Where are the job bills?

[jeffrockit]

The government can and does create jobs. Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.

Proof? Sure! The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.

Countless examples to disprove the canard the government can't create jobs. Stupid people believe it, liars continue to post it.

More proof? Why bother. Non liars and thinking people get it.

Govt can definitely create some jobs...public sector jobs. Since these jobs, including the military you mentioned are all paid for by taxpayer dollars, the jobs that are really needed, govt can not create. As private sector jobs continue to be lost, where will the funding come from for all these "govt created" jobs? Public sector jobs do nothing to actualy grow GDP.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
In February, private sector construction, manufacturing, and business services all lost more than 100,000, and the service-providing sector lost more than 375,000 jobs. But government on the other hand added 9,000 last month, and the education and health service fields added 26,000 positions. In January, the government sector added 31,000 jobs, while education and health services added 43,000. Overall in 2008, the private sector lost 3.65 million jobs, while the government grew by nearly 150,000 in the same period.

This simply can not be sustained.

The government can create private sector jobs. They do this by providing funding for roads and many other public projects that are built by private firms. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Any money used for the rebuilding of our infrastructure will lead to job growth in the private sector. With that job growth, other jobs would be created.

As for more government jobs, they do help put more money into the private sector as those public employees then spend their money in the private sector. However, that is a very inefficient way to create jobs, and in the end costs more than is received in return. But if the money was put towards infrastructure, that would help grow jobs in the private sector, and we would actually realize something in return for the money spent.

Government spending isn't always bad, but it is not good if we don't actually receive something in return.

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

 

[Toronado3800]

I see where you are coming from but feel by improving infrastructure you enable more productivity from the private sector.

In that same amount of time, by buying Chinese DVD players the private sector(me) has redistributed American wealth to China.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Govt can definitely create some jobs...public sector jobs. Since these jobs, including the military you mentioned are all paid for by taxpayer dollars, the jobs that are really needed, govt can not create. As private sector jobs continue to be lost, where will the funding come from for all these "govt created" jobs? Public sector jobs do nothing to actualy grow GDP.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
In February, private sector construction, manufacturing, and business services all lost more than 100,000, and the service-providing sector lost more than 375,000 jobs. But government on the other hand added 9,000 last month, and the education and health service fields added 26,000 positions. In January, the government sector added 31,000 jobs, while education and health services added 43,000. Overall in 2008, the private sector lost 3.65 million jobs, while the government grew by nearly 150,000 in the same period.

This simply can not be sustained.

The government can create private sector jobs. They do this by providing funding for roads and many other public projects that are built by private firms. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Any money used for the rebuilding of our infrastructure will lead to job growth in the private sector. With that job growth, other jobs would be created.

As for more government jobs, they do help put more money into the private sector as those public employees then spend their money in the private sector. However, that is a very inefficient way to create jobs, and in the end costs more than is received in return. But if the money was put towards infrastructure, that would help grow jobs in the private sector, and we would actually realize something in return for the money spent.

Government spending isn't always bad, but it is not good if we don't actually receive something in return.

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

You're wrong jeffrocket. The stimulus did work and would have been more effective if politics - party first - had not superceded country first. Evidence of Government funded projects helping to create wealth and grow the GNP are everywhere. From rail roads to Canals, highways to airports, seaports to space exploration.

 

[Flopper]

Govt can definitely create some jobs...public sector jobs. Since these jobs, including the military you mentioned are all paid for by taxpayer dollars, the jobs that are really needed, govt can not create. As private sector jobs continue to be lost, where will the funding come from for all these "govt created" jobs? Public sector jobs do nothing to actualy grow GDP.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
In February, private sector construction, manufacturing, and business services all lost more than 100,000, and the service-providing sector lost more than 375,000 jobs. But government on the other hand added 9,000 last month, and the education and health service fields added 26,000 positions. In January, the government sector added 31,000 jobs, while education and health services added 43,000. Overall in 2008, the private sector lost 3.65 million jobs, while the government grew by nearly 150,000 in the same period.

This simply can not be sustained.

The government can create private sector jobs. They do this by providing funding for roads and many other public projects that are built by private firms. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Any money used for the rebuilding of our infrastructure will lead to job growth in the private sector. With that job growth, other jobs would be created.

As for more government jobs, they do help put more money into the private sector as those public employees then spend their money in the private sector. However, that is a very inefficient way to create jobs, and in the end costs more than is received in return. But if the money was put towards infrastructure, that would help grow jobs in the private sector, and we would actually realize something in return for the money spent.

Government spending isn't always bad, but it is not good if we don't actually receive something in return.

