A Purely Theoretical Thread About Job Creation

[rb336]

In
The reality is that we cannot overturn Trade agreements and a treaty that we have with foreign nations. It takes two [[both parties) to dissolve the agreement. In addition, a foreign treaty supercedes the U.S. Constitution.

No. legally nothing supercedes the constitution. Treaties supercede state or federal law, yes, but NOT the constitution.

[oladub]

Treaties do not override the Constitution as much as liberal wish it were so. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land period. Treaties which contradict any part of the Constitution are not constitutional and can and should be voided. The Senate must pass those treaties by a two thirds majority anyway. The executive branch cannot wing it.

Yes, History, " jobs lost are never coming back unless Americans are willing to work like sharecroppers". That is why the money behind our status quo politicians of both parties have sold US workers down the road with the likes of NAFTA and GATT. That is why we have to rid ourselves of the Bushes, Obamas, Perrys, Reids, Pelosis and McCains as a first step toward eradicating bad treaties.

Google "treaties supersede Constitution". Much has been written about this topic. Obama has figured out that if the sheeple believe that that treaties supersede the Constitution, that he can legislate his agenda without going through Congress. If, for instance, a UN treaty is signed regulating vitamins, then local US judges might have to rule against the private use or sale of vitamins. Going around the Constitution is one more reason to impeach Obama although that won't happen in the Senate.

[old guy]

I

The reality is that we are now a global economy.

The reality is that we will soon see a global currency to stabilize the markets.

I agree that we are now a global economy, but I'm not sure about a global currency stabilizing the markets. The euro seems to be a problem. When one country experiences problems, it automatically affects all others that use the euro. I think a lot of people over there would like to see it go away.

[oladub]

Not wanting to start a new thread, I'll add a new jobs wrinkle here.

The Postal Service is having it's problems. It's employees are federal workers. The Postal Service is now going to Congress to try to get permission to cut 220,000 workers. In the last couple of months, the number of new jobs has been something like 9,000 and 17,000 jobs per month so the loss of 220,000 government union jobs by 2015 is catastrophic. 36% of postal employees are minority members which means that the layoffs will hit the minority communities harder. There is an irony in the Federal government creating new jobs in the private sector at a high price while such a huge federal employer is trying to dump it's employees.

[coracle]

I'm not sure what your term "minority members" covers oladub, but I looked up the figures for the 2010 Census and it says that 72.4% of the population were white persons; which I took to mean that 27.6% were minorities [[12.6% were black persons in the Census). If this is so I don't think that the minority members in particular will be hardest hit. Every community that loses these jobs will be equally devastated. That is assuming the cuts are made on the basis of ethnicity as it is a government establishment.

If on the other hand if you are quoting one particular minority then I agree with you by virtue that they were more than equally represented before the cuts; but presumably they'll remain 36% of the reduced workforce.

[oladub]

coracle, Point well taken. I was thinking of black Americans. 26% of all Postal service mail sorters, processors, and processing machine operators and 28% of postal clerks are black. The large sorting facilities ted to be in major cities and reflect those populations. Military vets are given 5-15 points on top of their post office hiring scores test scores in which 100 points is possible so again, blacks are well represented in the military.

[old guy]

Not wanting to start a new thread, I'll add a new jobs wrinkle here.

The Postal Service is having it's problems. It's employees are federal workers. The Postal Service is now going to Congress to try to get permission to cut 220,000 workers. In the last couple of months, the number of new jobs has been something like 9,000 and 17,000 jobs per month so the loss of 220,000 government union jobs by 2015 is catastrophic. 36% of postal employees are minority members which means that the layoffs will hit the minority communities harder. There is an irony in the Federal government creating new jobs in the private sector at a high price while such a huge federal employer is trying to dump it's employees.

It's unfortunate that all these jobs will be lost. I think we can attribute the job losses to technology though, and not policy coming from the government. When Border's announced that it was going out of business and cutting 10,700 jobs, it was obvious that it was directly connected to technology. People just aren't buying as many books and most of us are using e-mail and paying bills electronically. The job losses still end up in the negative column for the administration. That's one of the reasons I think we have to take a bipartisan look at how to solve this problem. As long as one side complains about how the other side is destroying jobs, we're just going to keep going around in circles.

We need to address the fact that so many jobs are being lost to technology and how to keep the new technology jobs here. That isn't going to be easy.

The one upside to the post office closing so many offices is that it might create some jobs in the private sector. They do plan to open small offices in existing stores around the country.

I hope none of those 220,000 people go postal.

[Papasito]

The downsizing of the Post Office does suck.
But with email and smart phones and so many other means of communication, plus competition like FedEx & UPS & others, it was bound to happen.

New business needs to replace old business.
The biggest problem I think that this economy faces is new business has so many obstacles in it's path to get going, that new business & industry is just not materializing. Government is clearly anti-new business. They supplement and subsidize failing, established business and stand in the way of new money being created. Unless of course it's an upstart "green" company, and you have friends in the "right places".

The Post Office is outdated, like Newspapers.
The Government keeping newspapers pumped up is comparative to subsidizing the horse and buggy market when the automobile came out.


Times change, and the Government should back off enough to allow America to change with it. If something sinks, let it sink. If something new comes out, let it flourish.

[oldredfordette]

How is government clearly anti new business? Do you live in America?

[coracle]

How is government clearly anti new business? Do you live in America?

I don't think the government is anti new business because it wants the money they earn to give away. But it does continuously penalize them with new laws/conditions/regulations which makes starting a business more difficult and expensive as time goes by. [[and the continuation of established businesses)
On the other hand the same government that takes their money redistributes it without any conditional regulations to people that didn't earn any of it and are a burden on society. We've just witnessed a good example of the end game in England where they are way way ahead of us in the redistribution of other people's earned money - but they don't have the guns yet.

[old guy]

I guess I don't really understand how government is anti-new business either. Starting a new business is tough. Lately, it seems as though people think starting a business should be guaranteed in some way. I hear the so called JOB CREATORS complain that they can't start or expand a business because they're unsure of the business climate due to current policies. Either you have a good business plan or you don't. I've been in business through three administrations. I've never noticed any upswing or down swing in my business due to who was president or who was in control of congress. You work hard or you don't. You make good and bad decisions and you can usually tell how those decisions affect your bottom line.

I've gone through some lean times but I try to adjust. I guess I could sit around at the end of the day, drink a beer and blame politicians because business is down, but where does that get me. I don't see where expecting the government to provide a perfect business climate is any different than expecting them to subsidize me. Life is tough. Deal with it. I enjoy being in business and dealing with the day to day challenges that come with it. I just don't really add government policy into my business equation.

[Papasito]

Government not anti business?
How about those "filthy rich" people who make $200k a year.
And how about those John & Jane Doe's who have a business plan but can't borrow the money because BIG GIANT BANK that took our stimulus money won't loan it out.

Back in the days of Jimmy Carter, everything was rationed and limited.
In the days of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton everything was abundant and unlimited.

I think a lot has to do with leadership.
Just let Americans be resourceful. Promote economic growth.
Untie people's hands.
And stop making Mexico, China, India, and the rest of the world more appealing to people's companies.

When you think about business, the USA seems all washed up.
We can't tap our national resources. We can't build factories and mills.

The only thing we can build is a shopping center full of crap made halfway around the world, and hire clerks and stockpeople and then call it "economic growth".

Our money is worthless. Our Government is in massive debt.
The turnaround this country needs requires us pulling out all the stops to be a greater nation than this world has ever known.
Our total US Debt is nearing $55T. http://www.usdebtclock.org/##

[3WC]

The President of Caterpiller was on CNBC yesterday morning complaining that its largest MI dealer would hire fifty [[50) engine techs/repairmen tomorrow if they could find them. If I were running Cat I'd take part of that hoard of cash and set up "Caterpiller University" to train people for jobs Cat can't fill. Charge them tuition but loan them the money. The tuition loan would be forgiven based on continued employment with the company.

One thing is for sure. Politicians don't create jobs. Never have and never will. The only thing politicians can do is by political policies create an environment favoring business development, and the jobs will follow. Obama has not been able to do that. Most politicians don't know where to start.

What gets me, as a Texan, is all the ink given to Perry. He hasn't created jobs although he takes credit for doing it. He is very business friendly, as is the State, and he has not done anything to screw up the long held business friendly climate. I create jobs, not Perry. I have 15 hourly workers making an average of $20/hr. It's hard, dirty, outside-in-all-weather work. But very steady with lots of overtime. Perry had nothing to do with it.

TX is having its financial problems today that aren't highly publicized. The solution, gutsy to be sure, was to cut all state budgets about 30% across the board. Balance that budget. That includes education. That's a dumb political move and Perry supported it [[The governor of TX does not have nearly as much power as the Lt. Governor by the way. They can even be of different parties.) A result of the budget cuts, the TX Railroad Commission [[RRC) which regulates all oil and gas production in the state, is so far behind in its paperwork that I and other producers are being very adversely impacted. Those dodos have crippled the very department that oversees the biggest state revenue producer, oil and gas producers. Typical f____ up politicos, regardless of what state they're in.

[old guy]

Government not anti business?

Just let Americans be resourceful. Promote economic growth.
Untie people's hands.

When you think about business, the USA seems all washed up.
We can't tap our national resources. We can't build factories and mills.

