jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (193 posts)

Can Presidents create Jobs?

  1. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

    During Obama's state of the union speech, he stated that he wants the minimum wage raised and is going to raise it for federal employees.  He implied this will create jobs.  The republican party countered with: Where are the jobs?"   House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers in response to the state of the union said: "We don't want government to create jobs for us, we want to do it on our own."  Do you believe the president can create jobs or that free market economy can create jobs, just by its natural process?  What are the positive and negative aspects of both sides?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The President can create jobs by starting another war.

      Outside of that, though, very little can be done by the oval office or government in general.  Consider that jobs have to produce something of value; a car, a house, something to eat or something similar.  Government can not do that; what government produces has little to no value in terms of selling it.

      And that in turn means that it must be paid for through taxation, taxation that is now paying for something of very little real value.  The bottom line is that only the free market economy can actually produce jobs that will benefit the country long term.

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Government can reallocate labor from the private sector to the public sector at a cost to economic production and efficiency.  Even the "jobs" created through raising an Army are not really jobs in the, you are correct, they do not add economic value.  It is like the boneheaded argument that unemployment creates jobs.  If that were true why not have everyone on unemployment. 

        The truth is, government is a wagon, some people ride in the wagon and some people pull the wagon. Those who pull the wagon do not have government "created" jobs.  We teeter on the brink of a disaster, the pullers are shrinking in number as the riders are growing in number.  Soon the wagon will be too heavy to pull and America will become Greece.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          +1  The only difference I would have with that is that I was thinking of the war time jobs building bombs, bullets and planes.  They DO produce actual things that are (very occasionally) useful.  They also produce skills and knowledge that are unlikely to come about without the military.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            However they did not arise out of an economic purpose but a reallocation of economic resources to serve something other than an economic aim.  If a war becomes necessary for a societies survival, than a reallocation of resources serves an economic aim - perpetuating that society's economy.  Otherwise it is a mis-allocation of resources best left to the economy to allocate efficiently.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              exactly.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Roads, bridges, railways, dams and so on can all be created by government, provide jobs and add value.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I think that's true, but at the same time find that government isn't really creating the job.  Just providing the money to get the job done.

          A minor objection, though, and I could go either way on whether it is a government job or not.  There are others as well; NASA, research and others along that line actually ARE useful.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Creating government jobs creates tax burden, tax burden reduces commerce and loses jobs in the private sector.
            The president could create the conditions that would advocate the creation of jobs but creating public sector non jobs will increase the burden on the taxpayer.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              How can the government creating jobs lose jobs in the private sector when the private sector is not creating jobs?

              1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                By increasing the tax burden on companies who will then look to consolidate their profits.
                I suppose you think companies never let employees go when profits slip John.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  We're not talking about taxes, we are talking about job creation. Job creation reduces the tax burden, not increase it.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                    Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Only if the jobs are created in the private sector John.

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    But without increased taxes to pay for those jobs, you find inflation and resulting loss of private sector jobs.

                    TANSTAAFL

      3. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well except that the sixth biggest company on Earth is run by a government (at a large profit) and produces a massive portion of the world's oil every year...

        So actually just no.

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not on their own.

    3. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Government only "creates" jobs by taking money from one group and giving it to another. I would rather see an entity that created wealth on it's own use their money to create jobs over a wasteful government bureaucracy.

    4. junkseller profile image91
      junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Who exactly is she referring to when she says we? The free market? That's a pure lie. Corporations have zero interest in creating jobs. That isn't what they do. The beginning, end, and middle of their mission statement is to make profit. If they NEED jobs they will, but if they don't need jobs they'll just as well do that.

      It can't be we the Republicans because the Republicans are the government whom she evidently wants to not exist.

      So her grand plan is to cripple the organization which actually cares about doing things for the people (the government) and hand over control to the organization which cares nothing about doing what she suggests it will do. It is idiotic and as vapid and vacuous as the stupid prayer crap she spewed out at the end.

      Republicans have a plan. Sure they do, it's just invisible and relies on fairy dust.

    5. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Some DID and CAN create jobs and stimulate the economy.  Sadly, Obama is paralyzing the economy in more ways than one.

    6. JordanGabriel profile image59
      JordanGabrielposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately the free market does not correct for externalities and corporate abuse. Until ethics evolve at the rate of financial innovation it will be the job of government to effectively intervene and than leave well enough alone. If one views an appallingly low minimum wage through the glasses of corporate greed, than an intervention would be appropriate. It all depends on your outlook. It may not create jobs right away, but it will improve efficiency.

