Debate: Do you think it is the government's resposibility to create jobs?

After listening to a lot of you and hearing all of this that the Bush administration hasn't created jobs (even though they have created 2 million this year). Who's job is it anyway to create these jobs? Why do we put it on the government when it isn't like they can go to corporate america and say hey, hire people now.

I believe the fault lies on corporate america not the goverment. Technically the administration has made a lot of government jobs contract positions and created another organization that created many jobs and are still hiring.

Just curious what all of you thought.

As for companies going over seas, we are becoming a global economy so it is opening the door for new challenges all over.

I believe Presidents get more credit and blame than they deserve for the economy. However, I do believe that to the extent that it is in their power, President's should try to create as postive an economic climate as possible.

Its the people that make 200k right? Wasnt it said they make up 70% of the small business?

Its Microsoft/IBM/Walmart/McDonalds

Its Lucent/Lowes/Home Depot

Its the neighborhood grass cutters/newpaper delivery

Its Heinz, Dupont, Disney...

7/11, mobile, shell, amoco, sheetz...

Its Geeks on call

Its that guy/girl with an idea and willing to risk it all to see if they can give up their boss and double their hours...

I appreciate them all...

It is the gov't's responsibility to create a favorable trade, fiscal and regulatory environment for businesses to prosper to facilitate the creation of jobs from the private sector. The government has never created jobs - anybody it hires has to be paid for through taxes, inflation, or debt.

The first George Bush failed on all counts. W, on the other hand, has a mixed record. Tax cuts softened some of the potential damage caused by the dot com collapse and 9/11, but his mammoth increases in spending have have pushed long term interest rates up, thus increasing the cost of capital. Also, his medicare prescription fiasco led to higher insurance costs, which has hindered new hirings. Also, his ridiculous pandering to the unions for which he passed illegal tariffs on steel cost thousands of manufacturing jobs, and W has done little if anything to promote expansion of NAFTA or other trade promoting agreements.

What presidents can do is not much. They can create an environment through tax breaks, cuts, and incentives to make US companies keep more of thier profit. This in turn helps companies have more capitol and grow business. When there is more business than there is a need for more employees. As for outscorcing jobs, other companies in other countries do it also. Take the huge BMW plant down in South Carolina. If we want to end outscorcing than that blade cuts both ways.

Originally posted by ross3909

As for outscorcing jobs, other companies in other countries do it also. Take the huge BMW plant down in South Carolina. If we want to end outscorcing than that blade cuts both ways.

Great point and many here wouldn't want that.

my only beef is that I am not sure why the government should pay companies to export jobs. I don't think they should necessarily penalize them, but why should they receive extra incentives for moving a job to a foreign country?

Originally posted by Burgold

my only beef is that I am not sure why the government should pay companies to export jobs. I don't think they should necessarily penalize them, but why should they receive extra incentives for moving a job to a foreign country?

The one good thing it does is help forge relationships with certain countries, look at India right now.

This could be a way to entice companies to do this. It also puts us on a global stage where we can sell our products there just like the Japanese have been doing so long here.

The government has never created jobs - anybody it hires has to be paid for through taxes, inflation, or debt.

Bingo

And taxes and inflation destroy jobs.

The government creates no jobs what so ever. I won't repeat Riggo's post but he is dead on.

People like myself have created more jobs then the last 5 presidents combined. This year alone I have hired 23 more workers.

The gov't has very little to do with making the economy better, but it can do a lot to mess it up.

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan2

The gov't has very little to do with making the economy better, but it can do a lot to mess it up.

So when we lose jobs, it's the government's fault.

But when we gain jobs, that has nothing to do with the government?

It's the governments responsibility to create a favorable economic environment, so that more jobs are necessary in the private sector.

So when we lose jobs, it's the government's fault.

No, not necessarily

The business cycle is a prime cause of unemployment.

But when we gain jobs, that has nothing to do with the government?

pretty much

DjTj....... almost.

I should have been a little more clear. Basically I think the gov't can do very little to cause good times besides keeping taxes and inflation and spending low. Thats it.

It is easy though to tax and spend and allow inflation to get out of control. Hence why I think more blame should go to the gov't for bad times then credit for good times

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan2

DjTj....... almost.

I should have been a little more clear. Basically I think the gov't can do very little to cause good times besides keeping taxes and inflation and spending low. Thats it.

It is easy though to tax and spend and allow inflation to get out of control. Hence why I think more blame should go to the gov't for bad times then credit for good times

That's fair.

I think it's also reflected in voting generally. When the economy is bad, more people will talk about and vote on the economy. However, when the economy is good people will vote more on social issues and other things.

Originally posted by Riggotoni

It is the gov't's responsibility to create a favorable trade, fiscal and regulatory environment for businesses to prosper to facilitate the creation of jobs from the private sector.

I think that covers most of what I was going to say.

I would add that crises such as the war in Iraq, September 11th, and the Florida election scandal put a damper on job creation. Businessmen tend to freeze their expansion plans until those crises are over.

Preventing a crisis is another aspect of creating a favorable environment for job creation.

