January 2013

[Rollo]

That's a straw man argument. There are certain functions which only government can effectively perform. Those are limited functions and not economic growth opportunities. Unless of course you prefer to live in a society where everyone is a policeman, fireman or government clerk. Oh wait, my bad, many European countries are almost there.

No it isn't a straw man argument. A straw man is when you set up a similar position and refute that without ever actually attacking the original proposition.
ICWS's proposition that "government isn't the one who creates jobs that generate wealth, it's the free market that creates this" is quite frankly idiotic, and I intend to prove this through an illustrative example.

The point behind the illustration in question is that neither government or free market generates wealth, work and production do. Private Enterprise and the Government are merely collective organisations to determine HOW work and production is generated.
It doesn't actually matter from a GDP perspective who our Policeman or Rent-A-Cop happens to work for, his WORK is what generates wealth.