  2. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago

    The bottom line is this.  The only way government can "create" jobs is by reducing regulations on businesses.  When government raises the minimum wage, for instance, business owners will consolidate their employees or eliminate full time positions to reduce their overhead.  Larger businesses can absord the losses but small and mid-sized companies may be forced out of business when over-regulation becomes too encumbering.  In the end, only the biggest and strongest companies will survive, but the American economy is built on the backs of small and medium sized businesses and will not survive until those opportunities thrive again.

    The solution is simple.  Lower, not raise wage standards, reduce the tax burden on business and eliminate foreign goods exchange treaties like NAFTA and allow American business to grow again.  Minimum wage standards do not affect enough low income workers to be significant in a thriving economy and are only necessary when the government knows it has managed to ruin job growth to the point where regulating wages has become necessary.

    For those who are working minimum wage jobs, a thriving job market is more competitive and those with the drive, skills and ambition will succeed in achieving better income while those who are incapable of adapting or who are too lazy will have to be content to take lower paying jobs.  For those who are incapable of climbing the ladder, I am not opposed to offering them government assistance to level their status with those who are more fortunate, but only for those who are willing to make the effort.  The lazy ones who prefer to lounge around the house and do nothing deserve nothing and will eventually be forced to either look for work or starve.  This will, in turn, lower the tax burden on those that do work and make things better for society and the economy all the way around.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So what you are saying is "screw the workers to maintain corporate profits"

      1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
        BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No, John, what I'm saying is "If you like your current job, you can keep it. " But if you want to complain about how little it pays, go out and get a better one.  Kind of like I did.  If there aren't any "better" jobs that you're qualified for, then either improve your qualifications or blame the government for over-regulation.  Quit whining about corporate profits.  Anyone can succeed in bettering their own circumstances.  They have to lose the 'victim' mentality and be willing to make a change.

      2. Superkev profile image88
        Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What he's saying is he never got a job from a poor man John.

        1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
          BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And robbing from the rich will never make a poor man rich either.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In theory a free market economy is a good thing, by free market, I mean little or no regulation.  However, in practice, it doesn't work, because of human nature.  Human nature includes greed.  The banking and investment industries were deregulated to the point where their greed and corruption created the financial meltdown which was the major factor in many middle and small size companies going down the tubes.  The banks and investment companies could make more money by investing in exotic instruments that were brought about by deregulation, than loan money to business for short term loans which is their life blood.

      When companies like MacDonald's and Walmart tell their employees to go find an additional job to make ends meet, while their corporate profits soar through the roof, something is wrong with that picture.  I don't see young people flipping burgers at MacDonald or young people at Walmart.  I see middle age people trying to earn a living, not young people putting them selves through college. Corporations like MacDonald and Walmart are beholden to their stock holders and members of their board. They could care less about their employees and look at them as being expendable.  Costco on the other hand treats employee with respect and pays them a decent wage.  They take that money at put it in to the main stream of the economy which creates more jobs.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sure thing - we "deregulated" the banks by requiring them to increase the percentage of substandard loans beyond any reasonable figure.  Gotta keep the constituents happy; give 'em a mortgage they can't afford!

        Whereupon the system failed, which everyone except the liberal do-gooders knew it would, and the recession hit us all.  Regulation was the root cause of the economy failure, not de-regulation.  Can't convince the liberals of that, though - I see mutterings recently they want to repeat the process again, requiring banks to once again make more substandard loans. 

        WalMart profits "soaring" - have you calculated how much WalMart makes per employee hour worked?  And how much they could afford to give each employee in the way of a raise if they spent that entire profit in so doing?  The number will shock you - it isn't WalMart management holding wages down; it is a customer base that refuses to pay enough to cover higher wages.  That's you, I and the neighbor down the street, not the CEO.

  3. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago

    "When companies like MacDonald's and Walmart tell their employees to go find an additional job to make ends meet, while their corporate profits soar through the roof, something is wrong with that picture.  I don't see young people flipping burgers at MacDonald or young people at Walmart.  I see middle age people trying to earn a living, not young people putting them selves through college. "

    You've hit the nail on the head, PeoplePower.  And you're making my point.  Thanks to limited opportunities due to government overregulation, people don't have the options that they had years ago when it came to finding a decent job.  If people are working for Walmart or McDonald's, there are two possible reasons.  One - There aren't any other jobs or Two - They're too lazy to look for one.  It isn't the fact that they're working too much.  Neither Walmart nor McDonald's generally employ people full time anymore thanks to government regulation.

