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 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/8/obama-and-the-lunatic-left/)
2. RAHN: How to create jobs now - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/6/how-to-create-jobs-now/)

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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?scp=4&sq=third%20quarter%20profits&st=cse)
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 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/gdp4q10_3rd.htm)

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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?scp=4&sq=third%20quarter%20profits&st=cse)
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 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/gdp4q10_3rd.htm)

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.

[schmenke]

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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?scp=4&sq=third%20quarter%20profits&st=cse)
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 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/gdp4q10_3rd.htm)

...

...and how many tax breaks did these corporations receive? :dozey:

[ICWS]

Here's a video from the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank, that argues the similarily to those Washington Times editorials I posted:

Government Spending Doesn (http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2011/09/07/government-spending-doesnt-create-jobs/)

The video proposes three measures to help create jobs:

1. Cut government spending by 20%

2. Don't make any further tax increases

3. Freeze all new regulations until they've all gone through a full cost/benefit analysis

[airshifter]

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.

There is a need for more cops.

Government cops need a combined salary of 1 million dollars to fill the void. This results in a budget (tax) increase of 1 million dollars. End result is greater spending above tax revenue generated, or higher taxes for those already working to pay these cops.

Private sector cops require the same combined salary. It is only paid if the demand still exists, because the private sector will not employ them otherwise. Assuming the same cops are hired at the same salary as the above, they still pay the same taxes. But the company that employs them pays taxes on profits as well. The end result is more tax revenue generated by the government, and no need for tax burden to increase or budget additions.

In the case of government employees, wealth for the government is never generated. Wealth for the employees would remain the same assuming all remained employed. But the government would continue to employ them regardless of need in many cases, where the private sector would only employ those actually generating wealth for them.

[Bob Riebe]

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 :) ROFLMAO- dream on bunky.

[Rollo]

Here's a video from the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank, that argues the similarily to those Washington Times editorials I posted:

I wondered about the graph in one of those articles:
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2011/06/06/rahn-chart-color_s625x377.jpg

If we assume it to be true then even at the top of the peak, unemployment was still greater than 35%. Does this say more about participation rates rather than genuine unemployment?

Also, if you look at the spike of Government Spending, you'll notice that it occurs from 2008 onwards. It's worth noting that Government Spending on this chart is charted as a Percentage of GDP. From 2008, there was a recession which means to say that GDP itself was actually shrinking. If that's the case then the following is useful:

Income (Y) = Consumer Spending (C) + Investment Spending (I) + Government Spending (G) + Export Receipts (X) - Savings (S) - Taxation (T) - Import Expenditure (M).

Y = C+I+G-S-T-M

On a percentage basis, if both C and I fall, then naturally if G remains at the same dollar value, because the economy has contracted, then of course it's going to appear higher with respect to Aggregate Income.





The video proposes three measures to help create jobs:
1. Cut government spending by 20%

Assuming this is true in an already shrinking economy, how does this improve either Consumer or Investment Spending?


3. Freeze all new regulations until they've all gone through a full cost/benefit analysis

With all due respect, it was in fact a lack of regulation in the banking sector which gave banks the ability to lend money to people (in the form of mortgages) which led to the Global Financial Crisis in the first place.
Also, if you look at the long boom from 1945-1970, there was a very heavily regulated financial system.

History proves Point 3 to be wrong in both cases. How do you reconcile this?

[Bob Riebe]

With all due respect, it was in fact a lack of regulation in the banking sector which gave banks the ability to lend money to people (in the form of mortgages) which led to the Global Financial Crisis in the first place.
Also, if you look at the long boom from 1945-1970, there was a very heavily regulated financial system.

History proves Point 3 to be wrong in both cases. How do you reconcile this?With all do respect, it was Democrats Dodd and Frank threatening lending institutions if they did not give out loans, to said same people, that caused them to write the loans.

[Rollo]

With all do respect, it was Democrats Dodd and Frank threatening lending institutions if they did not give out loans, to said same people, that caused them to write the loans.

