Why does the Right think that it's the Government's job to create jobs?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Sure.....start on a case by case eliminating the bad,THEN add more good

Ok. Why is that the order? Is there some reason to think that elminitating bad programs will have more immediate impacts, or bigger impacts, than creating new good programs, or expanding the good programs?

What is the basis for saying that the bad should be eliminated before the good are expanded?

[SnyderShrugged]

Ok. Why is that the order? Is there some reason to think that elminitating bad programs will have more immediate impacts, or bigger impacts, than creating new good programs, or expanding the good programs?

What is the basis for saying that the bad should be eliminated before the good are expanded?

The fact that we are broke?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The fact that we are broke?

A) We aren't "broke." Programs by the government could increase revenue and address the debt as well. That's sorta what we're talking about.

[twa]

A) We aren't "broke." Programs by the government could increase revenue and address the debt as well. That's sorta what we're talking about.

We are past broke in a liquidity sense,though we could always sell Alaska to someone so we can buy the oil

What programs?

[USS Redskins]

The government has to do SOMETHING, dont they?

The right asks them to do one little thing, create jobs, and they cant handle that???

come on, people!

[SnyderShrugged]

A) We aren't "broke." Programs by the government could increase revenue and address the debt as well. That's sorta what we're talking about.

ummm, we are certainly broke. Did you miss the whole debt ceiling debate? If we had the money, why would more debt need be incurred?

To claim we arent broke at this point and facing facts, is head in the sand thinking

[twa]

The government has to do SOMETHING, dont they?

The right asks them to do one little thing, create jobs, and they cant handle that???

come on, people!

They found their true talent in spending money....gotta stick with your strengths

[gbear]

I still want to know will the government of CA be considered to have made jobs if the case in CA if Amazon wins and hires and builds. The threat of putting a sales tax on on-line purchases made Amazon say "if there is no tax we will hire 7,000 people and build a huge building."

[Tulane Skins Fan]

ummm, we are certainly broke. Did you miss the whole debt ceiling debate? If we had the money, why would more debt need be incurred?

To claim we arent broke at this point and facing facts, is head in the sand thinking

I don't think you know what "broke" means. The guy on the corner with his hand open is broke. We needed to agree to pay our bills.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't think you know what "broke" means. The guy on the corner with his hand open is broke. We needed to agree to pay our bills.

Broke means you dont have liquid cash to pay your bills. If you have to use a loan or a credit card to pay bills, you are broke. We are broke.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Broke means you dont have liquid cash to pay your bills. If you have to use a loan or a credit card to pay bills, you are broke. We are broke.

The government had liquid cash to pay their bills. What they didn't have was statutory permission to do so. So, we weren't "broke." We had a big debt and a self-imposed ceiling on what kind of debt we had.

Let's put it this way, the government was not going to fold up and call it quits if they debt ceiling didn't get passed. They would have lost the very best credit rating available, and failed to pay all their obligations on time, but they still would have existed.

[SnyderShrugged]

The government had liquid cash to pay their bills. What they didn't have was statutory permission to do so. So, we weren't "broke." We had a big debt and a self-imposed ceiling on what kind of debt we had.

Let's put it this way, the government was not going to fold up and call it quits if they debt ceiling didn't get passed. They would have lost the very best credit rating available, and failed to pay all their obligations on time, but they still would have existed.

I dont believe I ever said the government would not have existed. Simply that we are broke and the need to borrow more money is ample evidence. If we arent broke, there should be no need at all to borrow. Its a very simple statement of fact.

[Larry]

Actually, to be fair, the Right thinks that it's the Left's job to create jobs.

They think it's the Right's job to create profits.

:secret: Guess which side's been succeeding in their objectives, lately?

[allannis]

ummm, we are certainly broke. Did you miss the whole debt ceiling debate? If we had the money, why would more debt need be incurred?

To claim we arent broke at this point and facing facts, is head in the sand thinking

But, we still have checks we can't be broke. lol

[SnyderShrugged]

But, we still have checks we can't be broke. lol

Lol that does appear to be the logic held by many

[allannis]

The government had liquid cash to pay their bills. What they didn't have was statutory permission to do so. So, we weren't "broke." We had a big debt and a self-imposed ceiling on what kind of debt we had.

Let's put it this way, the government was not going to fold up and call it quits if they debt ceiling didn't get passed. They would have lost the very best credit rating available, and failed to pay all their obligations on time, but they still would have existed.