    You talk about corporate profit like it's a bad thing.  Actually, corporate profits are what drive strong economies.  When a company makes "obscene" amounts of money, they also pay more in taxes as do the shareholders of that company.  They also expand and put even more people to work.  As I said in my previous argument, when people have options, though, they will go to work for an employer (like Costco, for instance) that treats workers better and those that are still working for Walmart are exactly where they deserve to be.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      BernietheMovieGuy: Again in theory what you say is true, but in practice it does not work that way. Many big corporations pay zero in taxes because of loop holes setup by the congressman that they contribute campaign contributions.  They also hide a lot of their earnings off shore in the Cayman Islands and in unnumbered Swiss bank accounts. Trickle down supply side economics does not work. The money trickles side ways to the places I just mentioned.  Take a look at this from U.S.A Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus … s/2480281/

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I read your link, did you?
        You seem to be criticizing the companies for playing by the rules.

        Of course there are probably instances of "special favor" loopholes, but according to your link, it did not appear to be "hiding" money off-shore - more like smart and legal business practices.

        It is a complicated issue. Not well served by pithy generalizations and sound bites. For instance how do you feel about the explanation for Verizon's apparent -4.8% tax liability when it is further explained that it is primarily due to such a large foreign ownership position, and that the U.S. ownership position will in fact be looking at a 30% tax rate? (I don't know if this is correct or not - just pulling it from your linked article)

        ps. do you tip well at a regular restaurant or barber shop? If so, would it have crossed your mind that to do so might generate good will and perhaps even a higher level of service next time?

        Don't blame the "big" companies for buying favor, it is no different from your tipping a server or barber - blame the person bought instead, that is the real issue.

        Or at least that is how I see it.

        GA

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The biggest difference between tipping at a restaurant and spending money on powerful politicians is that the waiter can't pass legislation that punishes you and rewards another customer who tips better.  If the central government wasn't so powerful and populated by an avaricious, ersatz nobility than businesses would not feel compelled to protect themselves from the capriciousness of legislators and regulators.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            hmmm... But the waiter could decide whether you got your food before it got cold, or the bigger tipper got his fist. As I said... "same same"

            Your last sentence is essential what I said, so of course I agree.

            GA

            1. L.M. Hosler profile image86
              L.M. Hoslerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As a former waitress, I can assure you the bigger tipper is going to get his food first. Many servers also managed to slip the big tippers a few extras on the side also.

      2. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
        BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So you quote a source from the lamestream media to justify your case?  Really?

        Greed does indeed exist and it always will.  But it doesn't justify the premise of your question.  Whether greed exists or not, the government attempting to tie the hands of private sector business growth will never create jobs or put people back to work.  Don't you get it?

        Walmart and McDonalds executives are greedy.  So what?  They don't pay their people decently.  Again, so what?  If there were other jobs and their employees could get them, do you think they'd be working there if they had any ambition?  The point I'm making is simple.  Government needs to stop over regulating.  All they do is put more people out of work.  Government can't fix itself let alone the economy so it needs to do what government can only do best but notoriously doesn't like to do.  And that is get out of the way.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The point I'm trying to make is simple.  Government goes out of the way and that is what created the financial meltdown where people lost their homes and jobs.  It was deregulation that allowed sub-prime mortgages with low initial interest rates that allowed people to buy homes and then jacked up the interest rates after so many months to the point where people could not afford the payments.  It was deregulation that allowed those mortgages to be bundled and sold as collateralize debt obligations.  It was deregulation that allowed banks and investment companies to co-mingle their assets so that they could bet on those investments going down the tubes and make gazzilion of dollars from toxic assets. When the owners could no afford their homes, the whole system came crashing down like a house of cards.  It put people out of work and out of their homes.  It is deregulation that allows big corporations to not pay any taxes.  It is deregulation that cause the BP oil spill because BP was allowed to do its own quality inspections.  It was deregulation that caused the salmonella out break in the chicken ranches.  It was deregulation that caused the mine explosions in New Mexico. Don't you get it.  Government does serve a purpose.  The government in the context that I presented is trying to protect us from greed and corruption of big moneyed interest and corporations.

