Who's Gonna Win The Jobs Debate?

Politics US Politics
1

I am stoked for President Obama’s jobs speech. Really. Back to the wall. Guns blazing. Whoo! I cannot wait.

And it appears that Mitt can’t wait either. :laughing:
usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo … 50265720/1

OK, good, blame the other guy.

[quote]
For my part, I believe America can do better. I have spent most of my career in the private sector starting new businesses and turning around ailing ones. Unlike career politicians who’ve never met a payroll, I know why jobs come and go.[/quote]
Good good, no details. Let the Press handle that![quote]

oday, I’m introducing a plan consisting of 59 specific proposals — including 10 concrete actions I will take on my first day in office — to turn around America’s economy. Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs.[/quote]
Good. Who wants government jobs with their health care and benefits and never getting fired for anything you do even if it’s reall really fucked up.

Good good. Taxes bad. Growth good.

BINGO! Mitt just got my vote.

but please, go on…

[quote]
Our corporate tax rate is among the world’s highest. It leaves U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage and induces them to park their profits abroad, benefiting the rest of the world at our expense.[/quote]
Good, but we know big companies are sitting on tons of cash now and just won’t spend it…so how you gonna get them to spend it here in the US?

Yer losing me Mitt…saaanooooz.

Good good. What we got is better than Zimbabwe anyhow.

[quote]
I will create the “Reagan Economic Zone,” a partnership among countries committed to free enterprise and free trade. It will serve as a powerful engine for opening markets to our goods and services, and also a mechanism for confronting nations like China that violate trade rules while free-riding on the international system. I will not stand by while China pursues an economic development policy that relies on the unfair treatment of U.S. companies and the theft of their intellectual property. I have no interest in starting a trade war with China, but I cannot accept our current trade surrender.[/quote]
Good good. Recognize the bad guy.

[quote]
I will ensure we utilize to the fullest extent our nation’s nuclear know-how and immense reserves in oil, gas and coal. By rationalizing and streamlining regulation, we will harness these resources everywhere it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns. A huge number of jobs is at stake. So, too, is the price of energy, which strongly influences economic growth. We are an energy-rich country that, thanks to environmental extremism, has chosen to live like an energy-poor country. That has to end.[/quote]
Drill baby![quote]

I will restore fiscal discipline by cutting the federal budget and placing an ironclad cap on spending. I will also press for a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Tellingly, while the private sector shed 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office, the federal workforce grew by 142,500, or almost 7%. A rollback is urgently required.[/quote]
Rollback the IRS and the EPA, right?

And there it is. On a point system, for me anyway, Mitt gets 1 point. It’s bullshit that public companies get taxed, then dividends from those companies get taxed, then capital gains from the sale of shares (many created from dividend DRIPs) gets taxed again! Get rid of it. Give me the cash. I promise I’ll spend it in America!

Mr Obama has the floor Thursday night, BEFORE the game! Be here or be square!

2

Not to knock your in-depth analysis, but the person who will win the “debate” will be the person who parrots “I will create jobs by cutting your taxes and building a factory/supporting ‘clean coal’ technology/invest in green technology/applicable industry here in your hometown!”

The end.

3

Don’t think anyone’s actually going win it.

But some will lose.

4

I’d like to watch the speach, but I can’t stand the way that the substance of the speach is already known and republican candidates are already chest thumping, nay saying, and offering up their own thoughts. It seems glaringly clear that no relief will be permitted, because no actions will be allowed to be taken, until after the election. This does NOTHING to help the republican cause, as far as I’m concerned.

Also, from the scope and range of Obama’s proposal, at least what I’ve heard about it, it seems like he may have no real plans to attempt to stay in office, anyway. If that’s the case, I hope he says something soon so that another good candidate can be found.

5

[quote=“Jaboney”]Don’t think anyone’s actually going win it.

But some will lose.[/quote]
Right. I’m waiting for Perry. He’s gonna scoop them all methinks.

