Jobs

[alan1]

Obama outlines job-creation plan - CNN.com
snip,

American workers will rebuild the nation's roads and bridges, modernize its schools and create more sources of alternative energy, Obama said in the weekly Democratic address, posted on his Web site.
.......
"We must do more to put people back to work and get our economy moving again," he said."

There are only three ways to grow government, you can tax, borrow,
or inflate.
Somebody please explain to me which one is good for the economy.

 

[mash107]

snip,


There are only three ways to grow government, you can tax, borrow,
or inflate.
Somebody please explain to me which one is good for the economy.

Absolutely none of those three options.

Tax - take money now. Borrow - take money now, promise to pay back later. Inflate - make money worth less, so we can spend more now. All three destroys jobs-- and especially during a recession, all three are devastating.

 

[Old Rocks]

How do you build an infrastructure that will sustain a city? Think on this, people! Can you do it by demanding that everyone go out and build their share of the water mains and roads neccessary for the existance of a modern city. That everyone build their fair share of the electrical grid and gas mains? Of course, this would be totally unworkable. So what we do is TAX everyone in the city a certain amount in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure neccessary for the existance of said city. The same goes for a nation. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. Yes, they can be unfair, they can be destructive. Yet, to any people, the failure to tax enough to sustain the physical basis of that society will be even more destructive.

I find the idea that their should be no taxes so damned ignorant that I wonder what kind of people actually believe in this nonsense? And I find it far wise to tax and spend, than to spend and borrow. That is how we have come to be where we are right now.

 

[mash107]

How do you build an infrastructure that will sustain a city? Think on this, people! Can you do it by demanding that everyone go out and build their share of the water mains and roads neccessary for the existance of a modern city. That everyone build their fair share of the electrical grid and gas mains? Of course, this would be totally unworkable. So what we do is TAX everyone in the city a certain amount in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure neccessary for the existance of said city. The same goes for a nation. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. Yes, they can be unfair, they can be destructive. Yet, to any people, the failure to tax enough to sustain the physical basis of that society will be even more destructive.

I find the idea that their should be no taxes so damned ignorant that I wonder what kind of people actually believe in this nonsense? And I find it far wise to tax and spend, than to spend and borrow. That is how we have come to be where we are right now.

Then don't complain when a depression strikes, and there are no jobs to be found. I'm not an anarchist. I think government does have some duties, and those duties were outlined in the U.S. Constitution that we had once followed. You realize that if we eliminate the IRS and -all- income taxes, the government would only have to shrink to 1997 levels to sustain itself? The government wasn't that small ten years ago, either.

Not to mention, if we were following the Constitution, all powers not explicitly given to the Federal government is given to the State government. So if there were something like utilities that should be a monopoly, and given special privilege by the government, only the State has the constitutional authority to do that. But history has shown us that competition in utilities is good.

 

[garyd]

You know that pork everyone talks about? that's highway money for the most part. It's less than ten percent of the budget. The military is another 20% of the Budget the remaining seventy percent which currently crowds out everything else is almost entirely support structure for the war on poverty.

The evidence to date suggests that involving the Feds in education in any large scale manner is a disaster.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know that pork everyone talks about? that's highway money for the most part. It's less than ten percent of the budget. The military is another 20% of the Budget the remaining seventy percent which currently crowds out everything else is almost entirely support structure for the war on poverty.

The evidence to date suggests that involving the Feds in education in any large scale manner is a disaster.

What a crock you are selling.

Social Security 21%

Medicare 21%

Military 20%

Other
Discrentionary 18%

Other
Mandatory 11%

Interest 9%

Social Security is paid for out a direct SS tax, as is Medicare. So that leaves military and interest on our debt as 50% of the income and other taxes that are collected.

 

[alan1]

How do you build an infrastructure that will sustain a city? Think on this, people! Can you do it by demanding that everyone go out and build their share of the water mains and roads neccessary for the existance of a modern city. That everyone build their fair share of the electrical grid and gas mains? Of course, this would be totally unworkable. So what we do is TAX everyone in the city a certain amount in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure neccessary for the existance of said city. The same goes for a nation. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. Yes, they can be unfair, they can be destructive. Yet, to any people, the failure to tax enough to sustain the physical basis of that society will be even more destructive.

I find the idea that their should be no taxes so damned ignorant that I wonder what kind of people actually believe in this nonsense? And I find it far wise to tax and spend, than to spend and borrow. That is how we have come to be where we are right now.

Aside from your rant, who said there should be "no taxes"?
Nice strawman argument there.
Not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Aside from your rant, who said there should be "no taxes"?
Nice strawman argument there.
Not.

Mash107;

Absolutely none of those three options.

Tax - take money now. Borrow - take money now, promise to pay back later. Inflate - make money worth less, so we can spend more now. All three destroys jobs-- and especially during a recession, all three are devastating.

 

[alan1]

Mash107;

Absolutely none of those three options.

Tax - take money now. Borrow - take money now, promise to pay back later. Inflate - make money worth less, so we can spend more now. All three destroys jobs-- and especially during a recession, all three are devastating.

And where in that statement did Mash say there should "no taxes"?
You are failing to build your strawman argument.

 

[mash107]

Taking money out of the economy is destructive for jobs, no matter what, I hope we can agree on that....

But yeah, some people might be satisfied with a little inefficiency if there is government there to guarantee that the system doesn't break down, like our Founders were. I never argued for full-blown anarchism, and I think the U.S. constitution was one of the best inventions by men. Not perfect, because it's allowed itself to become obsolete, but the founders knew exactly where threats to our prosperity and liberty come from, and it's the government that it sought to restrain.

