Why jobs are not being created?

[Vast LWC]

Supply side economics does not mean giving money to anybody. It's about creating an environment where business can flourish, doesn't have to be subsidies and tax breaks. And your notion of a closed system is a non sequitor, we do not live in a closed system and are not likely to. If we do not improve the supply side first, no amount of stimulus is going to make a permanent difference.

If supply side economics "does not give money to anyone", then does that mean raising taxes on the wealthy is definitely not "redistributing wealth"?

 

[Vast LWC]

But we can also set up a business climate to make it much more profitable and attractive to do business in the USA too. For certain, a hostile business climate in the USA is not going to encourage more business, more jobs, and/or more domestic prosperity.

You know what? I agree.

I believe taxes on businesses and corporations should be lowered to around 10%.

That is if, and only if, capital gains taxes are raised to match income tax rates.

That way businesses will not be scared off, and there will be next to no reduction in revenue.


But, of course, that still will not stop corporations from hiring overseas workers for slave wages. Though it may at least slow the mass migration.

 

[usmcstinger]

Why aren't jobs being created? Well, actually, jobs have been created in the last 4 years. About 4 million of them, in fact (more than the previous administration was able to create in their 8 years). More and better quality jobs could be created, but businesses are sitting on record amounts of cash and have decided to do more with less in order to maximize their profits. Add to that GOP state legislatures cutting public sector jobs.

No viable source to back up your statement?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The reason is Uncertainty.

The uncertainty has been created by our current administration.

It is up to you to find the uncertainties or prove they do not exist.

Please provide a reliable source, no blogs or political web sites.

Good Luck

The uncertainty in the market was not created by Obama, that's absurd. Market volatility was massive before he even took office.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Let's say you're a buinessman sitting on $1 million in business capital. Practically you have only 10 to 15 years before your would like to retire.

You would like to grow that $1 million to allow for a somewhat more interesting and affluent retirement, but you also realize that you can retire fairly comfortably for the remainder of your active life with that $1 million.

Do you risk investing that million in an economic climate in which tax and regulation policy is unknown? In an environment with a President who is so pro-big government and anti-idnividual initiative and anti-American business, you are fairly certain that will only get worse if he is re-elected? Do you risk all or most that you have in a hostile business environment? Risk your comfortable retirement in the midst of such uncertainty?

Most Americans won't do that. Which is why American businessmen and women are sitting or many trillions of investment capital and are unwilling to risk it to a President and Congress that are determined to confiscate as much of it as they can get.

Tax and regulation policy has always been subject to change.

I'm not sure what makes Obama "anti-business". Is it the tax relief he's been signing for businesses?

The idea that tax concerns are a bigger factor that market concerns in just retarded.

 

[usmcstinger]

Jobs require work not empty rhetoric. How much is made in America today and how much of the wealth created in the nation is pushed back into the country through infrastructure and other essential spending. The stimulus helped greatly, as it did during the last time the republicans destroyed the economy under Harding/Coolidge/Hoover. But do Americans today support fair wages and do Americans buy made here. Do corporations do the same? Next time you call support for something, ask where the person is, next time you buy something see where it is made. Consider Nike as an example, whose symbol is all over the Olympics this week, nothing made here except money to make them billionaires.

Seems some things hardly change, the following quote testifies that the corporate reply is always the same. "The major problem the American economy confronted was a shortage of investment, and the 'Roundtable' merely wanted to make policy changes that would encourage new economic growth. The economic problems confronting the United States during the decade were largely the product of a hostile political climate: cut taxes and regulations and the economy would grow again."* That quote is from the seventies, the same empty business rhetoric has been with for a long time and the same people repeat it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/220510-the-greatest-job-creator-of-all-time.html

'Sabotage: How the Republican Party Crippled America's Economic Recovery'
"America paid a terrible price for the Republicans' intransigence. Whether they were deliberately damaging the economy or simply incompetent at making policy, the effect was clear: sabotage of the recovery, and a wound that would not heal for millions of American households." Daniel Altman Daniel Altman: Excerpt: Sabotage: How the Republican Party Crippled America's Economic Recovery


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-to-the-jobs-crisis-report-6.html#post4513217


*"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." 'Invisible Hands'

A blogger from the Huffington Post is not a viable source.

 

[Wiseacre]

Supply side economics does not mean giving money to anybody. It's about creating an environment where business can flourish, doesn't have to be subsidies and tax breaks. And your notion of a closed system is a non sequitor, we do not live in a closed system and are not likely to. If we do not improve the supply side first, no amount of stimulus is going to make a permanent difference.

If supply side economics "does not give money to anyone", then does that mean raising taxes on the wealthy is definitely not "redistributing wealth"?

NO.

First of all, supply side economics is about cutting costs of production or improving the product or service to make it more valuable. Lower taxes are a factor in that, but that's not 'giving money to somebody', that is taking less from them. A concept I am not certain liberal democrats will accept.

 

[Vast LWC]

NO.

First of all, supply side economics is about cutting costs of production or improving the product or service to make it more valuable. Lower taxes are a factor in that, but that's not 'giving money to somebody', that is taking less from them. A concept I am not certain liberal democrats will accept.

That is what is commonly known as a "rationalization".

 

[Wiseacre]

NO.

First of all, supply side economics is about cutting costs of production or improving the product or service to make it more valuable. Lower taxes are a factor in that, but that's not 'giving money to somebody', that is taking less from them. A concept I am not certain liberal democrats will accept.

That is what is commonly known as a "rationalization".

Also known as the truth.