Why isn't the US Government creating MORE JOBS? - GoFuckYourself.com

$5 submissions · 10-06-2013, 10:10 PM

Probably, the answer is in the video below

Vapid - BANNED FOR LIFE · 10-06-2013, 10:32 PM

It's the skill set that is lacking.

notinmybackyard · 10-07-2013, 02:48 AM

Nice over simplified and propoganda video.

The simple fact of the situation is that the tech sector is destroying jobs faster than they can be replaced. Just look at the difference between Google and General Motors.

Google employs world wide a total 44,78 K full time (and part time) employees.
But General Motors employs 212,000 full time employees. (estimated 310,000 with part time according to one source)

Progress is

1) Putting an end to world hunger.

2) Eliminating illiteracy

3) Cleaning up the enviroment

3) Access to sanitation

4) Creating a world were women do NOT have to suck cock for money. (yes a pornographer said that)

5) Racism, sexism, age-ism, homophobia, etc are eliminated from human consciousness

6) Clean food grown in clean soil

7) A world that seeks diplomacy instead of bullets

8) No one needs to stick heroine in their viens in order to cope with society

9) Entertainment is kissing a woman's breast not cutting it off with a chainsaw

10) Indivdualtity and love are emphasized instead of conformity and competition

Progress is not I-shit, Google, Facebook or any other garbage such as that.

Steeve Jobs was a scum bag that was worth more than $7 billion and he made it publically known that he hated charity and had no intention of bringing back the jobs he sent to China's Foxxcon factory. In a world of true progress this man shares the same collective public opinion as that of Musolini instead of being worshipped like some sort of demi-god (Worshipped as the video you posted attempted to make us do)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ercenters.html

eroticfem · 10-07-2013, 05:22 AM

Insted of putting loads of people in jail for minor offences they should have made work camps, that would give people a new meaning to life maybe not for all but for most part of the prisoners. I am sure many would love a second chance to get an education or learn a skill, there is no life just to sit inside a jailcell and look at the walls that surrounds you.

In the very end the US Gov will benefit from all hard work it would be to get this going, cause a skilled person would much easier get work than a ex con that has not done anything than feed his hate of the system.

I am not an american but i am sure most people would not disagree.

Barefootsies · 10-07-2013, 05:25 AM

I do not recall at any point agreeing to give tax dollars to the government for "job creation".

L-Pink · 10-07-2013, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notinmybackyard

Nice over simplified and propoganda video.

The simple fact of the situation is that the tech sector is destroying jobs faster than they can be replaced. Just look at the difference between Google and General Motors.

And the "manufacturing" jobs that are returning or being created aren't the same as those that left. They consist of highly robotized factories with a handful of skilled engineers. The high paid worker jobs no longer exist.

- Jesus Christ - · 10-07-2013, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

I do not recall at any point agreeing to give tax dollars to the government

This is where the period belongs.

notinmybackyard · 10-07-2013, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eroticfem

Insted of putting loads of people in jail for minor offences they should have made work camps, that would give people a new meaning to life maybe not for all but for most part of the prisoners. I am sure many would love a second chance to get an education or learn a skill, there is no life just to sit inside a jailcell and look at the walls that surrounds you.

In the very end the US Gov will benefit from all hard work it would be to get this going, cause a skilled person would much easier get work than a ex con that has not done anything than feed his hate of the system.

I am not an american but i am sure most people would not disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

And the "manufacturing" jobs that are returning or being created aren't the same as those that left. They consist of highly robotized factories with a handful of skilled engineers. The high paid worker jobs no longer exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

This is where the period belongs.

I am an old hippie and I knew Louise Latraverse and spent some time with her and Emmett in the Panhandle. I also have participated in both trying to levitate the pentagon and the Paris riots.

So I will tell all of the young people that if want progress and change.
You take it to the streets and not in a stupid "occupy wall street" kind of way.

Because the Internet and Facebook not only will NOT help you but they Certainly WILL STOP YOU. Today's gouvernemnts and corporations can use these so-called-tools to manipulate and control the population like never before. Just look around at all the wars, financial crises and racism and understand that if even a small fraction of what is happening today happened in the 1960s there would have been a full blown revolution.

Therefore go to the streets and start by

1) Creating art, REAL ART that speaks about the problems around us and not stupid pictures on Facebook.

2) Make your own music with lyrics that speak about the problems and play that music for everyone to hear in the streets.

3) Do not do as you are told. Block traffic, anger local business, etc

4) Create an underground newspaper and hand it out to everyone in the streets. Stupid blogs get ignored and stupid youtube videos are for conspiracy theorists and UFO hunters.

5) Feed and clothe the poor in the streets.

pornguy · 10-07-2013, 06:38 AM

Government only creates government jobs. And that are one of the biggest groups responsible for laid off employees over the last 8 years.

They help create jobs by assisting companies with lower taxes for hiring and things like that.

Rochard · 10-07-2013, 06:54 AM

The US government's isn't creating jobs right now because the US government is shut down because the Republicans don't want anyone to have healthcare benefits.

tony286 · 10-07-2013, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Government only creates government jobs. And that are one of the biggest groups responsible for laid off employees over the last 8 years.

They help create jobs by assisting companies with lower taxes for hiring and things like that.

Lower taxes actually dont create jobs, need creates jobs. If wages are falling you have less and less need. You have a burger place you and your staff can serve 500 burgers a day. No tax break is going to make you hire more people, now if you went up to 750 burgers a day you would be hiring people whether or not you had tax breaks because you have to serve your companies need.

TheMoneyMan · 10-07-2013, 08:25 AM

Government funded Unions are also an issue when talking about jobs.

As technology advances, there are going to be less "labor" jobs. Machines are taking over, just look at assembly lines.

Barefootsies · 10-07-2013, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMoneyMan

As technology advances, there are going to be less "labor" jobs. Machines are taking over, just look at assembly lines.

A lot of problems with this planet come down to overpopulation.

In the near future, you're not going to have enough good paying jobs, food, water to sustain life. That's when things will really get spicy as people will be fighting for their very survival versus over the latest iPhone.

GregE · 10-07-2013, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Government only creates government jobs.

Depends what you mean by government jobs.

The people who built the interstate highways were paid by the government (directly or indirectly) as were the ones who built the bridges and so on.

The conventional wisdom is that the infrastructure in this country is falling apart.

Putting people to work repairing and upgrading all of the above seems like a no brainer to me.

But hey, what do I know I just make spanking videos.

Quote:

And that are one of the biggest groups responsible for laid off employees over the last 8 years.

I'm not convinced that the government is entirely responsible for the financial collapse. There's plenty of blame to go around on that score.

Now on the other hand if the economy collapses yet again because of the current budget impasse, the blame will sit entirely upon the government.

Quote:

They help create jobs by assisting companies with lower taxes for hiring and things like that.

That's true for the most part. I'd like to see the tax code used to penalize off-shoring and further reward domestic hiring however.

Biggy · 10-07-2013, 09:05 AM

Agree with the video.

The bigger the gov't gets, the more it will saddle down the world economic output. It's basic re-distribution. You take from the efficient and give to the less efficient. While it's good-hearted and there needs to be a safety net for the extreme, it also promotes and subsidizes inefficiency. While the free market needs to be monitored, the government doesn't do anything that well.

Everyone should be for a smaller government, not a bigger one. A bigger government simply means more corruption, more bureacracy, less efficiency, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, the government can't fix your personal problems. We'll see what everyone thinks of the government in 10-20 years when more municipalities go broke, and the good faith of the government is long gone with the printing presses of $$ turned on. And as the gov't gets bigger, the divide between the poor and rich get wider, because the super rich control government.

L-Pink · 10-07-2013, 09:08 AM

I see mostly low paying service type jobs being created. Technology is allowing businesses to trim expenses and the biggest expenses most have is the employee. The average American is fucked.

PR_Glen · 10-07-2013, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

A lot of problems with this planet come down to overpopulation.