I think Ole Mitt has a good thing going with that middle class interest, dividend and cap gains relief though. I don’t know the bottom, but the top of the middle class is what 250K/year? People are selling down their portfolios to pay their bills in a shitcan economy. Getting socked with a cap gains tax is a bootkick in the nuts. Remember that GW’s first action was to lower the cap gains tax to a flat 15%. Me likey. Likey a lot. Hitch up them magic underpants and score Mitt! :thumbsup:

6

[quote=“Mitt Romney”]
I will create the “Reagan Economic Zone,” a partnership among countries committed to free enterprise and free trade. It will serve as a powerful engine for opening markets to our goods and services, and also a mechanism for confronting nations like China that violate trade rules while free-riding on the international system. I will not stand by while China pursues an economic development policy that relies on the unfair treatment of U.S. companies and the theft of their intellectual property. I have no interest in starting a trade war with China, but I cannot accept our current trade surrender.[/quote]

I’d support Romney over Obama in a country second, but this is where I think Huntsman’s Asia stances would be slightly more nuanced or where Perry would rely on seasoned advisors rather than making statements like the above Romney statement. I really don’t think Romney understands Chinese culture! :laughing: :smiley:

You don’t get anywhere with the Chinese with confrontation and when you do threaten you don’t do it out in the open. You do it behind closed doors so face isn’t an issue. Love Reagan, but the REZ idea is strange and putting this out in the open during the campaign is a tactical mistake.

I think China has made a lot of progress in playing by the rules. Whether it’s joining the WTO (where there are mechanisms for disputes on the issues Romney mentions), relaxing their preferential local innovation and procurement preferences (American Chamber of Commerce in China recently lauded this relaxation), and buying up so much of the world’s resources, they’ve shown a commitment to free trade and a neo-liberal agenda. Has the US? :laughing: :laughing: There are lots of very discriminatory measures that have been on the books for years (see link below at HUD). Would this make the US not qualified for Reagan Economic Zone status? :laughing: :laughing: :smiley:

Romney is coming across as ultra sanctimonious here!!!

portal.hud.gov:80/hudportal/HUD? … sbSetAside

7

I’ve got bad news for you…the situation isn’t going to change much. Already, many multi nationals are pulling staff out of US head offices and transferring them to ASIA. Gov’t can spat all they want. Job prospects are going to remain numb for the long term. US is going through a painful change right now, it’s tough getting knocked off the stool after so many years, oh well, bound to happen. Good thing is that we will be able to pick up some cheap real estate…

8

Romney was a director of Bain & Co, a infamous private equity firm. Do people actually know what private equity firms do? Do they understand how they make money from their investments? I mean a venture capital fund or a long-term hedge fund I might have some time for but a private equity fund?
Is the quality of discourse that bad there?

Romney says he created 10,000s of jobs when at Bain. Then Perry doesn’t criticise this statement (as it would go against their ideology), says Romney did a good job in the private sector at creating jobs but not when we worked in a public position. Bizarre stuff.

9

Do you have a link for that?

I know that many multi nats are sitting on huge hordes of cash, and sending top execs and staff into Asia is a smart move (that’s where the money is these days) but I don’t know if that means they don’t plan on using the money in the US when new deregulation occurs.

10

You got to push and pull like everything in life. You got to bully and seduce. The US doesn’t have a clue how to play that game, obviously countries such as China and Brazil do.
You say to the companies, we can play the easy way, we give you a huge tax rebate on any investment into the country. You don’t invest you get hit with extra taxes in imports or an extra sales tax.
The US is the world’s biggest single market, it has the biggest damn carrot in the whole world. You have to wonder is it companies that control the government there, it sure looks like it.

But no the US constantly ties it’s hands with a religious like ideology of the ‘free market’. Even Obama has to speak the same language it seems. To me the failure is ultimately down to getting stuck on ideology and refusing to admit mistakes or move in a new direction, a practical direction. Just because you adjust a policy here or there doesn’t make you a socialist or a capitalist, you should be a realist. Look at China, it is Communist but actually it is a realist first. The same with Brazil, it is socialist but it is by being realistic that they have moved forward in leaps and bounds.

