Lets Make all of the Unemployed US Gubment Employees...

Shouldn't we be asking Barry and the democrats the same question?

otisptoadwater wrote: Shouldn't we be asking Barry and the democrats the same question?

Why? RT has just declared that government can't create jobs, so Obama and the Democrats are off the hook for the high unemployment rate (as they should be, since they didn't push it up there, they just failed to bring it down) and the Republicans just lost their campaign speech about creating jobs. Now what?

archer wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: Shouldn't we be asking Barry and the democrats the same question?

Why? RT has just declared that government can't create jobs, so Obama and the Democrats are off the hook for the high unemployment rate (as they should be, since they didn't push it up there, they just failed to bring it down) and the Republicans just lost their campaign speech about creating jobs. Now what?

Hey Archer ... in case you missed the news on MSNBC....the US Government has spend a few trillion in stimulus money and it has yet to make a dent in the unemployment numbers....

Yep, government can't create private sector jobs.

The only thing that is going to create jobs is a reduction of government spending, reduction of government debt and a reduction of the money lost from the economy to the government in the form of taxes. Investment into the private sector will not return until the government stops giving investors a safer place to stash their cash - government debt obligations. Why risk losing your capital in the private sector when you can have the full faith and credit of the US government guaranteeing that it won't be lost? The only reason you would do that would be for higher gains and the ability to keep more of the money you make by risking that capital. Take away those two incentives - a bad economy, higher taxes - toss in a record setting level of deficit spending with absolutely no signs of abatement anytime in the near future - and you would have to be a fool to risk your capital when you can protect it by buying up debt obligations - which is how the value of our currency is currently determined, by debt obligations.

We literally have a situation right now where the financial institutions are borrowing money to purchase federal debt obligations to shore up the new and improved capitalization regulations contained in Dodd-Frank and a Federal Reserve that is printing up the money they are lending for this purpose. You have the FDIC running around closing smaller banks because they are undercapitalized and failing the new federal "stress tests" which are then bought up by other banks and a political class running around spouting platitudes about "too big to fail" while they are engaged in enacting policy that enlarges the number of entities that are too big to fail. You have leftists running around spouting off about "too big to fail is too big to exist" one minute and with the next breath saying that we have to expand the funding for Social Security and Medicare because they are too big and can't be allowed to fail.

And you wonder why folks are either buying debt obligations or precious metals instead of investing in expansion, new businesses or new mortgages? Really?

Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs... That's a fact. If it did, we'd have full employment now.

LadyJazzer wrote: Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs... That's a fact. If it did, we'd have full employment now.

So Canada cutting their corporate tax rate to 15% will do nothing to create jobs and bring more business to Canada? Why don't we raise our corporate rate and capital gains tax to 50%? Would that be helpful in your opinion or not?

LadyJazzer wrote: Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs... That's a fact. If it did, we'd have full employment now.

If government priming the economic pump worked, we have full employment now. It didn't work for FDR, LBJ or for Obama thus far, what makes anyone think the next time will have different results?

I can point to economic recovery in the wake of tax reduction and significant spending reductions at the federal level. It happened in the 1920's, where the financial fall was actually much worse than that at the start of the Great Depression. It happened in the 1940's at the end of WWII. JFK was successful with it as well after he cut taxes to spur the use of excess capacity in the marketplace.

To a lesser extent, mostly because the federal government only reduced taxes without addressing the other side of the equation - significant spending reduction, there was some success in getting the economic engine rolling with only tax cuts. We've been trying to prime the economic pump with government spending for going on 3 years now. Both Bush and Reagan saw a rise in tax receipts as a percentage of GDP by this point while both FDR and Obama had yet to see similar results following Keynesian models.

As long as we have unprecedented levels of government spending and deficits, investors will use their money to purchase debt obligations. Not just domestic investors, international ones as well. In the 1980's Japan invested in domestic plants and real estate with the dollars they received due to the trade deficit. China is investing in federal debt instead. Investors will not return to the private market until there is stability and predictability in future tax liabilities - they will continue to invest in federal debt obligations to protect their capital even though the return on the investment is less. As long as the federal government insists on spending 1 out of every 4 dollars the economy generates, we are going to have persistently high unemployment and a lack of investment in the private sector. We need to get the federal government back to spending approximately the amount of money that it can expect to realize from tax revenues before we are going to be able to climb out of this hole.

You can't tax and spend your way to prosperity - it simply doesn't work that way.

Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs.... If it did, we'd have full employment now.... Bush had 8 years of the tax cuts... He created about 1 million jobs. Clinton created 23.1 million jobs with the pre-Bush tax rates. Duh....

I can repeat that as often as you can regurgitate the standard "You can't tax and spend your way to prosperity" party line....

If government priming the economic pump worked, we have full employment now. It didn't work for FDR, LBJ or for Obama thus far, what makes anyone think the next time will have different results?

LadyJazzer wrote: Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs.... If it did, we'd have full employment now.... Bush had 8 years of the tax cuts... He created about 1 million jobs. Clinton created 23.1 million jobs with the pre-Bush tax rates. Duh....

I can repeat that as often as you can regurgitate the standard "You can't tax and spend your way to prosperity" party line....

PrintSmith wrote: If government priming the economic pump worked, we have full employment now. It didn't work for FDR, LBJ or for Obama thus far, what makes anyone think the next time will have different results?

I'm lovin the 3rd grade "I know you are but what am I?" type of debate, but the fact is you're both wrong.

The government can't create jobs. No president EVER has created a single private sector job.

It doesn't matter if they tax, don't tax, spend, don't spend, or just stand on their head in teh oval office and chant... They can't do a dang thing except: Create optimism in the market.

That's right. They're just a cheerleader. Clinton and Reagan were great at it. Bush, not to bad. Obama not so good. They have to create a sense of faith in our future. That optimism is the only thing that'll pry the investor's wallets open so they'll start investing - which creates jobs.