|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Feb 12, 2009 20:23:15 GMT -5
What is so hard for people to understand about how jobs are created?
I tried explaining to a few people at work how government CAN'T create jobs out of thin air...no matter what they say or what party they are in.....or how much money they print on a copier.
I tried the logic of a person or business that is doing well. A person or business that is productive and provides something valuable that people want and buy.
This entity, when allowed to have more of their own hard earned money creates jobs. It has to! Their profits go to re-investment OR pleasure spending. In either case, these entities spend money on new machines, more employees or extra money for having fun and luxury. In ALL cases jobs are created or sustained. When a private party buys something, demand is caused to replace the inventory. When someone has extra money to pay a 3rd party to clean, make, maintain property, or serve them a meal...a job is created.
This gets beat to death from all sides but it just seems too simple to NOT understand. Capitalism will create wealth and opportunity for everyone that wants to participate. Socialism will squash the desire of the go-getters and inspire the folks looking for a mediocre handout to keep them alive with food, shelter and water. No one is happy with either plain old sustanance coupled with the hammer applied to the people who make things happen to give them that sustanance.
The masses just don't get it and just want to see who wins American idol while they eat fast food and listen to stupid music.
I'm glad I live in a very rural stting. Most people can make do with simple things. I feel for those that think like me and live in cities....with little means to make it when things get bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by sw on Feb 13, 2009 5:23:21 GMT -5
Wilms,
Very good thoughts, IMO. I lived in England from 1975-1979. That was just before Margret Thatcher took the reins. Socialism run rampant. It was a terrible situation. Most people seem to only learn from their own mistakes, not the history of others. I'm afraid the US is determined to repeat these mistakes of others.
It's hard to learn history while watching "American Idol" and eating fast food.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Feb 13, 2009 8:34:15 GMT -5
I can't remember who said it but someone once quoted "if you want to destroy a society, prosper them".
Another quote "The strength of the Constitution lies entirely on the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure". >>>Albert Einstein
The prosperous American people evidently don't feel bound to defend the rights granted to them by the Constitution. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams all knew and understood that freedom and liberty come with a price and that a society not willing to sacrifice time and effort to preserve their liberty will soon fall prey to despots.
Yes history does repeat itself but not because people are stupid but because people become apathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 13, 2009 10:34:15 GMT -5
wilms, I am not going to take sides, but I will mention some things that have shaken the faith of many people in the system of capitalism in our country. Corporations have often found it more profitable to send manufacturing jobs overseas. The division between the rich and poor has increased greatly. The greed and excesses of corporate officers has gotten alot more attention and scrutiny lately, even when their companies are facing bankruptcy. Private health insurance is out of reach for many Americans now. Now, in upstate N.Y. our bridges and roads are decaying fast. If Obama causes alot of money to be spent on that, I am for it. And it will help working people. I do question the rebuilding that we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, when our own country needs work. Those are some thoughts.
Now, I ask the following question: Republicans and conservatives accuse the Democrats of being tax and spend liberals, this after having a president who was a relatively conservative Republican, who ran up the defecit fighting a war that his party would continue for a long time yet, I believe. George Bush and Ronald Reagan (whom I admired), ran up the defecit and spent. President Clinton left with a surplus in the treasury, and a stock market that had unprecedented growth. What I don't understand is why conservatives don't say anything about the spending on wars such as Iraq, but get worked up over domestic spending?