In the near future, you're not going to have enough good paying jobs, food, water to sustain life. That's when things will really get spicy as people will be fighting for their very survival versus over the latest iPhone.

they thought this back in the dark ages too.. It wasn't the case then, its not the case now. Its just a period of adjustment.

Biggy · 10-07-2013, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Lower taxes actually dont create jobs, need creates jobs. If wages are falling you have less and less need. You have a burger place you and your staff can serve 500 burgers a day. No tax break is going to make you hire more people, now if you went up to 750 burgers a day you would be hiring people whether or not you had tax breaks because you have to serve your companies need.

Lower taxes put more disposable income in everyone's pocket. Therefore they have more money to spend. That new demand, helps to create jobs.

So the argument is, if taxes were lower, people would buy more burgers, they'd be more prone to eat out, etc. Your example is specific, but think about it in terms of the entire economy.

You want $$$ IN the system. You don't want it OUT of the system. When the gov't raises taxes, money goes OUT of the system, and then re-enters the system who the fuck knows how, at that point its prime for corruption. The guy who owns a burger joint for example isn't getting a subsidy to run his business. But the guy who has hookups with the politicians is. Raising taxes takes money away from the people making the way in the world on their own, what I like to call "givers" and the gov't gives that $$ to a variety of people, like net "takers." There's both good and bad to this, but in the long run, this is a bad thing. The good is all the anecdotal shit you hear about people having a hard time getting assistance. The bad is, in a cut throat world, those people aren't contributing anything economically speaking to the growth of the world, and you are taking it away from people who are.

To put it simply, you are taking froma productive "Peter" and giving it to pay for an unproductive "Paul." The bigger the government gets, the more this happens. Oh, and the super rich, they continue to game politics for themselves. We should be eliminating and making government smaller.

The best charity a person can give, is a job. When a gov't takes $ away in the form of higher taxes, it hurts GDP growth, it hurts job creation, it matters. This is fact. It's called fiscal policy. Lower taxes help create a better business environment, just as lower interest rates do (monetary policy). The questions aren't if they help or hurt, the questions really rely upon how much they help/hurt. Some people argue a lot, others argue not a lot.

escorpio · 10-07-2013, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notinmybackyard

I am an old hippie and I knew Louise Latraverse and spent some time with her and Emmett in the Panhandle.

How well did you know Emmett? "Ringolevio" is one of my all time favorite books.

96ukssob · 10-07-2013, 09:46 AM

why should the government be responsible for creating jobs? you think a job should be supplied to you?

everyone is consistently crying about how there are no jobs available, yet I always see companies hiring... oh wait, those people don't want to actually EARN a position in a company, they want to sit behind a desk and earn a half decent wage because they BELIEVE they entitled to it.

the biggest problem with our society, IMO, is the push on cheap goods. You want to continue to buy shit at razor thin margins, then companies have to offshore their development to China where people work for $.18/hr. same with those people who complain about auto manufacturers who build cars in Mexico or overseas... if they were all done here in the states, could you afford to spend 20% or more?

GregE · 10-07-2013, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

they thought this back in the dark ages too.. It wasn't the case then, its not the case now.

But that is the way it happened back then and for many years thereafter. The Bubonic Plague killed an estimated 50 million people in Roman times and in the 1300's a recurrence of the same wiped out anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of Europe's then population. Later on, the Black Plague killed nearly 1/3 of those who were left.

A century later The Thirty Years War reduced central Europe's population by half.

And then of course we have WWI and WWII that together killed nearly a hundred million people.

Were it not for modern medicine and the nearly universal fear of Nuclear Armageddon the same sort of things would be going on now.

Quote:

Its just a period of adjustment.

Hopefully.

Barry-xlovecam · 10-07-2013, 11:52 AM

Government funding of jobs to make useful repairs or create new infrastructure that would benefit businesses and/or citizens directly is worthwhile.

Government funding of research in basic technology that would benefit most citizens is noble job creation and what a government should do when the costs or maybe even the risks are too high for private industry. In this endeavour, the bright side is that any discovery made belongs to all citizens and might be beneficial to the world as a whole -- that is leadership -- not shutting down the government to make a political point.