About China ‘playing by the rules’, what planet are you on? Do you think China is interested to play by rules. They play the game to win for themselves. This is not kids sitting around a table with a parent that is going to supervise and make sure known of them cheat. It has a vastly undervalued currency, is that even in your rulebook? Who cares about the game you are supposed to be playing when they just skirt right around it. It’s just dumb to put the whole thing in a framework as if there was nice fixed framework for everything that covered all the possibilities and that the game was fair to begin with, that all the players had an equal chance of benefiting from the game. Need to jump up a few IQ points to get the whole picture of what is going on. It’s like the US has a 2D view of the world and the Chinese a 3D view , a much broader perspective. Perhaps that broader perspective was afforded to them by the failed cultural revolution, the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and the rise of prosperity on other Asian nations. I don’t know. But whatever it was I really think they acheived a kind of mental breakthrough which was exemplified by Deng’s quote ‘It doesn’t matter if it is a black cat or white cat, as long as it catches mice’. It all boils down to the mental breakthrough that ideology is a dead end, it’s concrete results that matter.The US is even going to sign 3 more trade bills soon which practically guarantee more job losses (the major one being an FTA with manufacturing giant South Korea), it is in the terms of the bills that financial compensation will have to be paid for the job losses, it’s all there in black and white. It’s accepted that this is a likely event, yet they are still going to be signed. That’s ideology at work folks, right there.

I don’t know why I get so animated with this topic, I’m not even American! I just find it amazing that a country with such success as America can be so blind to how the world actually works sometimes.

11

powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … energy.php[quote]
Want More Jobs? The Low-Hanging Fruit Is Energy

Everyone knows that Obama’s jobs program is a joke; but let’s assume that you actually do want to help create a million or more jobs, while simultaneously increasing government revenues by many billions of dollars. How would you do it? It’s actually easy: just stop the irrational antagonism to energy development that is America’s most glaring public policy failure.[/quote]

I expect he’ll do nothing…and even if he does, it’ll be too little too late and most probably contrary to what he said previously. :thumbsdown:

12

That’s some stupid statement from the start, it’s like everybody knows Allah is the one true God. Dumb…dumb…dumb.

Look into the article you quoted. There are major environmental issues at stake here, not something you can just decide overnight because you want more jobs.

-Fracking
-Deepwater drilling

13

That’s some stupid statement from the start, it’s like everybody knows Allah is the one true God. Dumb…dumb…dumb.

Look into the article you quoted. There are major environmental issues at stake here, not something you can just decide overnight because you want more jobs.

-Fracking
-Deepwater drilling[/quote]

[quote]
For all its soaring rhetoric, President Obama’s “jobs speech” last week didn’t demonstrate a lick of insight into why economies grow or how wealth is created. It was merely trademark Obamanomics: using government diktat to move money that’s over here, over there.

Having spent an hour the day before with Ron Liepert, the energy minister from the Canadian province of Alberta, I found it especially disturbing to hear nothing in the speech about reversing the administration’s anti-fossil-fuels agenda. Canada has recovered all the jobs it lost in the 2009 recession, and Alberta’s oil sands are no small part of that. The province is on track to become the world’s second-largest oil producer, after Saudi Arabia, within 10 years. Meanwhile Mr. Obama clings to his subsidies for solar panels and his religious faith in green jobs.

U.S. unemployment is high because capital is on strike. Short-term offers to coax investors into taking new risks aren’t going to cut it when they have been forewarned that the president intends to pay for it all by raising taxes in the out years. The market dropped over 300 points the day after Mr. Obama’s speech.

On the regulatory front the picture is even gloomier. Much of America’s vast untapped energy potential lies dormant because Mr. Obama’s regulatory watchdogs have spent the past three years throwing sand in the gears of the permitting process for exploration and exploitation on federal lands. Separately, TransCanada has been trying since September 2008 to get a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. The Environmental Protection Agency has so far blocked it. [/quote]
online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 69412.html

US Capital is on strike. That’s a great way to put it. But why should they do that?[quote]
Alberta’s oil and gas industry supports more than 271,000 direct jobs and hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs in sectors such as construction, manufacturing and financial services. The province has an unemployment rate of 5.6%. There are also some 960 American companies involved in Alberta energy, supplying equipment and technology, among other things. As an example, Mr. Liepert says, “dozens of Caterpillar tractors, made in Illinois and Michigan and costing $5 million a piece” work the oil sands. He says the region is on track to create more than 400,000 direct American jobs by 2035. The Bakken region of North Dakota, where private land ownership gives drillers relief from federal obstructionism, shares a similar, if smaller, story. Oil production there is booming, and North Dakota unemployment is 3.3%.[/quote]
Ah, because deregulation, particularly in oil and natural gas exploration in the US would create a buttload of jobs and ten buttloads of indirect jobs. The big companies sit on their cash because they don’t trust the government to make the playing field level, instead of an inverted slide going into Washington DC’s gaping maw. They, and I, think that working people spend money and they spend more of it when they HAVE more of it and they make more of it when government gets the ef out of the way.