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

Ok, I'll play. Say you're the economic advisor to the new president in 2009. What economic policy would you recommend?

 

[jeffrockit]

The government can create private sector jobs. They do this by providing funding for roads and many other public projects that are built by private firms. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Any money used for the rebuilding of our infrastructure will lead to job growth in the private sector. With that job growth, other jobs would be created.

As for more government jobs, they do help put more money into the private sector as those public employees then spend their money in the private sector. However, that is a very inefficient way to create jobs, and in the end costs more than is received in return. But if the money was put towards infrastructure, that would help grow jobs in the private sector, and we would actually realize something in return for the money spent.

Government spending isn't always bad, but it is not good if we don't actually receive something in return.

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

You're wrong jeffrocket. The stimulus did work and would have been more effective if politics - party first - had not superceded country first. Evidence of Government funded projects helping to create wealth and grow the GNP are everywhere. From rail roads to Canals, highways to airports, seaports to space exploration.

The results just don't bear out your claim. The majority of the stimulus was payback to the unions and special interest groups that had a big part in Obama winning. Would love to see some links to support your statement of govt funded jobs being everywhere. Not to mention that govt funded jobs, as I stated before, do nothing to really help the economy as privates sector jobs would. This President has stated many times his aversion to private sector even to go as far as calling them "the enemy"....not a real wise way to instill confidence in job creation.

Unfortunately for this country, your comment about politics first is spot on. Neither side has the people's best interest in mind; their maintaining of power is first and foremost. As I have stated many times before, the people argue with each other which takes the pressure off the politicians and we all ultimately loose. The country is the most divided with the most ineffective President, administration and politicians. While the people scream for a reduction in spending neither side can come up with what represents no more than a 1% reduction.

 

[jeffrockit]

The government can create private sector jobs. They do this by providing funding for roads and many other public projects that are built by private firms. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Any money used for the rebuilding of our infrastructure will lead to job growth in the private sector. With that job growth, other jobs would be created.

As for more government jobs, they do help put more money into the private sector as those public employees then spend their money in the private sector. However, that is a very inefficient way to create jobs, and in the end costs more than is received in return. But if the money was put towards infrastructure, that would help grow jobs in the private sector, and we would actually realize something in return for the money spent.

Government spending isn't always bad, but it is not good if we don't actually receive something in return.

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

Ok, I'll play. Say you're the economic advisor to the new president in 2009. What economic policy would you recommend?

First of all, I don't take the economic problems as a game to play but here are a few idea I would look towards.
This administration should have embraced the private sector rather than demonizing them. Reduce the corp tax rate as it is the 2nd highest in the world and will probably be #1 with Japan's problems. Make companies want to invest in bringing jobs back to the US. Don't over regulate to the point that business is stifled. Govt should not be in the business of picking winners and losers as they did with GM when bondholders and vendors were left holding the bag while unions were given a pass.
The fact that this administration spent more in Feb 2011 than the entire 2007 year should be a giant red flag. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/8/obama-spending-hits-new-records/
The GAO just put out a list of all the wasteful govt spending because duplicate agencies. That would be something to tackle though they have listed some of these before and administrations just can't seem to make any real changes.
Throwing money at the problem ala the stimulus has historically failed. Why can't the US learn from previous mistakes made by ourselves and even other countries

 

[Toronado3800]

Are GM union wages the same as the were before?

My understanding was by letting GM fail we would create a level of economic instability which just might have gotten a few actual radical leftists elected.

Not to mention America would be down to 1 automobile manufacturer.

Oh well. As a whole guess that means we suck/lost/just went bankrupt twenty years after the USSR.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

You're wrong jeffrocket. The stimulus did work and would have been more effective if politics - party first - had not superceded country first. Evidence of Government funded projects helping to create wealth and grow the GNP are everywhere. From rail roads to Canals, highways to airports, seaports to space exploration.

The results just don't bear out your claim. The majority of the stimulus was payback to the unions and special interest groups that had a big part in Obama winning. Would love to see some links to support your statement of govt funded jobs being everywhere. Not to mention that govt funded jobs, as I stated before, do nothing to really help the economy as privates sector jobs would. This President has stated many times his aversion to private sector even to go as far as calling them "the enemy"....not a real wise way to instill confidence in job creation.

Unfortunately for this country, your comment about politics first is spot on. Neither side has the people's best interest in mind; their maintaining of power is first and foremost. As I have stated many times before, the people argue with each other which takes the pressure off the politicians and we all ultimately loose. The country is the most divided with the most ineffective President, administration and politicians. While the people scream for a reduction in spending neither side can come up with what represents no more than a 1% reduction.