In other words, we are not to the point of having our stuff put on the curb yet

[SnyderShrugged]

In other words, we are not to the point of having our stuff put on the curb yet

only because we can take out enough credit cards to cover the bills.

[allannis]

only because we can take out enough credit cards to cover the bills.

Yea paying the morgage with credit cards is always a great idea lol

[twa]

I hope we win the lottery

[Larry]

I hope we run out of slogans.

[yank]

I still want to know will the government of CA be considered to have made jobs if the case in CA if Amazon wins and hires and builds. The threat of putting a sales tax on on-line purchases made Amazon say "if there is no tax we will hire 7,000 people and build a huge building."

This is a case of trying too hard to give the government credit for not stepping on the crank of a profitable business. Amazon would build the building and hire more people because it's business model said it was the right thing to do at this time. If there was sales tax imposed the business model would say no expansion.

So to say that government threat to impose sales tax CAUSED Amazon to hire more people is like saying that the government got its hand halfway up Amazon's ass in a money grab but decided to pull their hand back out so wasnt government wonderful? It just stinks ...

[Kosher Ham]

In 1990 it was cheaper to buy a Nissan 4 door truck than it was to buy an American 4 door truck.

Because they taxed it as a family car coming in. Why did we ever start taxing cars differently ... Why would we cut the import cars less ? Because they were a Japanese company ?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

A simple example is the cost to build the Reagan building in DC. WE paid over 70 bucks for toilet seats.

Some people don't understand the "we" part sometimes. It's frustrating.

It is not left or right, it is stupid people.

[gbear]

Looked for a good thread to post, and this is as good as any.

I think the media is fuleing fears on the job front. I wonder if they realize how many people will only read the headlines and the impact they will have.

Take the 0 net job growth reported this morning as an example. Pay attention to the title of the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-no-new-jobs-in-aug-unemployment-remains-91percent/2011/09/02/gIQAwzNYwJ_story.html?hpid=z1

It says no new jobs, and then it goes on to explain these numbers include 45,000 Verizon strikers who were on a 2 week strike which is now over, and includes the cuts of 17,000 government jobs (the ones everyone thinks are part of the problem). It also reports more than 330,000 people found new jobs. The odd part is I remember reading the tipping point in driving down the unemployment rate long term was around 200,000. So this 330,000 isn't enough to imediately reverse the unemployment percentage wise, but contrary to the title of the article the news is far from all bad. Granted the "net" being 0 is troublesome, but until we know how much of the negative is temporary we know 330,000 froun jobs.

What's more, earlier this week, average productivity went negative for a second consecutive reading. At frist glance, this sounds terrible, but is it really? I think the story is being missed, and the 330,000 is a large part of the average productivity numbers dropping. New employees don't work as fast as ones who know what they are doing. The new employees were needed to meet expected demand as there is only so much overtime to be worked. On the demad side, look at manufacturing numbers. They have been up.

I know this is a doom and gloom thread about which has not been done on the jobs front, but don't miss the light just becomes it's coming through stained glass.

[Wrong Direction]

I've been busy and not on the site, so I've stayed out of this thread, but this article is interesting to me.

A Hidden Jobs Killer

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/hidden_jobs_killer_nfudBPzZv0PL5qAo82bArM

The low point of the recession came in January 2009, when US employers shed 841,000 jobs in just that one month. But the economy slowly started to recover over the next 15 months; private employers began hiring workers at an average rate of 67,600 per month (net of layoffs). The economy’s high point came with the April 2010 report, when 229,000 jobs were added.

But ObamaCare was signed into law in late March, and the hiring freeze began. In the following months, the economy added an average of just 6,500 jobs per month (net of layoffs) -- less than a tenth the pre-ObamaCare average.

This doesn’t prove that the health law is a major cause of the problem. But there is no question that the jobs recovery stalled after ObamaCare passed.

How does ObamaCare discourage hiring?

First, it adds unknown costs to hiring new workers. Companies already must consider the cost of taxes for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation when hiring new staff. combined with health benefits, these costs explain why a $50,000-a-year employee costs a company $62,500 to $70,000 (according to MIT business professor Joseph Hadzima). ObamaCare adds new costs by forcing employers to either provide workers with expensive, government-approved insurance or pay a fine.