Piffel.
That really accounts for AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Commerzbank, Merrill Lynch, HSBC, Bear Stearns & Co, BNP Paribas... etc etc etc?
Sorry, but the problems which caused the GFC were systemic. Banks and Lenders were hardly "threatened" as you put it; not whilst there was billions to be made selling CDOs and other like financial instruments.

The US Subprime fiasco was a bubble, which was being propped up as long as investors were willing to. In that respect it's no different to many other bubbles.
You might name two names, big lousy deal, but what about the other ten thousand traders on Wall St? If you think that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are solely to blame, then you'll have swallowed political claptrap hook, line and sinker.

[555-04Q2]

ROFLMAO- dream on bunky.

It's no dream, you are living the reality.

[Roamy]

You won't get an argument from this redneck. I happen to agree with much of what you said. It will take a while before the "American Century" completely fades away, but it is most definitely on the decline now.

I will probably be dead before total anarchy comes but it will unless we gut congress. But just in case I am still alive the guns on my radar are now
a glock 20 gen 4 10mm. 460v Smith and Wesson, Mossberg 12 gauge, and a ruger 380 with laser. Probably will have to move to Northern Idaho.

[Roamy]

It's no dream, you are living the reality.

Well go broke is actually ok as long as you do it via bankruptcy like where we just discharge all the financial obligations and start at -0-.
I can go for that. Matter of fact cut out all that aid we give Africa and they can come knocking at your door.
Yea I guess the "Global Economy" meant that we give all our money to the "Globe" - That could change once we get the balls to elect someone like Trump and gut the corrupt thieves from congress.

[Bob Riebe]

It's no dream, you are living the reality.In your mind.

[Bob Riebe]

Piffel.
That really accounts for AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Commerzbank, Merrill Lynch, HSBC, Bear Stearns & Co, BNP Paribas... etc etc etc?
Sorry, but the problems which caused the GFC were systemic. Banks and Lenders were hardly "threatened" as you put it; not whilst there was billions to be made selling CDOs and other like financial instruments.

The US Subprime fiasco was a bubble, which was being propped up as long as investors were willing to. In that respect it's no different to many other bubbles.
You might name two names, big lousy deal, but what about the other ten thousand traders on Wall St? If you think that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are solely to blame, then you'll have swallowed political claptrap hook, line and sinker.Simple reality, the Fannie-Freddie cluster-F, forced by the Dem. was the straw that broke the camels back.

The Dem. talking point of class envy against financial institutions, is the hook, line and sinker you swalled whole.

[Rollo]

The Dem. talking point of class envy against financial institutions, is the hook, line and sinker you swalled whole.

I don't live in the United States, that Democran-Republicrat thing is entirely within your shores. As far as I'm concerned, they're both useless.

[555-04Q2]

In your mind.

This stupid, blinkered attitude is precisely why you will be finished sooner rather than later. Arrogance and stupidity go hand in hand.

Bye bye :wave:

[Bob Riebe]

This stupid, blinkered attitude is precisely why you will be finished sooner rather than later. Arrogance and stupidity go hand in hand.

Bye bye :wave: Yeah that is what Khrushchev said too.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Most reasonable people would not dispute that there need to be checks and balances in any system for it to function well.

None of that changes the fact that you can not create something out of nothing. The government spending money it does not have will do very little to create jobs or wealth for people. Sooner or later the piper has to be paid. It's a slippery slope coated with (forgive the pun) Greece.

That is pretty much how I see it. For Europeans and other nations to look at the US and say "you are too rich and too greedy" is a naive assumption their nations are doing it right. I look at the Accumulated debt's of half of the EU and I don't see any paragon's of saving and fiscal prudence. The "PIGS" may lead the way but the UK is broke, France is hurting and Germany is keeping everyone afloat somehow....