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 13, 2009 11:08:05 GMT -5
First, Clinton did not leave with a surplus! GW Bush's first budget passed in October 2001...after 9/11! The economy was in recession mode, and the stock market was crashing! March of 2000 the Nasdaq hit its high of over 5000, and when Bush took office in January 2001, it was down to to the 2500 range and dropping fast! Remember Enron and Worldcom! Now, since all spending bills originate in the House, you may want to consider whether the Presidents party controls the House. Under Reagan, the Dems controlled it for all 8 years. Under Clinton, the GOP controlled it for 6 years, and as a matter of fact the reason for getting close to a balanced budget was due to Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America...which Clinton fought but lost! Bush 43 had the GOP for 6 years, and like any group of politicians they abused their powers and got fired, as they should have! The last two years were with the Dems, and some might say that the deficit grew the most in those years  edge. |
|
|
|
Post by whyohe on Feb 13, 2009 11:23:42 GMT -5
wilms it should work that way but some times it doesn't. i work for a large company. our roads need paved , our company vehicles need replaced, our building need updated. now if the company did this how many job this would create! but even though the company made millions in profit last year they didn't do much of what needed to be done and even layed off a bunch. we are finally, after begging, getting a few new truck, and after having having off and on(more off) heat in the 2007/2008 winter we are getting new heaters. they are in stalled but not hooked up. i try to live by the philosophy you state. but the others have to be willing to spend too.
in our society we have too many that want something for nothing and/or think things are owed to them that truely isnt. i see way too much of this where i live.they lie to get things they want for free if they can. this is what is detrimental to our economy and society. i hope this attitude isnt as wide spread as i think.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 13, 2009 12:39:37 GMT -5
whyohe, given the chance, people tend to do what is in their best interest at the time! Take GM, please  The legacy costs that are killing them is because...IMO, the management of the Company and of the Unions were just plain greedy! In past years they have a profit of "X", but if they split that profit between the shareholders, company workers and union workers nobody would be happy. SO, they "conspired" to make the "PIE" bigger! Instead of paying for an annuity for medical and retirement costs each year they said "Let's pay as we go!" Now they are paying for medical and retirement benefits for people that have not worked in years! The company/workers today are burdened with costs far above those that needed for themselves.....sounds like our Social Security system doesn't it  There is no way to compete with a startup company or a company that made prudent decisions and lived within their means. edge. Personally, I think that everyone should get their salary/pay in a lump sum with ZERO deductions for medical or retirement. Let private companies offer retirement plans and medical plans on the open market. If you want to retire in 20 years, then buy that plan, or buy the plan that you want, 30 or 40 years. If both spouses work then buy a family medical plan, but if you're single then keep the difference as cash. This way the worker owns the plan and not the company. If the company goes out of business the workers aren't screwed! |
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Feb 13, 2009 20:48:08 GMT -5
Everyone seems to understand the current ponzi scemes.
Do you now understand Soc Sec and Gov't bonds?
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 13, 2009 23:24:09 GMT -5
Are they like promissory notes?  |
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 14, 2009 9:24:19 GMT -5
Are they like promissory notes? Nope. A promissory note is where you receive something of value and based solely on your reputation you promise to pay it back with interest. SS and Govmt bonds is where you receive something of value and based on your reputation you promise to pass the debt on to enslave your children, grandchildern, and soon-to-be-born great-grandchildren to pay it back with interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 16, 2009 13:48:24 GMT -5
Good point, Wilms. Actually, the Government, however, is a big corporation in one sense. They have income, and they have purpose, and they have tasks, and they pay folks to do those tasks. Whether they SHOULD or not is another question.
OTHER than the jobs required by the Government to carry out its tasks, could any of you tell me why you think it's the government's FUNCTION or PURPOSE to create private sector jobs?
|
|
|
|
Post by missedagain on Feb 16, 2009 13:59:57 GMT -5
Backrub wrote: OTHER than the jobs required by the Government to carry out its tasks, could any of you tell me why you think it's the government's FUNCTION or PURPOSE to create private sector jobs?
Ummm.. I don't Know? Maybe because the promised me Hope and Change?
|
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 16, 2009 14:00:55 GMT -5
Well I hope I have change left after they stop trying to create jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by missedagain on Feb 16, 2009 14:27:59 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 16, 2009 14:37:11 GMT -5
Good point, Wilms. Actually, the Government, however, is a big corporation in one sense. They have income, SNIP Well, if you call ripping off productive people with the threat of jail, income then I guess that they do The goal of this Congress/Administration is to get the bottom 51% of voters to not pay any taxes.In their own self interests, voters will then be perfectly happy to accept the handouts of the Government while paying nothing into the System. Taxes for the "ripped off class" will continue to escalate until they have had enough! edge. |
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 16, 2009 19:28:21 GMT -5
Agreed.