The health law also discourages small businesses from becoming mid-size businesses because the mandate to provide insurance kicks in once you reach 50 or more employees. This is profoundly wrongheaded. Small business is the engine for job growth in America, but a recent survey found that 70 percent have no plans to increase hiring in the next year.

As for those companies that already have 50 or more workers, the burden of having to buy expensive government-approved policies (or pay penalties) discourages them from hiring all but essential staff. Indeed, larger companies are doing everything they can to pare back on entry-level jobs and using automation to avoid the added cost of mandatory health insurance for lower-income workers. McDonald’s and CVS drug stores, for example, are replacing some human order-takers and cashiers with electronic systems.

This especially hurts entry-level would-be workers who need jobs so they can get the skills to enter the workforce. Is it any surprise that teen unemployment has now hit 25 percent? The jobs they need are evaporating because of ObamaCare.

The evidence now is clear that ObamaCare is discouraging employers from hiring. The question is how long the president will continue to sacrifice the economy for the sake of his signature legislation.

[NoVaO]

Well, for starters, from May 2010 through August 2011, the private sector added just under 130,000 private sector jobs a month, greater than the 67,600 private sector jobs added on average through the first 15 months of recovery.

Second, the private sector added 241,000 jobs in April 2011, greater than the 229,000 jobs created in April 2010.

So those are two strikes against this guy's article.

Notice how this guy uses the monthly average of private sector employment for the pre-Obamacare months (67,600) but includes public sector jobs in his averages of post-Obamacare job numbers (6,500). It is true that hiring slumped in the Summer of 2010, but it is almost entirely the fault of Government layoffs. The private sector actually did fine in these months.

Third, how can this author make such assumptions about the health care law without mentioning any other outside factors that might influence job growth over the course of these months? Stimulus funds started circulating in the economy sometime between April and May of 2009. High gas prices, the monstrous tornados in the middle of the country, the Japanese tsunami...all have impacted our economy for the worse, as has the European debt crisis, which is the primary reason for the giant fluctuations in the stock market recently.

In addition, we're running out of stimulus funds and economists aren't very optimistic that Washington can really do anything to help get people back to work, or put a little extra money in the pockets of consumers, because Republicans are against anything that will help the economy right now. Whether it is ideology, or whether it is to prevent Obama from getting a "win" for re-election, they are rejecting everything that might help the economy right now including ideas they have largely supported in the past.

And then there is the debt ceiling fight, which crushed consumer confidence. It really demoralized this country. It spooked business. It spooked investors who couldn't believe what they were hearing -- that certain members of one political party was openly advocating for the U.S. to default on the payments we owe, and ignoring the warnings from experts who know what they're talking about.

So you have all these outside factors that can influence the economy and the author of the article fails to account for any of it.

But as far as the charge that the health care reform act costs jobs...using the examples given by the author, that has a very tiny impact on the economy in the grand scheme of things. Studies have looked at the impact health care might have on jobs and have concluded it will little if any impact on jobs. Jobs lost due to uncertainty over paying for health care would be offset by the number of new jobs created in the health care sector, where spending would increase the level of demand in the industry. Here are the conclusions of some of these studies...

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/72041.pdf

Concern over the impact of the ACA on small businesses is misplaced. All small businesses with fewer than 50 workers will be exempt from any assessments. Most larger firms already provide health insurance to their workers and so are unlikely to face assessments under the new law. Small businesses should benefit from the availability of lower cost plans and the efforts to increase competition and contain costs within exchanges. The Garrett and Buettgens analysis showed little change in coverage among small firms and lower costs because of reduced premiums in exchanges and employer subsidies.

A small minority of medium-size and large firms do not provide ESI today and will either start providing coverage or pay assessments, leading to higher costs, although many will be able to offset these costs through lowering other benefits or slowing wage growth. Some firms will also see higher take-up among employees who now do not accept employer offers. These effects, however, will be small, and there will generally be offsetting effects.

Whether slightly positive or slightly negative, the ACA should not have a significant impact on overall employment.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/

The last point I'll make, outside of all these factors, the most important factor in my mind is that consumer wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years, unemployment is extremely high, the value of everybody's home is underwater, and rather than spending, consumers are having to pay off their debt. Thus, the economy has very little demand, which means businesses aren't expanding. And we're in this nasty cycle that will take a long time to recover from.