Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What jobs could the government possibly create besides more government jobs ?
The government cannot force companies to hire or do you think they can ? (GM doesn't count )
You mean like allowing American workers to produce oil instead of forcing us to buy it from Brazilian workers?
I don't see how the government can create jobs either. I mean it can, but it has to pay for these jobs by issuing debt to fund them, or stealing from the private sector, a concept liberals can't grasp.
Anti-bus policies and activist NLRB have cost USA jobs. Heinz CEO alluded to the effect the Boeing decision is likely to have on plant location decisions in an interview.
Private sector up 83,000. Seems to be slowing, even the Repubs are starting to realize we must invest in jobs in areas that do not exist right now. May be time to have a WPA type program to rebuild Infrastructure until innovation can create the future jobs. The Country is in trouble and need the Repubs to engage in trying to resolve some problems, rather than perpetuating them.
How do we get small business people to expand and hire when they are always threatened with higher taxes by the Dems? I do wish I could understand that but none of you fellas seem able to explain it,
I think it's funny some say we need MORE stimulus - why do they think throwing more money after $1+ trillion would work when the $1+ trillion stolen from the private sector by obama failed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
How long did that nearly $800 billion for government jobs last, bob?
It put off the inevitable...for about a year. That being the states and their unsustainable budgets.
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-05-2011 at 07:52 AM..
Reason: response to deleted post
So in the mean time, yes the government should do absolutely nothing. After all, didn't the government cause this crisis in the frist place with its "everyone should own a house" scheme?
No, the government didn't cause the crisis in the first place.
If anyone thinks that the government could force banks, with big lobbying budgets, to do something that they don't want to do without fuss from the banks, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I know those whose ideology is that the government causes all problems are quick to conclude that because it feeds their pre-conceived beliefs, it just isn't true. The crisis was caused by perverse incentives.
The crux of this fallacy is that the government 'forced' banks to make bad loans. The profit motive and perverse incentives made the financial institutions make bad loans. Under the age-old system, a bank would make prudent loans because they intended upon holding those loans for a long time and they wanted to assure that the borrower had the means to repay the loan.
Under their system, banks could make risky loans because they intended upon selling the loan five-minutes after signing to a financial institution that would bundle that loan with other loans and sell them as bond-like investments. Thus, the bank didn't care whether the borrower was a good risk or bad one. Therefore, they made money on the volume of loans not the quality. That's one of the perverse incentives I spoke of and had nothing to do with the government but had everything to do with greed.
The government didn't have to twist the bank's arms to make them lend to unworthy borrowers. They did it because there was lots of money to be made. The banks and mortgage companies were eager to do it and advertised for borrowers. We all heard the TV ads - "no credit check, no asset check, no problem."
The fact is, it's entirely misdirected anger to blame government for the crisis which was caused by perverse Wall St. incentives that got traders and bankers willing to take on enormous leveraged risk so they could personally make billuions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
I'm sorry, but upon reading the Constitution, I was unable to find the mandate where the Federal Government was to act in the event of a recession or depression. Maybe you can find it since you're so smart.
So you argument is that using fiscal and monetary policy to avoid or improve a recession or depression isn't just a bad idea, it's unconstitutional.
The founders didn't believe in a toothless government that allowed complete free markets. Where in the Constitution? Right their in Article I, Section 8:
- Powers of Congress:
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
-- To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
-- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Nowhere in the Constitution is volcano or earthquake warning systems mentioned but I can't think that any rational person thinks that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from warning its people of earthquakes.
Not only is using government power to improve the economy a good idea it's laughable to suggest that it's prohibited in the Constitution.
I think its funny that you sat here and blamed the GOP for perpetuating the problems, especially considering the whole crash took place under a Democratic Congress.
It gets even funnier that you want to suggest more government spending, which would then increase unemployment even more..
But hey, you'll always be able to blame the GOP again, even if it does make such claims silly.
No, the government didn't cause the crisis in the first place.
If anyone thinks that the government could force banks, with big lobbying budgets, to do something that they don't want to do without fuss from the banks, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I know those whose ideology is that the government causes all problems are quick to conclude that because it feeds their pre-conceived beliefs, it just isn't true. The crisis was caused by perverse incentives.
The crux of this fallacy is that the government 'forced' banks to make bad loans. The profit motive and perverse incentives made the financial institutions make bad loans. Under the age-old system, a bank would make prudent loans because they intended upon holding those loans for a long time and they wanted to assure that the borrower had the means to repay the loan.
Under their system, banks could make risky loans because they intended upon selling the loan five-minutes after signing to a financial institution that would bundle that loan with other loans and sell them as bond-like investments. Thus, the bank didn't care whether the borrower was a good risk or bad one. Therefore, they made money on the volume of loans not the quality. That's one of the perverse incentives I spoke of and had nothing to do with the government but had everything to do with greed.
The government didn't have to twist the bank's arms to make them lend to unworthy borrowers. They did it because there was lots of money to be made. The banks and mortgage companies were eager to do it and advertised for borrowers. We all heard the TV ads - "no credit check, no asset check, no problem."
The fact is, it's entirely misdirected anger to blame government for the crisis which was caused by perverse Wall St. incentives that got traders and bankers willing to take on enormous leveraged risk so they could personally make billuions.
So you argument is that using fiscal and monetary policy to avoid or improve a recession or depression isn't just a bad idea, it's unconstitutional.
Not only is using government power to improve the economy a good idea it's laughable to suggest that it's prohibited in the Constitution.
Yes the Gov put it into action! Bill Clinton deregulated the Glass/Steagall act read up on it Because it was the start of the housing market/Bank trouble.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