But yeah, I call it income.
Coerced income is still income.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkruger on Feb 16, 2009 19:55:46 GMT -5
He spoke about change before he was elected ,but he was'nt specific. I now understand what he was reffering to. socialism . It's just not how our country was built , and it wont work today.
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 16, 2009 22:35:22 GMT -5
He spoke about change before he was elected ,but he was'nt specific. I now understand what he was reffering to. socialism . It's just not how our country was built , and it wont work today. I seem to notice that conservatives call domestic spending socialism, but not spending on the military. Personally, I am against bailing out businesses such as banks and car manufacturers, but some spending on domestic projects that need to be done anyway, why not? |
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Feb 17, 2009 6:00:51 GMT -5
Domestic spending that's good:
-Filling pot holes in the road.
-Staffing an effective police force
-Maintaining infrastructure
-Building more jails
Yes, domestic spending is needed. But how much and on what? Where does it end? We are giving people tax "refund" checks that don't even pay federal taxes.
There's a guy at work with 5 kids and a stay at home wife. Probably makes $10 bucks an hour. When we have OT available, he NEVER takes it because if he goes over a certain income level, he will not qualify for some of the programs he's on. A lazy sleaze bag who is working the system. How many of these guys are out there?
This administration will add to these "entitled" people. And these people will grow even more needy and will add others to the list of suckling pigs on the teat of gov't.
As the American people become more and more dumbed down....more and more reliant on the gov't for support, the working class and entrepreneurs will get tired. There will be more class envey then ever and the dividing line between rich and poor will grow. Sort of like the difference seen in a communist country.
A mess in the making and getting worse year after year. Dumbing down the masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 17, 2009 6:52:08 GMT -5
I seem to notice that conservatives call domestic spending socialism, but not spending on the military. SNIP The Constitution, seems to agree: Article I, Section 8 - The Legislative Branch - "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy" Article II, Section 2 - The Executive Branch - "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" I suppose we could put going back to "the Draft" on the ballot, but somehow I don't think many folks would be in favor of that....especially the military since they prefer trained people that want the job! Oh, and by the way I love this bumper sticker: If You Can Read This Thank A Teacher If You Can Read This In English Thank A Soldier!edge |
|
|
|
Post by youp50 on Feb 17, 2009 9:11:11 GMT -5
It is really quite simple. We want it that way.
We want low priced foreign manufactured goods, regardless of the jobs it sent overseas.
We want the government to supply us with cake and entertainment.
We want the government to keep us safe form the gun toting radicals.
We want the two party system of Democracy. Now there is the main problem. We as a country have departed from being a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC into a Democracy. Mostly by distancing ourselves from the Godly priciples set forth by the framers of the Constitution.
That 51% will dictate to the 49%. And the 49% will do nothing about it. You see they are allowed to be productive. Should they decide to become unproductive we will all starve in the dark.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Feb 17, 2009 10:13:31 GMT -5
I am wondering about two things. One........do all bills have to have pork attached to them? Do no bills just pass or fail on their own? Two........there was an expressed urgency for the stimulus bill to pass quickly so that business' could be stimulated and jobs created. Now that the bill has passed both House and Senate, why isn't Congress now in a hurry to send it to the President so that it can be put into action? Am I missing something??!!
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 17, 2009 10:33:17 GMT -5
Unfortunately the bill will be signed today in Denver. This "urgent" 790 billion dollar bill will only spend about 100 billion this entire year! So much for stimulus! There is a very good reason that what Congress passes are called "BILLS", and that is we have to pay for them  edge. |
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 17, 2009 10:35:20 GMT -5
Neither party will allow or pass a Presidential Line Item Veto. That would fix most of this.
