Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    FDR did it in a bunch of different ways. The CCC is one well-known example. Of course that does equal bigger govt. But it is interesting to compare the unemployment rate in 1933, when he took office, vs the next election year (1936)--and then do the same with Obama. Unemployment has dropped since Obama took office, but only from his own high point (which was in the 10% range), not from the rate he "inherited" from Bush. Higher now than it was in Jan 2009.

    Note that I'm not necessarily praising FDR's politics. Only pointing out that his policies in his first term did what he set out to do, which was lower unemployment. Obama's have not. And with all the campaign rhetoric floating around, we should probably remember that Obama said that if he couldn't straighten out the economy, then he deserved to be a one-term president. Were he a man of his word, he'd step aside and let someone else run.

  2. #22
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,181
    FDR's programs put a lot of people back to work but as you said it's bigger government and, to a certain point, those jobs were relatively temporary. What I am asking is what's the government's roll in creating real, permanent jobs? Certainly economic policy has something to do with job creation, however I don't believe tax structure (or effective tax rates) do anything to create jobs. Nor do I believe they truly cost the economy jobs. I also don't believe subsidizing industry (such as solar energy) creates any long term job growth. Perhaps a blip, lasting a year or two, but nothing that provides benefit long term. So what can an administration, any administration Republican or Democrat, do to help create long-term jobs?

    (BTW, Larry check your PM's)
    If you exercised your freedom and aren't in jail, thank a liberal.

  3. #23
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    South Dakota/ Montana
    Posts
    4,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Brown View Post
    And with all the campaign rhetoric floating around, we should probably remember that Obama said that if he couldn't straighten out the economy, then he deserved to be a one-term president. Were he a man of his word, he'd step aside and let someone else run.

    Yeah, right! Pigs will fly first.
    B.C.

  4. #24
    I'm best described as an independent voter. I look at contracts and spreadsheets all day and look for and capitalize on results in my professional life.

    Sometime back when unemployment was really high - maybe 2009 - I saw a variety of statistics that pointed out that more jobs are posted each day than filled. Many were in the high tech arena - where one of the companies that I own lives. In our home state of Washington Microsoft has started a program where they will train - for free - any high school senior who wants to be a Microsoft programmer - because they cannot fill slots. The stats also noted that a lot of people could not find employment in their area but that many good paying positions were available in other parts of the country. However since people were upside down on their mortgages they could not move.

    Is it government's role to create jobs or is it the role of the individual to maintain and always upgrade their skills to match what the market is leaning towards? It seems that with corporate profitability up almost across the board that I find myself questioning the role that those jobs served. If sales are up and profits are up were those jobs necessary or were they just extra expense that did not contribute? It is a competitive world and the only thing that is certain is that you have to learn, grow and prove yourself every day. The days of going into the factory, clocking in, drawing breath and drawing your pay are gone.

    One thing is for sure, the world in five years will not be the world we know today and those who are successful will be people who continue to challenge themselves and who learn and who grow. It has nothing to do with what party is in office, but the information revolution that has taken place - which I would argue that is the greatest that the world has ever known. Show me a room of people who say they don't know computers, technology, smart phones, etc. - and have no interest in learning about those damn things - and I'll show you a room of under employed people. There are of course anomalies to every situation, but it is the trend that I experience in my world. The world of manufacturing in the US as we have known it is dead. The new capitol is information and the ability to move that information.

    As a shameless plug, I usually end my day by watching a presentation or two on TED TV. TED stands for Technology, Education and Entertainment. This was a not-for-profit group that brought these three industries together for a conference - but since then the scope has broadened. Now the tag line is "Ideas worth sharing". If you are ever sitting around your computer and want to be inspired by or to learn to people who are smarter than you I would encourage you to tune in. I suspect there is more good information that will have a positive effect on your life on TED than on SSM's Politics bulletin board.

  5. #25
    IP-Not everyone is as capable as you.
    Our economy needs to have a place for everyone to work so they can pay taxes.
    Wag more, bark less.

  6. #26
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg T. View Post
    IP-Not everyone is as capable as you.
    Our economy needs to have a place for everyone to work so they can pay taxes.
    Our economy needs workers in a lot of segments of the market and not everyone is employable my a company by Microsoft, but my question is what is the roll of the federal government in creating those jobs or any type of job?
    If you exercised your freedom and aren't in jail, thank a liberal.

  7. #27
    Jay- The greatest impact can be made at the bottom rungs of the economy by government.
    Policy that sets up a structure that eliminates jobs for the least capable workers is terrible in the long term.

    We would be far better off economically and socially (crime etc.) if policy supported the flow of capital into our lowest ranks rather than from it.

    Who in the hell wants to see permanent unemployment in our urban males of 50% or more? Who wants 50% of all Americans to pay no Federal income taxes?
    Policy can be used just like training a dog. Positive, negative, and neutral pressure. Or if you prefer, push, pull, and ignore.

    Where the ubermensch fail in their arguments is in their limited ability to accept and understand that some people are meant to die in the harness. Some activities wear out the body, and brains are not infinitely trainable. They take a set after a time, allowing for limited change.

    Stonemasons don't magically become investment bankers when they hit 65.
    Wag more, bark less.

  8. #28
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,181
    Greg,

    What types of governmental policies support the flow of capital into those lower ranks? I agree, not everyone should be headed to Wall Street, Microsoft or corporate America. Funny you should mention stone masons; I spent months trying to find a mason who was really qualified to re-build a chimney.

    Not every kid should go to college. There are a lot of kids who should go to trade school or start apprenticeships, they would be better off financially and we would be better off as a country. But again, what types of policies does the federal government have to implement to create those jobs and, even more fundamentally should the government be implementing policies?

    JDG
    If you exercised your freedom and aren't in jail, thank a liberal.

  9. #29
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    1,596
    Funding of infrastructure projects by federal and state governments creates jobs and accomplishes needed improvements in highways, bridges, airports, ports, electrical transmission , etc.
    There are many projects that need to be done.
    Adequate funding of education, police functions and local improvements at the local level will sustain employment, rather than layoffs as is now the case in many communities.
    Simplification of the federal tax code, a slow down in new regulation, a speed up and simplification of the permitting process at both federal and local levels would all create a more predicable environment for business investment and job creation.
    A sensible plan for long term federal spending/revenues must be implemented to provide stability to financial markets.
    All of the above are easily said, and apparently , impossible to do in the current political climate.

  10. #30
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    5,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith E. Carlson View Post
    Funding of infrastructure projects by federal and state governments creates jobs and accomplishes needed improvements in highways, bridges, airports, ports, electrical transmission , etc.
    There are many projects that need to be done.
    Adequate funding of education, police functions and local improvements at the local level will sustain employment, rather than layoffs as is now the case in many communities.
    Simplification of the federal tax code, a slow down in new regulation, a speed up and simplification of the permitting process at both federal and local levels would all create a more predicable environment for business investment and job creation.
    A sensible plan for long term federal spending/revenues must be implemented to provide stability to financial markets.
    All of the above are easily said, and apparently , impossible to do in the current political climate.
    What was the goal of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Obama? Was it not to fund "infrastructure projects by federal and state governments creates jobs and accomplishes needed improvements in highways, bridges, airports, ports, electrical transmission , etc?"

    What was the goal of he Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010? Was it not supposed to be "A sensible plan for long term federal spending/revenues must be implemented to provide stability to financial markets"?
    Ever get the feeling that you've been cheated?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •