Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by kryptonyt, Jan 15, 2012.
How does the President create jobs?
He can request that the legislative branch create bills to fix our decaying infrastructure, but that involves spending money, which certain factions of the GOP have vowed to block. FDR called it "Priming the Pump" with his "New Deal", although some people would argue that the wars we engaged in helped the U.S. economy grow.
The problem with our economy is that the job creators wealthy, through all the various loopholes and regulations have found ways to manipulate the system to avoid as much cost to their bottom line as possible. Whether it's outsourcing jobs to countries that do not have a minimum wage, moving manufacturing sites to countries that don't regulate emissions, or moving company headquarters to some obscure country that doesn't charge a corporate tax, these actions are stripping jobs away from our economy.
Take Nike as an example, in 2010 the CEO took in $13.1 million. From some online sources I found that they pay on average their Chinese worker $1.75 per hour (which is probably average as far as sweat shops go). If the U.S. demanded that companies that sold goods in the U.S. had to abide by U.S. labor laws (paying ALL its employees U.S. minimum wage) then many of these companies would just as well bring the jobs back to the U.S. Now this might seem like a good idea, but a few negative scenarios could play out. The 1st scenario, U.S. companies would automatically be undercut by their competitors overseas that aren't subject to U.S. laws. The 2nd option could play out that foreign countries would raise tariffs on U.S. goods if U.S. companies start pulling manufacturing from their country. A 3rd scenario could play out in where the big companies in the U.S. just pack up and leave the country, which is what some companies are doing by having a fake headquarters in countries with no corporate tax.
I think the only real solution at this point would be for the people of other countries, that allow their citizens to be exploited by big companies, to stand up to their oppressive conditions and demand a better living condition. Unfortunately, when the oppressed have had enough and decide to stand up for better conditions, there's always going to be bloodshed.
The only real thing a President can do is to not sign any legislation that gives corporations incentive to offshore even more of their operations and manufacturing sites while also not enacting any policy that would seem like an aggressive act against the economy of certain large nations that hold a large amount of our debt.
or more accurately:
a president cannot, never have, and never will create a permanent private sector job
they can however create govt jobs which in turn actually kills private sector employment
as far as the argument that 'greedy' companies take jobs overseas and the govt should remove their incentive for doing so.......... maybe you should wrap your head around a realistic perspective....... if the govt would butt out and stop driving companies overseas through outrageous regulation and taxation then there would be no desire for them to leave
which does ironically relate to the president creating jobs..... since the only jobs a president can 'create' are govt jobs. this means there is a need to raise taxes to pay for those jobs....... and the first to always bare the bulk of these taxes are 'greedy' corporations....... which means even more of the 'greedy' companies move overseas
So your "realistic perspective" is to allow companies to dump manufacturing toxins into the environment without government regulations, pay Chinese sweatshop type wages to employees here, and remove even MORE taxation from these companies (these companies are paying less taxes than when Regan was in office)? You don't by chance get most of your programming from Faux "News" do you, because this screams of their talking points. Google "Corporate Tax Rates" and your argument of a "realistic perspective" goes out the window.
Just the first article I found, but I'm sure there are many more articles that mirror these facts....
And as far as less regulations, the U.S. EASED regulations on Oil and Natural Gas companies that allows how they can drill for oil. Here's a bi-product of LESS REGULATION....
"The New Deal" was indeed something that the president did to "create jobs" during bad economical times in another day and age. Do you think any president ( Rep/Dem/TP/Ind ) in this day and age could manage a similar accomplishment? Does the constitution give him powers to do such things?
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. I wonder why no one asks the same question of each other. I wonder why it never comes up as a question from and to the media, pundits, congress, candidates or even all of the public who say that "jobs" is their number one issue.
If someone said they would repeal NAFTA which was backed by all of the living presidents at the time that it passed; that would make sense to me. But unless the president was going to set up a lemon aid stand on every corner I don't think that a president can "create" jobs.
As far as finding money to rebuild the infrastructure; even that doesn't "create jobs". In a so-called "free market economy" only companies, corporations, and foreign entities can create jobs. Wars create jobs also; if not by and for the military then from Independent contractors that make war stuff or clean it up.
If I'm missing something I am all ears!
Thanks for your reply!
Still not sure how solid the connection is between the president and "creating jobs" My issue is mostly around the language which IMHO perpetuates the illusion that the so called leader of the "free world" ( what part is "free"? ) Has the powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
If I could figure out why anyone would want to be President of the USA maybe I could wrap my mind around the notion that any man or woman who gets elected has the power to keep any of their promises.
Everyone has been drinking the Kool Aid if you ask me.
There are no easy answers that's for sure. Most candidates will claim they can create jobs to appeal to the masses, especially in a down economy. Repairing infrastructure is definitely a short term fix but I think it's a good investment for our country, as is investing in lowering the cost of education. It would be nice if there was a silver bullet that could turn our economy around, but I don't think lowering taxes and regulations is the answer.
Where the U.S. has been prosperous is when we innovate. You look at the industries that took off in our history, the Internet, the Computer, the Automobile, we either invented or innovated and other countries were forced to follow. We seemed to have lost that pioneering spirit.
Made me laugh when you wrote "silver bullet" since they are 2nd amendment protected to kill vampires. Poetic isn't it?
There was indeed a time when everything or nearly everything we as a country created, invented, and or improved upon something that someone else created or invented. What happened? I'm serious. What happened?
For one thing we traded our pride in for dollars. Take the internet boom period and look at the stock market and all the sell outs and buy outs. AltaVista paid $3 million dollar for their domain name. Not sure what that has to do with anything except the insanity of value and worth. America lost the ability to understand, appreciate and respect the quality of things except things with monetary value. "Trickle down" is not a term normally associated with losing that ability to live the values of the founders of the country and values of our families. So somewhere in building wealth we all became mini Gordon Gekko's and called it GOOD!
And this reflects back to the President how?
I do think that there are some connections but not in the way that most people believe. JMHO
At the risk of sounding like some old coot and his "Back in the good ole days", I like to look at the music recording industry as an example of where the creativity went. You go back a few decades where artists actually played small venues and were discovered by producers. Producers took risks and sometimes the risks paid off, but a lot of times it didn't. Instead of investing in what would likely fail, producers decided to start manufacturing hits. You look at artists like Britney Spears who aren't really true to the original art form but provide the showmanship (blonde with a hot body) and it starts to sell. Then the producer tries to emulate that success and eventually the actual talent is no longer necessary to ensure profits. The music industry suddenly becomes less about the music, and more about maximizing profit.
Another example is Hollywood. Why spend millions on a new cutting edge movie when you can just remake an old hit and bring in a decent return?
I would suggest you educate yourself on methanogen before posting that video. Believing everything you see is a horrible way to go thru life. And before you come back with anything, remember I am a Petroleum Engineer.
What can we all learn about X? ( whatever it is that we see, hear or are told? In a way that is why I started this thread: wondering what it is that makes us believe that the president has the ability to "create jobs" ) What part(s) are inaccurate here?
Before I come back with anything like say, "I wouldn't expect someone that's getting paid by this industry to have anything negative to say about that particular industry"?
Ok, lets say for instance that there is NO correlation in these people reporting their water tasting funny or being able to light their water on fire. What do you make of the earthquakes that "coincidentally" started happening once fracking began in the area where my parents live? In an area where maybe ONE earthquake has been reported in the past 100 years, there have been 5-6 reported in the couple of years since fracking has started. And yes, I have SEEN and FELT these earthquakes, how "horrible" for me to go through life believing what I've seen and felt My apologies since you didn't mention anything about being a Seismologist, and here I am dumping earthquake data on you, but LESS REGULATION is still not the answer.
I did a google search as he suggested and it's an organism that I'm guessing he is blaming for these peoples' flammable tap water. I guess I'm going to believe him over the EPA since the EPA is government run....
But I digress, and will attempt to get the thread back on track (hopefully). All Presidential candidates have quite a distinguished track record of promising a lot during the campaign trail and not fulfilling all of those promises once in office. Thus, I say it's hard to know for certain if the President can in fact create jobs or if the promise of jobs is just another of many broken promises. At the risk of derailing this thread further, do you think that our legislators can create jobs (assuming that we get some in office that can compromise I mean)? I've heard many people argue that the President is mostly a figure head with some powers afforded him (like the power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen...), but that ultimately it's our legislators that enact policy. It's certainly an interesting question and it would be interesting to see some actual conclusive data other than, "We lost XXXXX number of jobs under President YYYYYYY and gained XXXXX number of jobs under President ZZZZZZ".
Considering I work in the state with the most stringent regulations, its hard for me to have anything bad to say. How about asking the contractor who pissed on the ground. The site manager had him clean it up, fill out a spill report and was threatened with never being allowed back on our companies well sites ever.
People being able to light their tap water on fire has been around for centuries. I imagine you didn't see that in your research, but of course when it occurs naturally there is no one to blame. But when you have an oil company you can get sympathy and money.
Since your location is, "By the river". I can only guess you live in Texas. And unless your parents are about 120, then they haven't just started fracking in your area. Fracking has been around for about 110 years. It was developed by Halliburton. Now, if you're talking about fault lines, those have been around for a long time. Yet no one remembers those, but people see a booming industry and are ready to play victim to get money for it. I highly doubt you've had one earthquake in the last hundred years.
And the reason for not poisoning groundwater is simple. The hole that is drilled is cemented and cased in steel every 1000'. There are no aquifers that far below the surface. The next argument I hear 'well they probably leak!' Yeah that's not happening, oil is around $80-100 a barrel. Having a leaky well costs money.