First government funded jobs:

The transcontinental railroad, opened the west, allowed farms to move product to eastern cities and made the Big Four mega-rich (one result Stanford U. -each grad and their contribution to society); hundreds(?) of small towns became centers for commerce.
The Golden Gate Bridge, open northern counties of Napa and Sonoma to easy commute to The City, private development of land including for housing and vineyards - lots of wealth created there.
Building light rail to the avenues in San Francisco, allowing for the development of thousands of homes for returning WWII vets in an area which previously was nothing but dunes of sand.
Building BART, moving commuters across the bay, connecting people from communities with less costly homes to jobs in SF and San Jose (Silicon Valley) where only those with very high salaries can afford to live.
The National Highway Act of 1956, much like the transcontinental railroad provided thousands of entreperneurs the opportunity to open shops and services along the roadways.
World War II, funded by taxpayers and war bonds provided for nearly full employment, later the GI bill provided an avenue for vets to attend school and build careers, buy homes.

I believe you confuse the political parties and pols. The parties clearly are defined; the D's represent labor, the R's represent capital and the pols represent themselves. Don't watch their lips, watch their feet and hands. It's not what a pol says, it's what s/he does.

 

[Vanquish]

Anyone who says the stimulus didn't work must, by necessity, admit that tax breaks don't work...as a good 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts/breaks.

Boom! There goes your Reaganomics.

 

[Flopper]

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

Ok, I'll play. Say you're the economic advisor to the new president in 2009. What economic policy would you recommend?

First of all, I don't take the economic problems as a game to play but here are a few idea I would look towards.
This administration should have embraced the private sector rather than demonizing them. Reduce the corp tax rate as it is the 2nd highest in the world and will probably be #1 with Japan's problems. Make companies want to invest in bringing jobs back to the US. Don't over regulate to the point that business is stifled. Govt should not be in the business of picking winners and losers as they did with GM when bondholders and vendors were left holding the bag while unions were given a pass.
The fact that this administration spent more in Feb 2011 than the entire 2007 year should be a giant red flag. EDITORIAL: Obama spending hits new records - Washington Times
The GAO just put out a list of all the wasteful govt spending because duplicate agencies. That would be something to tackle though they have listed some of these before and administrations just can't seem to make any real changes.
Throwing money at the problem ala the stimulus has historically failed. Why can't the US learn from previous mistakes made by ourselves and even other countries

It’s 2009 and the new president is facing an economy that is near collapse. The country is loosing 2 million jobs a month. Unemployment is nearly 10%. The Dow Jones Average is down 7,000 points 52%, banks are not loaning money, and retail sales and factory orders are falling like a rock.

And your advice to the president would be to embrace the private sector, don’t spend money on job stimulus, hold back on regulations, and cut the corporate tax rate. If the president had listened to your advice, the opposition would have crucified him for lack of action, and we would most probably be in a depression.

Reducing corporate taxes is a good idea. But why would you think reducing corporate rates would stimulate the economy when 10 consecutive interest rates cuts had virtually no effect on economy expansion. Half the corporations in the country were not even paying corporate tax. Corporate giants like Exxon with huge profits of 10.3 billion dollars in 2009 paid nothing in corporate taxes due to tax loopholes. Small businesses passed their income thru to their personal income tax to reduce taxes. With that said, we do need to reduce rates and eliminate loopholes.

There is no guaranteed that fiscal stimulus, either government spending or tax cuts or monetary action will pull the country out of a server recession. These are only carrots offered to business and consumers. In 2009 banks and corporations were hoarding cash, cutting back expenses, and closing outlets across the country. This was not an environment in which cutting a tax that most corporations were not paying would promote expansion.

I don’t see how you claim that actions of the administration have failed. Unemployment is down, factory orders and retail sales are up, and the Dow is up over 5,000 points.

"American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or non-inflation-adjusted terms."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?_r=2&hp

 

[Jack Fate]

Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%. That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher. Obama is a glittering collasal failure.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%. That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher. Obama is a glittering collasal failure.

This is a problem. Too many parrot the GOP propaganda and offer statistics as if they prove anything. Stats can prove everything and nothing, as Mark Twain once wrote, "there are liars, damn liars and statistics.
Mr. Fate's evidence that President Obama's efforts are a "glittering collasal (sic) failure" because unemployment is at 9% is silly (that's as polite as I can be), We were as noted in a previous post looking into the abyss; the economy is not great but it is in recovery and given that our nation is so divided and many - too many - worked to make sure he failed, President Obama has done a great job.

 

[The T]

Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%. That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher. Obama is a glittering collasal failure.

