Ways the gov. can start making jobs and create real econ growth.

Discussion in 'Economy' started by dv220s, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. dv220s
    Offline

    dv220s Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +0
    If you notice, the thread title says STARTS making instead on just MAKING jobs. I believe that the government can't create jobs on it's own because it's a process and it only starts with the gov and trickles down. I also believe there is no one solution and there needs to be many things done for good results.

    Some of the first things needed to be done is to make unemployment go down, is start ELIMINATING THOSE TAXES AND REGULATIONS. Many of the jobs are going overseas because the government believes in putting in ridiculous regulations and taxes. If we start removing these, this will motivate the businesses to come back to our soil to set up shop here, making China not as powerful in the process.

    ELIMINATE INCOME TAX. You cannot tax hardworking Americans for their hard work and dedication. It's stupid. It might reduce the amount of money the government is bringing in but it can find other ways to make money(cut spending even further, reduce deficit, cut, cap and balance amendment)

    CUT POWER OF EPA. Right now, carmakers are under increased pressure to meet too stringent fuel efficiency demands. This drives up costs so people can't buy as much cars as they want and causes lay offs because of lower sales and not as much money coming in to pay employees.

    Audit EVERY US department even the federal reserve. Check out what the departments are spending on. I hear one department is spending 200 million on conferences.($16 muffins and $8 coffee)We need to cut the spending on unnecessary things in these departments.

    REMOVE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
    What is the point of it? Every state should deal with education not the government. It's a waste of money. Every state already has their own department of education(FLDOE, Florida Department of Education)

    What do you think about the above?
     
  2. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,150
    Thanks Received:
    4,675
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,431
    Each and every one of your proposals are already in debate on this Forum.. You'll find threads on each one. I suggest the one about eliminating the Dept of Ed. There's a poll there showing about 80% of USMB support the idea.. So you're on the right tracks. But first -- you have to endure about 180 posts of people attacking you and flaming each other and THEN you feel completely fulfilled..

    Good luck and have fun.. Welcome to the board..
     
  3. DIY
    Offline

    DIY Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    14
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Okay my first thought was 'if you eliminate taxes and regulations, how the heck are you gonna create government jobs?' - but I don't think you mean government jobs. You're asking what the government can do (or refrain from) in order that more jobs may exist. Right? I'll go off that assumption.

    Here's a crazy, off-the-wall idea. But I'll tell ya - if normal isn't working, then maybe we need crazy.

    Eliminate government funding for all schools that emphasize technology, innovation, and automation.

    I'll explain. In my opinion, all real jobs boil down to the bare essentials. Sure, there's tourism and entertainment - but those sorta die down when the economy is tight. So lets focus on the industries that help us create the bare essentials. Prioritize like this: water-related jobs, food-related jobs, housing related-jobs, and maybe energy-related jobs.

    Theoretically, jobs in industries that provide the bare essentials should be the most secure - after all, no matter what happens to the economy, everybody needs to eat and drink and stay warm. People will spend their last buck on survival. So whatever solution we come to, we should implement it with a focus on bare essentials jobs.

    Now how do you increase jobs? Decrease automation. So where's an industry that is heavily automated - an industry where a few people make a ton of money by operating machines? Is there any way we could scrap the machines and replace them with a bunch of people?

    You asked what the government can do - maybe the government could find ways to stop promoting innovation. One way to do that is remove funding for education in fields that promote innovation. Teach everybody construction, farming, water management, hunting, fishing, mining. Teach the smart ones to run power plants and hospitals. Machines should generate power, not automate jobs. Suck the life out of the computer revolution by eliminating education for it.
     
  4. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,413
    What clenches my balls about the Obama administration is that the single most successful job creating industry today is targeted for a $100 billion tax hit - oil and gas.

    Tax success, reward failure. The way of the democrats.
     
  5. dv220s
    Offline

    dv220s Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +0
    No I didn't mean government jobs. What's the point of the DOE? It has a purpose but not a big enough purpose if you ask me. I believe that you have one or the other. Have a DOE for each state and let them deal with it (tell you the truth, we were fine before the DOE came about) or we can eliminate a states DOE, keep the USDOE and have a department that runs in counties.

    I agree that we are too automated here but it's cheaper to use a bunch of machines that won't complain about breaks or workers rights and a bunch of other things so automation is going to keep getting bigger. We need to create positions that are impossible to fill with a machine and we need to find a way to convince these places of the benefits of not going automated. For example, the economy going in the crapper.

    Now I see what you're saying but we can put a smaller organization in place of the DOE to manage innovation. We do need government funding for innovation but we don't need anything the size of the DOE. I guess what we really need is to cut part of the DOE and do some reorganization.
     
  6. DIY
    Offline

    DIY Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    14
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    well i agree that states should have more power than federal. an ever-increasing population is simply too much to manage- state DOE's if anything. Absolutely no federal DOE.

    Really I think the principle of chain-of-command management applies to all aspects of government - not just education. Leadership cannot feasibly be concentrated at the top. When you try to have the federal government manage everything, you lose control of human resources. People become numbers, there's too many systems, too much automation. A group the size of congress cannot manage a population the size of the US. But they can manage 50 sub-management teams (i.e. state governments). And on down the line. I think a lot of the job problems spawn from a mis-allocation of power (some directly related, some indirectly).
     
  7. Brutus
    Offline

    Brutus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,432
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +64
    1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    3) end business taxation ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose
    5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

    Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.
     
  8. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Just eliminate mney and no one will need a job.
     
  9. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,413
    They did that on Star Trek. Nobody needed money. Which is why I could never figure out why they played poker.
    But then there was the Ferengi who were always bargaining and bartering. But they were idiots to begin with.
     
  10. DIY
    Offline

    DIY Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    14
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    there will always be money, even if you don't call it money. anything with value can be used as money. want food? gotta give something up for it.

    we could however change the currency. I wonder what would happen if we started using floating monetary units: the money you have is not a dollar amount, but a percentage of the total amount in the system. kinda like stock in 'the dollar'. updated automatically. you'd sell shares to the grocery store in return for food, or sell shares to lowes in return for building supplies. With online banking this could be a reality. how would this affect the way people spend? It would certainly give you a more accurate picture of how much you really have. no more bursting bubbles, with all the associated layoffs and depressions.
     

Share This Page