          1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
            BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, now you're off on an entirely diffferent tangent, though.  And the housing market is another prime example of an industry that the government got involved with where they should have stayed out.  The government forced lenders to allow people to buy homes which the banks KNEW they could never qualify for.  It was only a matter of time before the balloon payment mortgagaes imploded and people were put out in the street.  They were people who should never been allowed to buy the homes they did but they were encouraged by the government to buy homes that the government KNEW they couldn't afford but were given the opportunity by officials who felt that the banking industry was too discriminatory.

            Government serves no purpose other than to protect the people from itself.  Frankly, the repercussions of the incidents you refer to, like BP and the chicken ranches, will end up doing more damage to those companies than anything the government can do to them.  But, please, explain to me how "deregulation" caused the salmonella outbreak, the BP oil spill and the mine explosion.  Let's think about this.  If an inspection occurs and the faults are discovered and corrected, accidents can still occur and inspectors miss things all the time.  In my community, we have government sponsored rental inspections of apartments.  Even after the inspectors are done and deficiencies corrected, you can't prevent tenants from making their units unsafe again.  By the same token, a business' unsafe practices won't be cured by inspections and accidents will still happen.  If you honestly believe that government can correct 'everything' with regulation, I hope you never find yourself a victim of that extreme liberal point of view.  Government IS the problem, not the solution.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image88
              peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Here are the facts:  The biggest cause of the 1929 crash was that investment companies and commercial banks co-mingled their assets.  That means that investment companies could act as banks and banks could act as investment companies.  In 1933, the Glass-Stegal Act was passed to prevent this from happening again.  All was well until 1980 when Reagan deregulated the savings and loans institutions so that there was no ceiling on what mom and pop banks could loan.  This created the Saving and Loan debacle of the 80's where mortgages were leveraged to the hilt and the housing market crashed.

              For the next ten years, the banksters and wall street nibbled away at the Glass-Stegal Act trying to deregulate it.  In 1990, they were successful when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act repealed Glass-Stegal.  Now the banks and investment companies could do the same thing they did in 1929 and lo and behold we had another crash that almost did the country in.  Deregulaton of Glass Stegal caused that.

              The BP oil spill was caused because the procedures that were normally performed by MMS were deregulated.  This allowed BP to do their own inspections and cut corners and costs which resulted in the oil spill.
              The USDA inspects chicken ranches for salmonella outbreaks, but deregulation of those inspections caused those ranches to be infected by salmonella.  The mine explosions were caused by deregulated the safety procedures for those mines.

              The Virginia Toxic chemicals that contaminated the Elk River was caused because the toxic chemicals were not inspected since 1997.  The EPA inspections were deregulated.  You see the theme here is that big corporations will do anything or nothing to increase their bottom line, even at the expense of the public.  The effect of this is that people are put out of work and economies go down the tubes.  But that is the symptom.  The cause is that our congress is bought off by these corporations and big moneyed interests.  They are in a perpetual campaign mode to get re-elected and the corporations and big moneyed interests pay for these campaigns and get the deregulation they so desire.  The congressman in turn look the other way.

              1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
                BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, so you're saying that government bureaucracy will fix that?  Really?  I'd like to see your evidence that government can prevent anything negative from happening to this already devastated economy.  If you can prove that raising the minimum wage and sticking their governmental noses into any company's business will guarantee that people will be put back to work, I'm all ears.  If you don't have the evidence, though, then instead of passing more and more onerous regulations that will only end up closing down more factories and putting more and more people on the unemployment line, then maybe you need to review your own rhetoric and get on the bandwagon of deregulation, my friend.

                At last estimate that I heard, nearly 40% of the working age population in America is either un- or underemployed.  You can believe the BS 5% number if you really want to, but I know quite a few people who are out of work and their unemployment benefits have run out.  They've given up on finding a decent job too.  They are now on welfare, which is where Barack Obama and the Democrats want them.  The trouble is, once you let someone suckle the government teat for free money, it's extremely hard to wean them off of it.  When I got laid of at the end of 2009, I wasn't on unemployment for more than three months before I found a job.  It's funny to see, though, how many people ride it out rather than take any job they can get.  We live in an extraordinarily lazy society.  And that's the biggest objection that I have to the highbrow liberals.  They advocate for poor life choices then reward the losers for making them.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't say that government bureaucracy will fix anything. I did not say that the government can prevent anything bad from happening. I did not say that raising the minimum wage and putting government's noses in business will put people back to work. I'm saying by removing good laws that protected people is what put them out of work. You just don't get it What I'm saying is that laws that were in place to protect the people from exploitation by private enterprise's greed and corruption were removed. Picture highways without any speed limits, lanes or stop signals, or any laws. It would be pure chaos.  That's what happened in the financial meltdown. The law makers removed the laws because they were paid off by the people who wanted them removed.  We are a nation of laws.  When good  laws are removed to benefit the corporations and big moneyed interest, it puts people out of work.  That is bad. By the way.  If you want the government out of your business, why is the GOP asking Obama "Where are the Jobs?"  On the one hand you don't want government, but you want Obama to create jobs.