I agree that some businesses carry more red tape than others. I also think there's too much rhetoric about it being tossed around. I understand that trying to open a new refinery or nuclear power plant is almost impossible. But opening a factory? I know the state I live in is begging people to come here and open a factory. All the neighboring states are doing the same thing and not only have open arms but also incentives.
That's become a stock excuse that there are too many restrictions on manufacturing. True, there are some hurdles, but as I see it, individual states are bending over backwards to promote economic growth. I think the problem is that someone has to come up with a new widget to manufacture.

[old guy]

As the campaign heats up, all talk is about jobs.
Rick Perry says he's all about jobs. I think they're even referring to it as the miracle something. The data I looked at shows the unemployment rate in Texas currently at 8.4%. In April 2007 it was at 4.3%. When he became governor in December of 2000, it was 3.6%. How does that make him the miracle job creator? But people are buying into it. From the time Bush took office until he left office, the unemployment rate rose from 3.9% to 7.8%. That's almost 4 points. Since Obama took office it's gone up 1.3 points, and it was headed straight up with a bullet. Yet some people say he's the worst president ever. How does that work?

None of these people have a plan. I hate to say it but a big jobs plan is probably the only way out unless we want to spend the next 15 years crawling out of this hole.

Here's a link to a site that tracks unemployment state by state or for the entire U.S. with a graph. It's interesting to click on a number of states and the U.S. graph at the same time. You see that even though some states are in worse shape than others, they all pretty much follow the same path going back to the 50's.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...ue&hl=en&dl=en

[old guy]

...........Attachment 10573

[Jimaz]

...http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...ue&hl=en&dl=en

Thanks for that link. I bookmarked it. I knew there was high unemployment in the 1980s but I didn't realize how bad.

[Crumbled_pavement]

As the campaign heats up, all talk is about jobs.
Rick Perry says he's all about jobs. I think they're even referring to it as the miracle something. The data I looked at shows the unemployment rate in Texas currently at 8.4%. In April 2007 it was at 4.3%. When he became governor in December of 2000, it was 3.6%. How does that make him the miracle job creator? But people are buying into it. From the time Bush took office until he left office, the unemployment rate rose from 3.9% to 7.8%. That's almost 4 points. Since Obama took office it's gone up 1.3 points, and it was headed straight up with a bullet. Yet some people say he's the worst president ever. How does that work?

None of these people have a plan. I hate to say it but a big jobs plan is probably the only way out unless we want to spend the next 15 years crawling out of this hole.

Here's a link to a site that tracks unemployment state by state or for the entire U.S. with a graph. It's interesting to click on a number of states and the U.S. graph at the same time. You see that even though some states are in worse shape than others, they all pretty much follow the same path going back to the 50's.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...ue&hl=en&dl=en

Good post old guy. The bottom line is the voters today are just fans rooting their team onto victory. Neither fanbase knows nor cares what the team they're a fan of is doing, they just know they want their team to win.

Example: Team Republican wanted to raise the debt limit during Bush's term in office. Not a peep out of the ultra fiscal conservatives who were then rooting on the Republicans, in fact, they backed the debt limit increase. What you did hear were fans of Team Democrat crying that the can was being kicked down the road and our poor children and grandchildren would have to pay the costs of such failed leadership.

Fast forward a few years and now Team Democrat has the ball in their hands. Since they were sooooooooo concerned about our poor kids and grandkids, you would think they and their fans would still be against a debt ceiling increase. Not so, Team Democrat and their fans happily cheered for a debt ceiling increase, as putting the full faith and credit of the United States on the line would lead to certain doom. I mean, if we have a Democrat as president we can't risk that, it would fine for the country to default if a Republican is president. But wait, remember Team Republican was all for increasing the debt ceiling when a Republican was president? Surely, they and their fanbase still support such an increase, right? NO, because that is suddenly why our economy is tanking, the business community out of nowhere is now terrified of our exploding deficit.

Notice Team Republican and Team Democrat conveniently switched sides on this debate without much covering up of their blatent flip flopping but still retained their same fanbases? Nobody cares. Conservatives just want to see the person with an 'R' behind their name win, liberals just want to see the guy with a 'D' behind his name win, and both Dems and Reps can do whatever they want while their fans sit on the sidelines with pom-poms rooting their team on to victory.

Look at the flip flops on war policy, tax cuts, health care, etc.

It's not the big parties or politicians, it's voters that support them....

[Whitehouse]

Ask the Dutch.

Unemploymentlevel over here is just above 4%. And yes, we do have very high taxes.

[mjs]

Notice Team Republican and Team Democrat conveniently switched sides on this debate without much covering up of their blatent flip flopping but still retained their same fanbases? Nobody cares.

Reminds me of the book 1984, the way they kept changing the history books to rewrite who was aligned with who in the war. They even take turns being the villians so they can all take turns being the good guys and all get reelected. Look at how they pretended treasury default had to even be considered as an option if a debt debate resolution didn't happen. Now its time for the Republicans to make some insane accusation against the Dems and the Dems half defend it so the Republicans can look good for doing nothing and around and around it goes.