This is a problem. Too many parrot the GOP propaganda and offer statistics as if they prove anything. Stats can prove everything and nothing, as Mark Twain once wrote, "there are liars, damn liars and statistics.
Mr. Fate's evidence that President Obama's efforts are a "glittering collasal (sic) failure" because unemployment is at 9% is silly (that's as polite as I can be), We were as noted in a previous post looking into the abyss; the economy is not great but it is in recovery and given that our nation is so divided and many - too many - worked to make sure he failed, President Obama has done a great job.

He's correct, and the stats he quoted were being kind.

 

[Flopper]

Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%. That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher. Obama is a glittering collasal failure.

You are correct. We never count people who are not seeking employment in the rate. So when unemployment in the 90's were running 4 or 5 percent, the true unemployment was considerably higher.

 

[Samson]

Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%. That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher. Obama is a glittering collasal failure.

You are correct. We never count people who are not seeking employment in the rate. So when unemployment in the 90's were running 4 or 5 percent, the true unemployment was considerably higher.

9 > 5

But thanks for the history lesson.

 

[Gadawg73]

The government can create private sector jobs. They do this by providing funding for roads and many other public projects that are built by private firms. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Any money used for the rebuilding of our infrastructure will lead to job growth in the private sector. With that job growth, other jobs would be created.

As for more government jobs, they do help put more money into the private sector as those public employees then spend their money in the private sector. However, that is a very inefficient way to create jobs, and in the end costs more than is received in return. But if the money was put towards infrastructure, that would help grow jobs in the private sector, and we would actually realize something in return for the money spent.

Government spending isn't always bad, but it is not good if we don't actually receive something in return.

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

You're wrong jeffrocket. The stimulus did work and would have been more effective if politics - party first - had not superceded country first. Evidence of Government funded projects helping to create wealth and grow the GNP are everywhere. From rail roads to Canals, highways to airports, seaports to space exploration.

You mean from taxpaying projects.
And taxes are too high.
Government funds NOTHING. Especially now. Government BORROWS.

 

[Samson]

First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.

You're wrong jeffrocket. The stimulus did work and would have been more effective if politics - party first - had not superceded country first. Evidence of Government funded projects helping to create wealth and grow the GNP are everywhere. From rail roads to Canals, highways to airports, seaports to space exploration.

You mean from taxpaying projects.
And taxes are too high.
Government funds NOTHING. Especially now. Government BORROWS.

Interestingly, although "evidence of government projects helping to create wealth and grow GNP are everywhere" none seem to be offered as examples of results from the $800B Stimulous.

Recovery.gov: Stimulus Website Redesigned for $9.5 million - ABC News

As always, Wry misses the relevant point.

Fail

 

[Rozman]

"Washington – House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.

Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR – the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.

Earlier this month, conservative activists released a video purporting to show NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller calling tea partyers "seriously racist" and saying that despite potential damage to smaller stations, "Frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding." In the subsequent outcry, Mr. Schiller left NPR and the organization's president, Vivian Schiller (no relation) resigned. (The full video, subsequently released, shows that Mr. Schiller's comments were selectively edited.)"

Ful article: Why House Republicans are rushing to slash NPR funding - Yahoo! News

And now the neo-cons want to attack another oil rich country (Libya).

The GOP overreaching? You betcha. 2012 will remake the political landscape once again.

And now the neo-cons want to attack another oil rich country (Libya).


Are you aware that there's a Democrat in the WH....and he's the one taking us into war.

 

[pinqy]

Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%. That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher. Obama is a glittering collasal failure.

The unemployment rate has NEVER been based on eligibility or receipt of benefits, so yes it does include those whose benefits have run out and those never eligible for benefits.

As for part timers, a part time job is a job, so why do you think they should be considered UNemployed (especially as the vast majortiy of people are working part time for non-economic reasons).

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're wrong jeffrocket. The stimulus did work and would have been more effective if politics - party first - had not superceded country first. Evidence of Government funded projects helping to create wealth and grow the GNP are everywhere. From rail roads to Canals, highways to airports, seaports to space exploration.

You mean from taxpaying projects.
And taxes are too high.
Government funds NOTHING. Especially now. Government BORROWS.

Interestingly, although "evidence of government projects helping to create wealth and grow GNP are everywhere" none seem to be offered as examples of results from the $800B Stimulous.

Recovery.gov: Stimulus Website Redesigned for $9.5 million - ABC News

As always, Wry misses the relevant point.

Fail

As usual sammie boy you post nothing of substance. Are you really as stupid as your posts imply, or simply so desperate for attention you go for the glib and not the gusto.