                  I take it you got yours and you don't give a damn about anybody else.  If they don't make it, tough!  By the way 7% unemployment means 97% of the work force is working.  So 97 percent are not on the government teat. Prove to me that it's 40%.

                  1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
                    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You're buying into the liberal media's reporting of the bureau of labor statistic.  The current unemployment figure, whatever it is now, reports only those people that are on unemployment and actively looking for work.  Those that are no longer looking and whose unemployment have run out are no longer counted in that number.

                    A friend of mine lost his job about the same time I did.  As stated, I found a job about three months later.  My friend decided to let the government continue to pay him to be lazy.  Two years later, he received a letter from the Department of Labor telling him that the last of his unemployment benefits was coming to an end.  Instead of giving him ideas or the suggestion that, just maybe, he might need to get off his ass and go back to work, they sent him instructions on how to apply for welfare.  Today, he's on welfare and working, under the table, for a small diner as a line cook.  I reported him and was told by social services that an investigation would be initiated.  Three years later, nothing has changed.  The irony, as I understand it, is that this is the norm, not the exception.

                    The other numbers that are NOT reported are those that are currently underemployed.  Many people, thanks to businesses response to the onerous regulations and the increased minimum wage, have gone from being full time employees working 40 hours or more plus overtime to working 25 hours or less.  As an example, the last time the minimum wage was hiked here in New York, a company I worked for reduced the entire workforce of the company from roughly 50 hours a week down to 30.  We all worked hard and depended on that overtime when it was available to us to make ends meet.  Now, the employees struggle to pay their bills every month thanks to government meddling.

                    Government passes laws in their efforts to say "we did something wonderful for you" and instead end up messing with peoples lives and livelihoods.  Do we need laws to protect us?  Maybe.  But when the government tries to be a nanny state about it and over regulates everything they can about a company's business practices, is it any wonder that those companies will move operations out of the US where they can pay whatever they want to and not have big brother looking over their shoulders?

                    Funny, too, that you mentioned speed limits as part of your argument.  Speed limits are the perfect example of the nanny state enforcing itself on the populace.  I drive for a living and see people of all skills out on the road and a lot of drivers who think they're good trying to push their way past better and more experienced drivers regardless of the speed limit or conditions.  I will happily point out that, in thirty years of driving, 25 of which were for various professions, I have never been responsible for an accident - I have had three (I was hit by a drunk once, sideswiped on the highway and someone tried to U-turn from the wrong lane in front of me.)  Not a bad record for 1.5 million miles of logged driving, eh?  And you say "I got mine and to hell with everyone else"?  Yeah, I guess that would sum up my attitude, given that I worked to get where I am today.

                    As to my personal circumstances, let me tell you a bit about myself.  I am a fifty year old high school graduate with one year of college under my belt.  My life circumstances in 1985 were not good.  I dropped out of college to take two full time jobs to make ends meet.  They were subsistance wage jobs which eventually morphed into management positions.  I wasn't happy so I bounced from job to job throughout the '90s and '00's often working multiple jobs to survive (at one point, I was working 9 different jobs at once for nearly a year).  I always had the drive and ambition to change my circumstances, though.  Today, I own four thriving businesses which I can run myself with no employees or support services (other than legal help when I need to force collections from the companies for which I provide my services - but then again, I write most of my legal drafts myself.  I just ask for advice when I need it.  I have extremely strong verbal and mathematical skills (My IQ was measured at 167) but when it comes to politics and government, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer admittedly. I do know and see enough of what is going on to understand that this country is moving in the wrong direction and things need to change if we are to survive.  That's why I work to educate low information voters at every opportunity.  Those who would seek to keep the progressive liberals in charge of our government will destroy all that is left of our great nation.

  4. Two Minute Review profile image60
    Two Minute Reviewposted 2 years ago

    I don't think that a president can create jobs quite as well as he can kill them, or prevent their creation. Two easy examples are also fairly recent:
    KILLING JOBS - The only primary lead smelter in the US was regulated out of existence last fall when the EPA (part of the Executive branch) raised the minimum pollution standards for a certain chemical. This impossibly high bar would have cost the company millions of dollars in equipment retro-fits, so it had no choice but to close. The new energy standards applied to lightbulbs under Bush has led to the closing of several manufacturing plants in the US, due to the phase-out of incandescent bulbs.