The partisan bickering is in their best interests which is why its there by design. Stops any real competition for all of the incumbants thus stops having to face any real debate or real decisions on anything. They just keep jointly gerrymandering the hell out of it all until its as extreme as possible. Force districts into nearly as rectangular districts as possible, pass a flat tax with zero exemptions, and pass a balanced budget amendment and all of their games and BS will go out the window as they'd have no choice but to have a fairly honest debate of the issues.

Right now, its not Dems versus Republicans. Its politicians and big corporations versus the american public. I read yesterday that besides the fact that 25 of the top 100 U.S. companies with the highest paid CEOs paid their CEOs more than they paid in corporate taxes, they also paid more in lobbying last year than taxes. If they're doing well enough to bribe our Senators, they should have enough to help us get other things done in DC.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Reminds me of the book 1984, the way they kept changing the history books to rewrite who was aligned with who in the war. They even take turns being the villians so they can all take turns being the good guys and all get reelected. Look at how they pretended treasury default had to even be considered as an option if a debt debate resolution didn't happen. Now its time for the Republicans to make some insane accusation against the Dems and the Dems half defend it so the Republicans can look good for doing nothing and around and around it goes.

The partisan bickering is in their best interests which is why its there by design. Stops any real competition for all of the incumbants thus stops having to face any real debate or real decisions on anything. They just keep jointly gerrymandering the hell out of it all until its as extreme as possible. Force districts into nearly as rectangular districts as possible, pass a flat tax with zero exemptions, and pass a balanced budget amendment and all of their games and BS will go out the window as they'd have no choice but to have a fairly honest debate of the issues.

Right now, its not Dems versus Republicans. Its politicians and big corporations versus the american public. I read yesterday that besides the fact that 25 of the top 100 U.S. companies with the highest paid CEOs paid their CEOs more than they paid in corporate taxes, they also paid more in lobbying last year than taxes. If they're doing well enough to bribe our Senators, they should have enough to help us get other things done in DC.

Amen. Add to that campaign financing reform. Corporations shouldn't be able to funnel unlimited amounts of money into a politician's PAC.

[firstandten]

Reminds me of the book 1984, the way they kept changing the history books to rewrite who was aligned with who in the war. They even take turns being the villians so they can all take turns being the good guys and all get reelected. Look at how they pretended treasury default had to even be considered as an option if a debt debate resolution didn't happen. Now its time for the Republicans to make some insane accusation against the Dems and the Dems half defend it so the Republicans can look good for doing nothing and around and around it goes.

The partisan bickering is in their best interests which is why its there by design. Stops any real competition for all of the incumbants thus stops having to face any real debate or real decisions on anything. They just keep jointly gerrymandering the hell out of it all until its as extreme as possible. Force districts into nearly as rectangular districts as possible, pass a flat tax with zero exemptions, and pass a balanced budget amendment and all of their games and BS will go out the window as they'd have no choice but to have a fairly honest debate of the issues.

Right now, its not Dems versus Republicans. Its politicians and big corporations versus the american public. I read yesterday that besides the fact that 25 of the top 100 U.S. companies with the highest paid CEOs paid their CEOs more than they paid in corporate taxes, they also paid more in lobbying last year than taxes. If they're doing well enough to bribe our Senators, they should have enough to help us get other things done in DC.

Amen as well, Its just a big game isn't it

[Jimaz]

...Corporations shouldn't be able to funnel unlimited amounts of money into a politician's PAC.

Anonymously, no less. Why protect financiers who have something to hide?

[old guy]

I've got a feeling we're going to hear a speech next week about another stimulus package for infrastructure projects and re-training for people that worked jobs which no longer exist. I know this is really unpopular with a lot of folks on this site. Personally, I'm all for it. If we don't do something soon to turn this thing around, we won't have to worry about the deficit problem down the road. It will be irrelevant.
What I don't understand is why Democrats and Republicans are both willing to spend over 900 million dollars a week rebuilding the infrastructure, subsidizing farming, building schools and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan while we swirl down the toilet. They don't even want us there. Why aren't we rebuilding our own infrastructure?

I know the opposition to a plan for infrastructure rebuilding will be fierce and will probably drag on for months. Possibly another watered down plan will be approved to protect politicians jobs. Once again it probably won't go far enough. I just think it's time to go big, go all in.

This whole thing is just plain pathetic. I hear the analogy about how families have to balance their checkbooks. You balance your checkbook if you've got money coming in. If you're getting down to the last few bucks in your checkbook you know you have to do something drastic. At that point it's hard to cut things from your budget because you already have. We need to do something quick. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan would be a good start.