The purpose of Government is projects for the COMMON GOOD. Roads are for the common good, available to the public. Schools are. Prisons and law enforcement are.
When the government gets into programs that benefit individuals, or individual corporations, that's not their job, not their business, shouldn't be in their realm. Not only is it just flat wrong to finance these things with coerced income (taxes), but the government is violently inefficient at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by youp50 on Feb 17, 2009 15:35:54 GMT -5
I don't know Wilms. I think you may be a little hard on the guy. He is working, with a paycheck that would be hard pressed for a couple to survive on. I would guess he is not in the top 10 percentile in intelligence. His wife is probably alittle slow, too.
For some reason they have more kids than you think they should. I won't pass judgement there, could be religion or maybe they just plain like kids.
His wife might find a part time job at minimum wage and bring home minimum wage, that after child care payments may net the family 30 bucks a week. I was raised by a stay at home Mom as were my children. No one will look after your children like their Mother. So thirty bucks a week to have your children coming home with an embarassingly broad vocabulary is not a good deal.
Lets see, 10 an hour at 40 per week, less taxes...350 take home? It is obvious that the extra 80 to 100 on the check for an 8 hour time and a half check is a no brainer. Or is it.
I cannot say what goes on where you work, most of the places around here do not offer any health care options for someone making 10 an hour. So if I work then I may lose my families' health care. It only makes sense that this fellow is into the 'system'. Would you trade your families health care for an extra hundred a week? Or maybe your reduced rate hot school lunches, perhaps the extra hundred will go to feed the kids at lunch, when the State could be doing it. From what you say overtime cannot be budgeted where you work.
IMO There has to be a reward for working. If not you would not do it. So if a married family man with a stay at home wife and five kids needs some help, give it to him. Better him than some Wall St bank exec that is more responsible for the problems in the economy than the working poor.
|
|
orion
8 Pointer
Posts: 128
|
Post by orion on Feb 17, 2009 15:56:41 GMT -5
Here is the problem.
How many more times will it take for people to realize the Dems and the Republicans don't give a *** about you or me. And how many more times will they sell us down the river. They have run the country into the ground, and most of us have just sat around and allowed it. Just look at the last several months and the bailouts, now Obama's plan, and the treasury plan. This is nonsense, more of the same that caused the problem.
Abolish the Federal Reserve and Fractional Banking, run the current congress and Senate out into the Potomac. Let the insolvent companies and banks fail, now. Then we have a chance, to rebuild. Neither the Dems nor the Repubs want to let the banks or Wall street fail, or truly want to change the system.
The system is out of control ready to crash.
That would be a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Feb 17, 2009 17:47:53 GMT -5
I don't know Wilms. I think you may be a little hard on the guy. He is working, with a paycheck that would be hard pressed for a couple to survive on. I would guess he is not in the top 10 percentile in intelligence. His wife is probably alittle slow, too. For some reason they have more kids than you think they should. I won't pass judgement there, could be religion or maybe they just plain like kids. His wife might find a part time job at minimum wage and bring home minimum wage, that after child care payments may net the family 30 bucks a week. I was raised by a stay at home Mom as were my children. No one will look after your children like their Mother. So thirty bucks a week to have your children coming home with an embarassingly broad vocabulary is not a good deal. Lets see, 10 an hour at 40 per week, less taxes...350 take home? It is obvious that the extra 80 to 100 on the check for an 8 hour time and a half check is a no brainer. Or is it. I cannot say what goes on where you work, most of the places around here do not offer any health care options for someone making 10 an hour. So if I work then I may lose my families' health care. It only makes sense that this fellow is into the 'system'. Would you trade your families health care for an extra hundred a week? Or maybe your reduced rate hot school lunches, perhaps the extra hundred will go to feed the kids at lunch, when the State could be doing it. From what you say overtime cannot be budgeted where you work. IMO There has to be a reward for working. If not you would not do it. So if a married family man with a stay at home wife and five kids needs some help, give it to him. Better him than some Wall