    PREVENT THEIR CREATION - Despite numerous reports that show no adverse environmental impact to its construction, the president continues to dither about whether to green-light the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which will carry energy from Canada to Nebraska where it will link up with other existing pipelines. This project will create thousands of jobs, thie kind that the president always talks about - well-paying, union, infrastructure jobs. Yet he continues to drag his feet because he is terrified of the environmental lobby.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In a global economy we will just go overseas to buy our lead from a company that I am sure is operating under the same EPA directives. Yeah Right! This is one of the underlying things that we don't get. If you are going to compete with another company we must have the same rules in place. Is the EPA going to consult the correct authorities when the lead is imported cleansed of its cost restrictions the American company had to adhere too? But this is just a rambling that gets in the way of profits.
      As far as Obama dithering on a subject I think 5 years has taught us all what power the presidency holds when trying to enact anything. Special interest is entrenched in our politics so firmly that no one can get anything done without the right palm getting greased.

  5. Suree Sompamit profile image60
    Suree Sompamitposted 2 years ago

    We the people are the ones responsible for creating jobs. People with big dreams, the future CEO's, go out there and build your dream company, take risks, and start something new.

    1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
      BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good luck cutting through all the governmental red tape.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    The increasing demand of the people for entitlements, ("an entitlement is a guarantee of access to something, such as to welfare benefits, based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with a legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement," wikipedia,) will create a big headache for the government. It will wish the people would just shut up and find their own jobs and make their own darn money.
    ...like they used to do in the good ol' days.

  7. cutemalik profile image59
    cutemalikposted 2 years ago

    hello mr widerness ?? how are you

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    - the spirit of mankind flourishes in liberty. Does socialism provide liberty?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Socialism provides equality.  For all but those that are at the top, and thus not equal anyway.

      And a steadily lowering of standard of living for any nation of of any size.  It can only work in small groups.  Nowhere is freedom of much concern, only conformity.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well you know except for the skyrocketing standard of living in say Brazil or India nations with hundreds of millions or billions of people...

        As for conformity there is no ideology more devoted to encouraging a full spectrum of humanity, socialism is an economic ideology, it's cultural and social aspect is incredibly libertine, we don't force/encourage nationalism, any sexuality, any religion, any culture, any language... the US on the other hand...

        Well it does a fair bit of the conformity thing.

        Notice for example all the conservative anger at an advertisement which had "America the Beautiful in Spanish". Guarantee you won't find a socialist angry about it.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          We need boundaries.  Unfortunately, many of the  boundaries were based on what you mention, but they were based on cultural biases. They are fading away in the interest of common kindness. Had nuthin' to do with the government.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Socialism, if not agreed upon 100 percent, will serve to tyrannize over those who oppose it.
    Therefore socialism will always equal 100 percent tyranny.
    NO MATTER HOW GREAT SOME CLAIM IT IS!

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Any system oppresses those who oppose it. You think socialists live their lives as they want to in America? Of course not, they are (if you want to put it that way) oppressed.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        They have freedom just like everyone else.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...maybe they oppress themselves. How sad for them.

          Well, I heard some people talkin' just the other day
          And they said you were gonna put me on a shelf
          But let me tell you I got some news for you
          And you'll soon find out it's true
          And then you'll have to eat your lunch all by yourself

          'Cause I'm already gone
          And I'm feelin' strong
          I will sing this victory song
          Woo hoo hoo, my my, woo hoo hoo

          The letter that you wrote me made me stop and wonder why
          But I guess you felt like you had to set things right
          Just remember this, my girl, when you look up in the sky
          You can see the stars and still not see the light, that's right

          And I'm already gone
          And I'm feelin' strong
          I will sing this victory song
          Woo hoo hoo, my my, woo hoo hoo

          Well I know it wasn't you who held me down
          Heaven knows it wasn't you who set me free
          So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
          And we never even know we have the key

          But me, I'm already gone
          And I'm feelin' strong
          I will sing this victory song
          'Cause I'm already gone

          Yes, I'm already gone
          And I'm feelin' strong
          I will sing this victory song
          'Cause I'm already gone

          Yes, I'm already gone
          Already gone, all right, nighty night
          Already gone
          Already gone

 
working