 

[Zoomie1980]

How do you build an infrastructure that will sustain a city? Think on this, people! Can you do it by demanding that everyone go out and build their share of the water mains and roads neccessary for the existance of a modern city. That everyone build their fair share of the electrical grid and gas mains? Of course, this would be totally unworkable. So what we do is TAX everyone in the city a certain amount in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure neccessary for the existance of said city. The same goes for a nation. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. Yes, they can be unfair, they can be destructive. Yet, to any people, the failure to tax enough to sustain the physical basis of that society will be even more destructive.

I find the idea that their should be no taxes so damned ignorant that I wonder what kind of people actually believe in this nonsense? And I find it far wise to tax and spend, than to spend and borrow. That is how we have come to be where we are right now.

Who's advocating NO taxes? And NO government? Essential infrastructure is certainly within the viable functions of government. Maintaining and armed force is another. Enforcing law and order is another one.

But NOTHING else is an essential and vital part of what a government should do. Which means, a major portion of our expenditures is NOT within the realm of what a government should be doing.

 

[Zoomie1980]

What a crock you are selling.

Social Security 21%

Medicare 21%

Military 20%

Other
Discrentionary 18%

Other
Mandatory 11%

Interest 9%

Social Security is paid for out a direct SS tax, as is Medicare. So that leaves military and interest on our debt as 50% of the income and other taxes that are collected.

Well 42% is certainly OUTSIDE the viable function of a National government. Most of that 18% is likely not within the viable purpose of government, either. Not sure what the 11% you refer to as mandatory covers.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Well 42% is certainly OUTSIDE the viable function of a National government. Most of that 18% is likely not within the viable purpose of government, either. Not sure what the 11% you refer to as mandatory covers.....

Who determines what the viable function of government is? If it is not specifically outlawed by the Constitution, and the Citizens of the US agree that this is what they wish to do, then they can do it.

 

[editec]

Then don't complain when a depression strikes, and there are no jobs to be found.

That depression already happened and is not yet done happening.

There are a half million less employed workers this month than last.

I'm not an anarchist. I think government does have some duties, and those duties were outlined in the U.S. Constitution that we had once followed. You realize that if we eliminate the IRS and -all- income taxes, the government would only have to shrink to 1997 levels to sustain itself? The government wasn't that small ten years ago, either.

What would sustaingovernment at 1997 levels without revenue from taxes?

 

[Skull Pilot]

That depression already happened and is not yet done happening.

There are a half million less employed workers this month than last.






What would sustaingovernment at 1997 levels without revenue from taxes?

I just had a vision of all those Lehman Bros analysts taking jobs as construction workers. Pretty funny all those white collar boys holding a hammer for the first time.

Maybe we should spend a few billion on vocational schools first and force all the unemployed to attend.

 

[NOBama]

I just had a vision of all those Lehman Bros analysts taking jobs as construction workers. Pretty funny all those white collar boys holding a hammer for the first time.

Maybe we should spend a few billion on vocational schools first and force all the unemployed to attend.

Actually, I think it’s going to be scary because it IS going to happen. Imagine all the greenhorns that are going to be building bridges, roads, and other public structures in the near future. Hell, it's hard enough when you have a small percentage of greenhorns on a jobsite. When you multiple that percentage by the number of new-hires (greenhorns) that's about to occur in the construction industry - it spells potential disaster; not only to the workers themselves but, to subsequent users of those structures.

Construction is a high tech industry and there are only so many unskilled labor positions.

Just something to think about when we’re going over those new bridges in a few years…

 

[editec]

Skull adn NO, are you boys pretending to be retarded or something, this morning?

Do you really think that those infrastructure jobs Obama is talking about funding are going to be done by the government?

Those projects will be run in exactly the same way they are now

Funding will go to large construction companies which are already doing that kind of work.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull adn NO, are you boys pretending to be retarded or something, this morning?

Do you really think that those infrastructure jobs Obama is talking about funding are going to be done by the government?

Those projects will be run in exactly the same way they are now

Funding will go to large construction companies which are already doing that kind of work.

Well that's not going to put too many people "back to work".

And yes let's give billions to the same companies that run over budget on every project.

Remember the big dig and realize that government infrastructure jobs are the most corrupt, wasteful programs on the face of the planet. It's going to take a couple years and billions of dollars to put less than 100000 people to work. Hell by then we'll be out of the current mess and will have watsed all that money for nothing

 

[Old Rocks]

Read on how the WPA was set up just to prevent the kind of corruption that so often occurs on big construction projects.

 

[cunclusion]

Well I see a basic common link on this thread so I will go with it. Lets see what people say, We should tell Obama dont create jobs, dont modernize our schools, hosipitals, government buildings etc. Let the roads stay the way they are hell lets even cut back funding on those things it seems no one cares anyway. Lets cut the all the things he plans and the items like extending unemployment why because it takes money, no one wants to pay taxes or more taxes. So if the government does all this how many people lose their jobs, homes, everything before it gets better. How many on this forum will not be able to post because they had to drop their ISP. Most likely everyone here currently has a job. So your look at the situation is based on your outlook, you are not the man with the house and four kids who had a good job, paid his bills on time, had good credit, had a loan with that job he could pay. Loses his job, now has to worry about his family and weather they will have a home after the mortgage cannot get paid, much less if he can feed his kids do you tell him no we shouldnt spend money to get you some kind of job. We should let the economy work itself out well do you???