Rock isn't forced open by water, we use water as a lubricant/delivery method. The rock is broken up by C4, we don't have to use much of it to make a big enough hole for oil and gas to travel through. The water/sand mixture is put in to keep the holes open, once the sand has wedged itself in, the water gets pushed back to the surface by oil and gas.
Txgoat, you brought this thread off topic. You just didn't expect someone with the knowledge to be here to counteract the propaganda.
Yes Oil and Gas companies NEVER have leaks....because that would cost them money....excellent logic...It's no wonder we don't have more disasters with such "experts" at the helm. I'm sure if your industry could get away with it, there would be "scientific evidence" that suggests drinking "oil enriched" water gives the body what it craves...electrolytes...
Wow, out of all the arguments to pick you decided on three pictures, two of which were the same incident. Well sparky, Exxon Valdez was a mistake by a sea captain. Not part of the oil industry, he was captain of a boat that made a mistake.
And Deepwater Horizon, BP is only the laughing stock of the oil industry. Used in everyone's safety program as an example of what not to do. Anyone who has actually researched this knows that Halliburton's contract with BP told them they needed to keep the well on a closed loop only. That's what they rated it for, yet BP opened it anyways to save time.
But clearly you hate oil and gas so much you don't use anything that requires oil. You couldn't even have a cell phone, because it requires oil to make plastic, probably don't even have a computer either.
I figured it was only a matter of time before you deflected and started asking what I drive, if I own a lawnmower, if I use cooking oil, if I have ever bought any oil of olay, or if I have ever stepped on any soil since it has the word "OIL" in it. Should I then ask you if you drink water, breathe air, eat food since that's the other side of the coin?
Feel free to take my argument to the extreme and try to insist that I'm saying we need to hunt down every person associated with big oil and string them up by their nose hairs, since people tend to turn an opposing viewpoint into hyperbole to make their argument seem rational. It's a tactic that's been used to death by people that don't believe in compromise, "Oh look he's a hippy, he wants us to abolish the entire oil industry so we can live like socialist liberal hippies that use pot as a fuel!"
Less regulation is NOT the answer, unless the question is "How can big business maximize their profits with the least amount of social responsibility?"
Oh and misspoke about the earthquakes in the area that my parents live. I said 100 years......
Temblors Rattle Texas Town - WSJ.com
It's 142 years. Let me guess, you're going to blame the town for lifting the Liquor ban, and say that it's God's will and then you're going to accuse me of not believing in God.....
No, you're being unreasonable with every bit of your argument. I can't believe you honestly think that you can predict what a fault line does. Why are you when you could be helping local municipalities preventing damage.
You can't have a debate, you have your view and you won't listen to anyone else, except those that agree with you. Well guess what sparky, were fracking, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. So get over it.
There you go again, taking my point of view and pushing it further out there in order to make your point of view seem rational by default. I never said I wanted to put a stop to fracking. In fact, I'm benefiting both directly and indirectly from the process. Does that mean that I think regulations need to be loosened? No. We've already had a couple of casualties from the process here locally. I guess you're comfortable telling the families of these casualties that big business is over burdened with safety regulations and the profit gained by scaling back regulation is worth their loved one's life.
This just shows your ignorance to the industry. Regulations are being tightened daily. My view is quite rational, you haven't shown any examples. Every family that I've had contact with has nothing but good things for how we've been able to restore their land and prevent any spills. But when we do things right that never makes the news. Or how about in site prep thick, super plastic is put down and covered with dirt to prevent any spills from going into the ground? But no that would never be covered.
It surprises me how many people say that they want the president to create jobs.
I think it is wrongheaded to think that a president can "create jobs" and if he can what kind of jobs would they be and how long would it take for the person getting that job to get a pay check?
If the president owns a private residence I don't think that he personally can hire someone to cut his lawn because there are protocols that are in place between him and the private sector that would prevent him from doing that.
If I am right then why doesn't someone just say that for the record instead of leading people to believe something that is more hype than truth?
I think it depends on what you consider "job creation". That German nationalist idiot that started all the California wildfires, he created jobs by destroying lives. If a President cuts military spending and thousands of soldiers are displaced, would you say that's considered job elimination? The President typically has to go through our legislators to try to get them to draft a bill that either is or isn't good for the private sector to add jobs.
No doubt that the prez has a say of some kind. That said, let's take one thing that the prez can do before getting approval from the other governing bodies: he can declare war. But even that can be pulled back, challenged, and vetoed to the best of my knowledge. But attempting to better explain my whole point of this post it all rests in the simple belief that a majority of Americans "assume" that he literally has the ability to do more than what he can do. To put a person in power based on an untruth is what "creates" all of the problems that show up days, weeks, months, years after he's been elected.
Your example of the fire starter is a good one. Along those same lines, think about all of the jobs that Osama Bin Laden "created" jobs all over the world vis-
See how easy it is to get thing backwards!
So now I got the info straight. Thanks