Originally posted by Burgold

my only beef is that I am not sure why the government should pay companies to export jobs. I don't think they should necessarily penalize them, but why should they receive extra incentives for moving a job to a foreign country?

Burgold,

I'm pretty certain government is NOT paying companies to export jobs. In fact, I know government isn't doing so. Now, Kerry likes to pretend so and what Kerry is saying when he says so is really that American companies who do business in other countries aren't subjected to American tax laws in the same way.

This is true. And, this should be obvious to all of us. An American company with a Singapore office shouldn't be subject to American tax laws like an American company at the Texas office. Kerry has decided to say this is our government paying companies to export job when it's really just our government not robbing money from companies who are overseas.

His idea to tax American companies who have offices overseas is a BAD, BAD idea, because, all it will do is make American companies leave America all together and station in Canada and do business in America. We already tax American business far too much.

We already should remove almost all corporate taxation as it is. It's hard to swallow that Kerry wants to introduce MORE taxation to already burdened American businesses.

Originally posted by Art

Burgold,

I'm pretty certain government is NOT paying companies to export jobs. In fact, I know government isn't doing so. Now, Kerry likes to pretend so and what Kerry is saying when he says so is really that American companies who do business in other countries aren't subjected to American tax laws in the same way.

This is true. And, this should be obvious to all of us. An American company with a Singapore office shouldn't be subject to American tax laws like an American company at the Texas office. Kerry has decided to say this is our government paying companies to export job when it's really just our government not robbing money from companies who are overseas.

His idea to tax American companies who have offices overseas is a BAD, BAD idea, because, all it will do is make American companies leave America all together and station in Canada and do business in America. We already tax American business far too much.

We already should remove almost all corporate taxation as it is. It's hard to swallow that Kerry wants to introduce MORE taxation to already burdened American businesses.

It's not that simple.

Here's what's happenning under the Bush administration:

The tax code is written in a way that allows companies not to pay the full 35% U.S. corporate tax rate on foreign income when that money remains invested overseas.

Backing up a step, here's how it works before the loophole: A company earns $100 million abroad in Lowtaxistan where the corporate tax rate is 20%. The foreign subsidiary pays that money to the U.S. parent. The parent then pays $35 million to the U.S. government and takes a credit for the 20% (or

$20 million) payment to the Lowtaxistan government. So the net to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is $15 million.

But here's how it works with the loophole: The U.S. subsidiary simply keeps the money offshore and certifies to its accountants that the money is invested overseas. It never remits the money to the parent and so never pays the $15 million extra to Uncle Sam.

Here's an example from Pfizer's annual report:

"As of December 31, 2003, we have not made a U.S. tax provision on approximately $38 billion of unremitted earnings of our international subsidiaries. These earnings are expected, for the most part, to be reinvested overseas. It is not practical to compute the estimated deferred tax liability on these earnings."

Basically, companies with offshore operations can get away with paying no taxes at all by claiming every year that the money is invested overseas. The companies just keep adding to their deferred tax bill each year but they never actually pay.

Just want to add

The day that the responsibility of job creation is to be left with the public sector(government) is the day I leave this country.

I should also say that a blanket statement blaming a President for a bad economy or giving a President credit for a good economy is wrong.

However, you can usually identify the main causes for why an economy is acting the way it is. If the President's actions are among those causes, he should share in some of the credit/blame.

Gotcha DJ.

My point was that this is not a situation where the government is paying our business, it's a tax code that allows American business not to pay the government as much as it might otherwise owe. If the government simply didn't tax corporations like this we wouldn't have to push operations overseas.

If the government is worried about outsourcing, remove all tax burden from corporations, which will bring businesses to America to hire American workers who will, themselves, pay taxes.

If the government is worried about outsourcing, remove all tax burden from corporations, which will bring businesses to America to hire American workers who will, themselves, pay taxes.

not only that, it will attract foreign businesses to set up base here

Originally posted by luckydevil

not only that, it will attract foreign businesses to set up base here

DING.

AND, it will lower prices paid by American consumers. As we all know, all taxes a business is charged simply work into the product or service it sells. Removing this taxation would create a business haven for foreign business.

Also, if you properly reform social security and remove the obligation we've put on business to match the employees SS contribution, you'll have more money to grow the business. If government is serious about creating jobs, the best way to do it is to create an environment that businesses flock to.

Originally posted by Art

DING.

AND, it will lower prices paid by American consumers. As we all know, all taxes a business is charged simply work into the product or service it sells. Removing this taxation would create a business haven for foreign business.

Also, if you properly reform social security and remove the obligation we've put on business to match the employees SS contribution, you'll have more money to grow the business. If government is serious about creating jobs, the best way to do it is to create an environment that businesses flock to.

Good point.

Well, the president said his tax cuts would create jobs. Remember the "Jobs and Growth Plan?" They didn't.

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Tax cuts are not working to generate jobs

The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA, see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 4,590,000 jobs would be created over the last 15 months. In reality, since the tax cuts took effect there are 2,882,000 fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts. The September job growth of 96,000 fell 210,000 jobs short of the administration's projection. As can be seen in the chart below, job creation failed to meet the administration's projections in 13 of the past 15 months.