The Irony? The most fiscally prudent nations of the EU are the ones in the old Eastern Bloc. They see socialism for what it is.....and in the US, they now have a President who governs like many European leaders do. This idea Government creates wealth and prosperity is a false economy. The State has to be supported by the private sector and the populace. If the general economy is growing at 3%, you don't grow government at 7 and 8% and yet that is what most western nations did.

Canada quietly hit the wall in the mid 90's while you were not paying attention and we made cuts to public spending and regorganization. It still isn't great, but compared to the US and most of Europe, we are looking really good. What is more, we didn't have our governments messing with the banking system, and yet they regulated for the better of the nation on how our banks operate. Now they are some of the more successful banking operations on the continent and some, like RBC and TD are making huge inroads in buying up poorly run US operations.

Capitalism works if Government allows it to work....but it isn't perfect.

As for people wanting more, of course they do. We all want a better life for our kids than we do for ourselves, and we all want to move up. Asking for less is a retarded notion that socialism would tell us we should follow to hide for its faults. The reality is however though we should be prudent in our finances and how we get more. We also have to know when we are in an industry where our skills and jobs are over priced. People in the UAW and CAW here in North America are about the last people ignoring the reality. They make too much. IN a world where everyone can do menial factory work, no company is competitive over paying for labor.

The US is going to go through a tough decade or more while it figures out where it it fits in the world pecking order. China is the big fella on the block, but I would hardly say America's days are over. We better hope not...at least with the USA, their corporate and economic imperialism allows for free speech and a geniune concern for the prosperity of its trading partners. The Chinese? They don't care about anyone's economy, their ecology, or their human rights.....so if the Chinese are running commerce on this planet, you will wish you had the US Back...

[Bob Riebe]

JON QUIRK: It will be messy when the Chinese bubble bursts
MANY economists are belatedly beginning to see the current global economic turmoil as a three-act play, with the first being very much centred on the US and variously called the subprime crisis, the Lehman domino effect or, more inclusively, the Anglo-Saxon casino effect, as it also embroiled the UK ...
...The third act is happening in China. In the three years since the first act started, credit in China has mushroomed from 100% of gross domestic product (GDP) to 200%, at a time when GDP itself has been growing at a fast lick.

BusinessDay - JON QUIRK: It will be messy when the Chinese bubble bursts (http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=153813)

[race aficionado]

I've just had one of those "I got mail" moments so I am going to post it here.
A bit of humor, a bit of facts for some, fallacy for others -

:s mokin:

_______________

The Fix

There was an article in the St. Petersburg , Fl. Times some months ago. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I think this guy nailed it!

"Dear Mr. President,

Please find below my suggestion for fixing America's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan."

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings -- Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered -- Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -- Housing Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes..

Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

[Roamy]

race
I like it

[Rollo]

Please find below my suggestion for fixing America's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan."

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:


40,000,000 people times $1,000,000 = $40,000,000,000,000 or $40 trillion. Last year US GDP was only $14.6 trillion. World GDP was only about $63 trillion.
This plan would cost 2/3rds of the GDP in the world.


A bit of humor,

Aye that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

40,000,000 people times $1,000,000 = $40,000,000,000,000 or $40 trillion. Last year US GDP was only $14.6 trillion. World GDP was only about $63 trillion.
This plan would cost 2/3rds of the GDP in the world.



Rollo, why let facts get in the way? C'mon, that plan makes more sense than this last stimulus plan did. 3 trillion flushed down the toilet and it didn't move the needle on unemployment and growing the economy. The US Government cannot buy their way out of this mess......

[anthonyvop]

I've just had one of those "I got mail" moments so I am going to post it here.
A bit of humor, a bit of facts for some, fallacy for others -

:s mokin:

_______________

The Fix

There was an article in the St. Petersburg , Fl. Times some months ago. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I think this guy nailed it!

"Dear Mr. President,

Please find below my suggestion for fixing America's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan."

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings -- Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered -- Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -- Housing Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!!


Great Idea! Who cares that Inflation will hit Double Digits And 40 Million People hit up Medicaid and Social Security.