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

[dv220s]

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?

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

 

[DIY]

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.

 

[Mr. H.]

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.

 

[dv220s]

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.

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.

 

[DIY]

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).

 

[Brutus]

What do you think about the above?

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.

 

[uscitizen]

Just eliminate mney and no one will need a job.

 

[Mr. H.]

Just eliminate mney and no one will need a job.

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.

 

[DIY]

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.

 

[Brutus]

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.

that is what a gold standard would do! but why bring it up when a liberal will lack the IQ to know what you are talking about.

 

[DIY]

how would tying the value of everything to gold accomplish that?

my guess is its because gold's value doesn't change much. but is there any inherent reason that gold's value is so stable? if we tied everything to gold, would it lose its stability?

i agree that there should be a standard, rather than just a floating system without roots. but what if it was a more useful asset. something that would be valuable in itself, even if you never spent it - but you could spend it too, because everybody uses it. Energy? Something that makes energy? Power plants as banks? Batteries as wallets? I mean after all, money is supposed to represent the work you do at your job. work represents energy. why not make it literally equate to what its supposed to represent?

 

[waltky]

Granny says we need another stimulus so's she can get her 2nd stimulus check...

Biden: New Stimulus Needed ‘Even if We’re Growing at 8%’ and Have ‘3% Unemployment Rate’
September 29, 2011 – Vice President Joe Biden said Congress should pass the $450-billion American Jobs Act even if the economy were growing at 8 percent and unemployment were as low as 3 percent.

“Look, we should be doing all of this stuff even if we were growing by 8 percent, even if there was a 3 percent unemployment rate in America,” Biden said at an event on Thursday to promote the legislation. “We need better roads, we need better bridges, we need safer streets.” “We need to be in a position where our kids are in classrooms where there’s enough qualified teachers, where they are in fact in classes where they are safe,” Biden said.

The vice president made his remarks at the headquarters of the Alexandria Police Department in Alexandria, Va., where he also announced that the agency was one of the recipients of a federal grant to fund the hiring of new officers. The Alexandria Police Department will hire four officers with the almost $859,000 it received from the more than $243 million in grant funds. “We’ve got to kick start this economy that’s stalled,” Biden said of the $450 -billion proposed American Jobs Act.

On Sept. 19 in a Rose Garden speech, President Barack Obama said the legislation, to be funded in part by increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, was about improving economic growth and job creation. “And that’s what this debate is about,” Obama said. “It’s not about numbers on a ledger; it’s not about figures on a spreadsheet. “

“It’s about the economic future of this country, and it’s about whether we will do what it takes to create jobs and growth and opportunity while facing up to the legacy of debt that threatens everything we’ve built over generations,” he said. The president also emphasized the urgency of passing the legislation, just as he did when he told Congress in 2009 that passing the $820-billion stimulus package would keep unemployment at 8 percent.

MORE

See also:

1.9 Million Fewer Americans Have Jobs Today Than When Obama Signed Stimulus
June 14, 2011 – Twenty-eight months after Congress passed President Obama’s signature economic stimulus law, and nearly one year after he declared the summer of 2010 to be “Recovery Summer,” 1.9 million fewer people are employed.

In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 – the last month for which data are available – that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million. While the number of people with jobs has increased slightly from its low point during the recession – 137.9 million in December 2009 – those 1.9 million jobs have been lost despite $800 billion in stimulus spending. This does not mean that the economy is not creating jobs, but rather that it is not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with a combination of layoffs and people entering the job market for the first time.

In a Washington Post op-ed, former White House chief economist Larry Summers noted that the percentage of the population that has a job has not improved, even though the economy is technically in recovery. “From the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2011, the U.S. economy’s growth rate averaged less than 1 percent a year,” Summers wrote. “The fraction of the population working remains almost exactly at its recession trough, and recent reports suggest that growth is slowing.”

The fraction of the population with a job has in fact fallen in the 28 months since Congress passed the stimulus – down from 60.3 percent in February 2009 to 58.4 percent in May 2011. The economy cannot create jobs fast enough to keep pace with layoffs and recent high school and college graduates seeking employment. If the trend continues, as Summers notes may happen, the economy will suffer further in the future as college graduates delay entry into the labor force, reducing their lifetime productivity. “Beyond the lack of jobs and incomes, an economy producing below its potential for a prolonged interval sacrifices its future,” argued Summers. “Huge numbers of new college graduates are moving back in with their parents this month because they have no job or means of support.”

As both Summers and the BLS data make clear, the economy is not creating new jobs fast enough to make up for layoffs and new graduates, calling into question Obama’s oft-repeated claim that the economy is recovering and creating jobs. In fact, by citing figures from the first quarter of 2006, Summers is understating the economy’s poor performance. According to BLS data, the number of people with jobs peaked at 146.6 million in November 2007, meaning that over the entire recession – which officially began in December 2007 – the number of people employed has fallen by 6.8 million.

Source

 

[waltky]

Obama jobs bill fails in Senate...

President Obama jobs bill fails to pass Senate
October 12, 2011 - President Obama and others expected Republicans to vote against the jobs bill but Obama says, 'we can't take 'no' for an answer.'

Senate Republicans voted Tuesday night to kill the jobs package President Barack Obama had spent weeks campaigning for across the country, a stinging loss at the hands of lawmakers opposed to stimulus-style spending and a tax increase on the very wealthy. The $447 billion plan died on a 50-49 tally that garnered a majority of the 100-member Senate but fell well short of the 60 votes needed to keep the bill alive. The tally had been 51-48, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote to "nay" so that he could force a future revote.

The demise of Obama's jobs package was expected, despite his campaign-style efforts to swing the public behind it. The White House and leaders in Congress were already moving on to alternative ways to address the nation's painful 9.1 percent unemployment, including breaking the legislation into smaller, more digestible pieces and approving long-stalled trade bills. "Tonight's vote is by no means the end of this fight," Obama said in a statement after the vote. "Because with so many Americans out of work and so many families struggling, we can't take 'no' for an answer."

The White House appears most confident that it will be able to continue a 2-percentage-point Social Security payroll tax cut through 2012 and to extend emergency unemployment benefits to millions of people — if only because, in the White House view, Republicans won't want to accept the political harm of letting those provisions expire. White House officials are also hopeful of ultimately garnering votes for the approval of infrastructure spending and tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed veterans.

"Now it's time for both parties to work together and find common ground on removing government barriers to private-sector job growth," House Speaker John Boehner said after the vote. Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana — both up for re-election next year in states where Obama figures to lose — broke with their party on Tuesday night's vote. Every Republican present opposed the plan.

MORE

 

[editec]

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?

I think the above is a formula for still more right wing economic disaster.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

You can't suck the life out of the computer revolution by eliminating education for it. You can only suck the life out of American competitiveness in the computer industry. Other countries are perfectly able to educate an IT class. And, will be happy to take the now unemployed American teachers to do it.

What you describe is the Russian Communist model. When the communists took over, they went so far as to remove fare coin boxes from buses so that there would need to be someone on every bus to collect fares and put the money in yet another coin box.