What do you want Congress to do to stimulate job growth? (health care, companies)

[GOPATTA2D]

Cut corporate income taxes.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Any spending you would like to cut Chairman PurpleLove08 so we don't have to continue stealing from our children like a bunch of soulless crack addicts?

wanted to rep you, but have to spread it around.

Nita

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Increased spending on energy independance creates jobs,

Actually it doesnt. There have been reports that you lose numerous jobs for every one spent on "energy independance"..(its something like 2.1 jobs) if the independance comes from taxpayer subsidies because in order to spend on "indpendance" you need to take from another sector.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

because if we can keep half of what we spend on foreign oil (about 350 billion dollars a year), that can be used to balance our current budget, and begin to pay down the debt.

Ahh nope.. If we create indepdance here, that $350B would simply stay at home and go into privately owned businesses, not the budget or to pay down debt.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

It keeps more money at home, which creates spending at home, which creates jobs.

This is partially true because it indeed does keep more money at home (and a positive) but there is a debate as to how many "jobs".. You lose jobs in transportation for example, and again, if your taking the money from one person to "stimulate" independance, the offset is loss of jobs elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Helping citizens buy homes, lowers the number of houses on the market, spurring home ownership, and increasing the number of homes being built, which causes construction jobs to increase.

Helping to stimulate people buying homes through an artificial stimulus creates an artificial inflated value of a home, it does not create jobs. And while indeed it would stimulate some jobs in the construction industry, we have a surplus of homes currently and if we continue to build more, we put a downward pressure on the value of homes which would counter the stimulus from encouraging home ownership thereby the result is, wasted tax dollars..

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Space exploration would create more jobs in construction, and possibly (way out) bases on the moon.

I'm not debating the benefits of space exploration, just debating that cutting spending would create jobs.. If you shut down NASA you end up with lots of unemployed engineers.. Again, not an argument to keep spending, just pointing out facts that it increases unemployment, not lowering it..

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Lowering military spending helps pay for some of the other items I put forward, and lowers the debt, making the dollar more valueable, increasing Americas buying power, creating more jobs.

Decreasing military spending would indeed put lots of individuals out of work that build, ship, deploy miltary supplies.. It would lower the debt but only if we are talking about not increasing spending, (which you just admitted you would)..

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Legalization of drugs would create jobs because it would bring the growth and production of drugs out of the closet.

Actually I disagree but this one would take some type of study to determine who is correct. There is a HUGE number of individuals who are currently "employed" in the drug industry currently. Legalizing them would simply allow these individuals to be regulated and become "employed" on the books, but the net affect would be the same. Some might actually argue that these people might actually become "unemployed" because you could have large companies like "Wal-Mart" begin to sell these drugs at their pharmacy thereby cutting out the "sales" network currently in place. Legalizing it may/may not be positive but again, thats not the topic of the thread.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Tax revenue could be brought in, and it would save money, saving us from our debt.

Tax revenues usually decrease jobs because rather than money circulating, it goes to the government. Sure it decreases the debt, but again, the debt isnt the topic, jobs are, and whenever you take money out of the economy the net affect is negative jobs, not positive.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by nmnita

wanted to rep you, but have to spread it around.

I took care of it for you..

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I took care of it for you..

Good, like to do my job, and if I can't let someone else. Oh, I forgot I am supposed to sit in my rocking chair because I am past 55..

NIta

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Any spending you would like to cut Chairman PurpleLove08 so we don't have to continue stealing from our children like a bunch of soulless crack addicts?

Crack addicts steal from our children? Why wouldn't they steal from adults? Children don't have a lot of money.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D

Cut corporate income taxes.

That might create jobs in Mexico and China, but if you want to create American jobs, tax cuts/credits should be directed at consumers, not producers.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Actually it doesnt. There have been reports that you lose numerous jobs for every one spent on "energy independance"..(its something like 2.1 jobs) if the independance comes from taxpayer subsidies because in order to spend on "indpendance" you need to take from another sector.

Ahh nope.. If we create indepdance here, that $350B would simply stay at home and go into privately owned businesses, not the budget or to pay down debt.