14

From the New York Times:

Plan will not help jobs situation…

…few executives are saying that President Obama’s jobs plan — while welcome — will change their minds any time soon. That sentiment was echoed across numerous industries by executives in companies big and small on Friday, underscoring the challenge for the Obama administration as it tries to encourage hiring and perk up the moribund economy.

Well, what do those guys know, anyway? :idunno:

15

No, any article that starts… “Everybody knows”…is not worth reading, that’s the point.

16

well, everyone knows that! :laughing:

Read the NYT article then. Obama is trying to rule via proclamation. It’s not going to work. The tiny tax credit for hiring the long term unemployed is not going to work (well maybe for GE as they have 100s of thousands of employees). What WILL work? Jobs. Getting out of the way and letting the CEOs of the companies create jobs and then allowing taxpayers to drive demand.

Oh and did you see that Obama lowered the cutoff to 200K? Those filthy millionaires! :raspberry:

Additionally, Unions aren’t none too happy with the head cheese either:[quote]
Unions have had few better friends than Mr. Obama. One of his first acts as president was to stiff Chrysler’s bondholders to provide a windfall to the United Auto Workers. His National Labor Relations Board stretches the law to load the dice for unions.

But Mr. Obama has not been an effective friend, which is why the smiles of labor bigwigs seemed forced. They’d dreamed big dreams on Labor Day 2008. By Labor Day 2011, there were more nightmares than dreams.

Unions often lose representation elections, so their number one goal was “card check,” which would dispense with secret ballots. Had Mr. Obama pushed card check when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, it surely would have passed. He concentrated instead on Obamacare. This cost him popularity and Democrats the House.[/quote]

[quote]
Labor leaders fret they’ve gotten a poor return on the $400 million they spent to elect Democrats in 2008. Unions will reduce contributions to Democrats in 2012, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said Aug. 25. How vigorously unions support Mr. Obama depends on whether he abandons his current strategy of promoting “little nibbly things,” Mr. Trumka said.

But the big things labor wants – card check, a bailout of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., massive pork barrel projects – are out of reach. With GOP control of the House, the outlook even for “little nibbly things” is cloudy.

Labor’s problems stem from our massive debt and dismal economy. They are exacerbated by thuggish behavior, and by the unwillingness of unions to tighten their belts as other Americans must.

President Obama is polling in Jimmy Carter territory. Unions are less popular now than in many decades. Mutual weakness will draw Democrats and unions closer, despite labor’s discontents. But the closer to each other they get, the more swing voters will recoil from both.[/quote]
realclearpolitics.com/articl … 11296.html

17

Why will CEOs automatically create jobs? Push and pull is the way the real world works.

18

Why will CEOs automatically create jobs? Push and pull is the way the real world works.[/quote]

Because they want a larger return for their stockholders and a bigger bonus check.

19

No, he didn’t. Tell me he didn’t really say that.

[quote]
One supporter from the raucous crowd shouted to Obama that they loved him, and in a standard response from his 2008 campaign he replied “I love you back” then added a new twist.

“If you love me, you got to help me pass this bill,” Obama said, repeating the line to more cheers. [/quote]
I am beginning to feel like my Obamao tshirt will soon be handed out at the Polls.
[quote]
Republicans however are increasingly dismissing the jobs plan as a political stunt, complaining Obama proposes to finance it by reducing itemized deductions for Americans earning over $200,000 a year and closing corporate tax breaks.

They have said that they are interested in some aspects of the bill which is weighted towards payroll tax cuts and includes infrastructure spending, but may pass those pieces separately, not in the whole bill as Obama demands. [/quote]
Cutting the payroll tax would be a good idea…two years ago when more people were working.

20

What a load of crap.

All the tax cuts for businesses and deregulation in the world doesn’t create jobs. Companies aren’t going to hire when there is no demand for their product. If there were demand for their product, there would be money to be made regardless of taxes and deregulation.

Jobs updating national infrastructure will put money in people’s pockets, which they will use to buy “stuff”, increasing demand for products produced by private businesses who will then hire workers to meet the demand.