St bank exec that is more responsible for the problems in the economy than the working poor. You really do bring up some interesting points. But that family that you describe was probably the average Amercian family 50-60 years ago. I was brought up in a small two bedroom home that a family of 6 occupied. I slept in a bed with my brother. Noone ever complained about being crowded. We didn't know any better. My parents are both gone now but my siblings and I get together periodically and talk favorably of those old times. They were hard but good. To live to that standard of living in today's times seems appauling. If each child doesn't have his own room with a television, X-box, various games, ipod, and super duper cell phone, not to mention that every liscensed driver MUST have his own vehicle to drive, then we are considered sub-standard. IMO every family should expect to have food, some shelter, electricity, clean water and hopefully some type of a car. If you have that then you are more blessed than 95% of the world. If a man chooses not to work overtime for extra pay so be it. Let him go home and enjoy his family and not complain. He makes the choice. If any of you get a chance to read a biography of Abraham Lincoln you will be amazed. Lincoln suffered from a type of depression all of his life but pressed on. Actually sometimes it got to him. But eventually he pressed on. He grew up with probably MUCH less than this family that is being described here, but fought against this poverty with his endurance and intelligence. Not everyone has ol' Abe's mental capacity of course but unless Lincoln possessed a brutal willingness to survive despite hardship, we would never recognize his name today. I am sorry to say that the contemporary churches have failed miserably in their mission to feed and house the poor. Maybe we just didn't want to get used or taken advantage of. Maybe the one lazy guy that we encountered caused us to tighten our grip on our charity and give to the charity at home (tv, ipod, video games....etc,). I know that this isn't the Christian forum but there is a chapter in the bible that instructs us to give charitably because when we give to someone in need we give to Christ. We now complain that the government is taking money from our paychecks to "spread the wealth". That term makes me as angry as the next guy but I also know that society needs to wake up. Government can't create jobs. Government can only create socialism. That is what we are getting rammed down our throats now. But I swear I believe that it isn't too late to turn from our apathy and demand that the government be given back to the people. Will you call your Congressman? Do you know who he is? If you don't then click on this address to find out. www.visi.com/juan/congress/Stay on them because you love your country and your heritage. I know that we might have other things to do but I wonder if there are many things more important. Doug |
|
|
|
Post by whyohe on Feb 17, 2009 18:07:06 GMT -5
wilms i feel your pain, but can see it both ways cause i have seen it. you have some that work the system cause they are lazy and want some thing for nothing and will put more effort in to getting out of work and working the system than if they just put more into work. but there are thoes that just cant because of the jobs he or she is able to hold doesnt pay well and no benifits. and wants health care for family. fortunately in PA we have a program that gives heath care to childen for these type familys so he can get that over time pay and not worry about that.
un fortunately i see more of the first around here.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Feb 17, 2009 19:30:30 GMT -5
This guy milks his work just like he milks the system. No sympathy from this knuckle grinder.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 17, 2009 21:10:46 GMT -5
I am compassionate for those that are willing to put forth effort!
Personally I do not think the Government should take a single penny from a working family and give it to someone that is unwilling to work!
IMO, if someone that is able to work and wants a handout then they need to do something in return. If you have more children than you can afford, then take your kids to a day care center and help other working families! If your kids are school-age, then help in the kitchen, be a hall monitor, be a teachers aid!
IMO, you can't be a stay at home anything if you are on the dole. No kids, help in the public library, help the aged, if you don't spend 8 hours outside your home then why should you get the fruits of someone else's labor?
I manage a machine shop and one of my department heads was paralyzed and in a wheelchair, but he was at work almost every day...and an able bodied person is sitting at home , watching Oprah, taking drugs, drinking, and making more babies that they can't pay for are taking money out of his paycheck!! Give me a break, that is just sick!
edge.
|
|