This is partially true because it indeed does keep more money at home (and a positive) but there is a debate as to how many "jobs".. You lose jobs in transportation for example, and again, if your taking the money from one person to "stimulate" independance, the offset is loss of jobs elsewhere.

Helping to stimulate people buying homes through an artificial stimulus creates an artificial inflated value of a home, it does not create jobs. And while indeed it would stimulate some jobs in the construction industry, we have a surplus of homes currently and if we continue to build more, we put a downward pressure on the value of homes which would counter the stimulus from encouraging home ownership thereby the result is, wasted tax dollars..

I'm not debating the benefits of space exploration, just debating that cutting spending would create jobs.. If you shut down NASA you end up with lots of unemployed engineers.. Again, not an argument to keep spending, just pointing out facts that it increases unemployment, not lowering it..

Decreasing military spending would indeed put lots of individuals out of work that build, ship, deploy miltary supplies.. It would lower the debt but only if we are talking about not increasing spending, (which you just admitted you would)..

Actually I disagree but this one would take some type of study to determine who is correct. There is a HUGE number of individuals who are currently "employed" in the drug industry currently. Legalizing them would simply allow these individuals to be regulated and become "employed" on the books, but the net affect would be the same. Some might actually argue that these people might actually become "unemployed" because you could have large companies like "Wal-Mart" begin to sell these drugs at their pharmacy thereby cutting out the "sales" network currently in place. Legalizing it may/may not be positive but again, thats not the topic of the thread.

Tax revenues usually decrease jobs because rather than money circulating, it goes to the government. Sure it decreases the debt, but again, the debt isnt the topic, jobs are, and whenever you take money out of the economy the net affect is negative jobs, not positive.

This crap about stiulating the economy by allowing more people to buy homes: you are right, that isn't the answer to anything. What do some of these people think got us in this mess in the first place? Too many buying homes that had no business as home owners. That was part of the problem anyway, a good part. And as for extending the tax credit to second time home buyers, that too, is just creating more government give away. Our 23 year old granddaughter and her husband just brought their first home. Yes, she will take advantage of the $8000 but she thinks it is stupid and would have purchased regardless. Both she and her husband are sick of government give a ways>

NIta

[Greatday]

What do I want them to do?

Stay out of the way

Stop Meddling

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by odinloki1

4-5 years and the system gets the money back, 6 years and a profit, not hard to figure out. Makes health care cheaper so more people can spend money on other things and consume more since we're a consumer based economy. Think more than 2 feet/2 minutes in front of you .

I think you need to think more than 6 inches infront of you because these do neither.

You first supported a socialist education system using the argument that you'll have $100K in education costs. Well lets think, who chose to take on these costs? Surely it wasnt me.. why would I need to think about whats 2 feet infront of YOU? What happens if 2 years into your career you decide that you dont like your field and then you decide to re-enter college to go into accounting? I bet you dont think you should hold any liability for your education costs for that either, while you dont think its a problem to now put the taxpayers on the hook for TWO educational careers, both of them by choice.

How would it make medical costs cheaper? In order to pay for your $100K education, they would have to increases the costs of care to pay for it, not decrease it. You pretending that just moving the liability from your balance sheet to the taxpayers results in a net savings is ignoring facts, especially considering the amount of consistant education those in your field require.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

So lets sit around and do nothing and let corporate America continue to benefit off of only 15% dividends taxes and the top 1% have lower rates than the middle class. Again you'd rather sit and do nothing? Or do you think the free market is going to fix these problems?

You are completely off topic again. Dividend taxes are often as high as 35% and going to 39.6%. They were only lower for those in the lower income ranges or special dividends received for long term investments which encouraged job growth in the companies they invested in.

What does increasing dividend taxes have to do with job growth?

Originally Posted by odinloki1

I never said anywhere that people would be forced to do anything. I think though you could give people an option for something productive to do where they can get some physical activity as well and make some money. It beats being a greeter at Wal Mart.

People already have OPTIONS.. What part of this dont you get? They can choose to work where they want, take on careers they want, and yes, even take on debt for education.

It doesnt amaze me that someone who wants to dictate "options" (which already exist) would be the very the very same ones now calling for "nationalizing education" because of "costs"..