Short of emergency -- like the WPA of the great depression -- government "make-work" jobs are a total waste.

notinmybackyard · 10-07-2013, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by escorpio

How well did you know Emmett? "Ringolevio" is one of my all time favorite books.

I never knew Emmett could read. (Only joking)
Emmet and I were never what I would consider to be "friends." My connection to him was through Louise his wife, we both grew up in Saguenay not far to each other.

What I will say about Emmitt is my impression of him.
He was a very complicated man that appeared to be always looking for something. He seemed to be very emotionally dependant and was always saying crazy things to get people to like him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossku69

why should the government be responsible for creating jobs? you think a job should be supplied to you?

If a gouvernment can not provide jobs, a clean place to sleep, decent education and good hospitals?

Then what is the point in giving them you hard earned money?

Afterall they certainly have enough money to build bombs and defend the interests of disloyal corporations like Mansanto that destroy our food and toxify the enviroment or Google and Facebook that spy on us.

Personally I would prefer that a gouverment give a homeless person a place to live, help a druggie stop using drugs or create apprentiship programs for our young adults instead spending millions building bunker busters and fighter planes.

$5 submissions · 10-07-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggy

Agree with the video.

The bigger the gov't gets, the more it will saddle down the world economic output. It's basic re-distribution. You take from the efficient and give to the less efficient. While it's good-hearted and there needs to be a safety net for the extreme, it also promotes and subsidizes inefficiency. While the free market needs to be monitored, the government doesn't do anything that well.

Everyone should be for a smaller government, not a bigger one. A bigger government simply means more corruption, more bureacracy, less efficiency, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, the government can't fix your personal problems. We'll see what everyone thinks of the government in 10-20 years when more municipalities go broke, and the good faith of the government is long gone with the printing presses of $$ turned on. And as the gov't gets bigger, the divide between the poor and rich get wider, because the super rich control government.

Posts like this frustrate me because I keep wishing GFY had a 'Like' button so I can press it ONE MILLION TIMES. I can't agree more. Specially with the stuff I bolded above.

arock10 · 10-07-2013, 01:40 PM

For the millionth time, over turning citizens united and reforming campaign finance will go a long way to fixing things....

At least the wealthy people funding the tea party are going to enjoy some profit loss as the tea party fellows fuck things up more

Sunny Day · 10-07-2013, 04:09 PM

Technology can be good. Even before pagers, faxes & cell phones, it was estimated that every person in the USA would have to be a phone operator, the way phone usage exploded in the 1960's. But when the dial phone came along, people were screaming it would cause massive unemployment. It didn't.

Government can create jobs, as was done in The Depression. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) put men to work building dams, parks and schools. Most of these beautiful projects are still standing. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) put men to work, on soil and water conservation projects, such as planting tree rows to keep farm soil from blowing away, during the drought of the early 1930's.

Government doesn't have to be the employer. They can finance projects, the way they financed the transcontinental railways. They tried to do that now, with high speed rail. But the governors, of several Republican states, refused the money. The government should have just gone straight to the rail companies. Would have saved a layer of state bureaucracy.

tony286 · 10-07-2013, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggy

Lower taxes put more disposable income in everyone's pocket. Therefore they have more money to spend. That new demand, helps to create jobs.

So the argument is, if taxes were lower, people would buy more burgers, they'd be more prone to eat out, etc. Your example is specific, but think about it in terms of the entire economy.

You want $$$ IN the system. You don't want it OUT of the system. When the gov't raises taxes, money goes OUT of the system, and then re-enters the system who the fuck knows how, at that point its prime for corruption. The guy who owns a burger joint for example isn't getting a subsidy to run his business. But the guy who has hookups with the politicians is. Raising taxes takes money away from the people making the way in the world on their own, what I like to call "givers" and the gov't gives that $$ to a variety of people, like net "takers." There's both good and bad to this, but in the long run, this is a bad thing. The good is all the anecdotal shit you hear about people having a hard time getting assistance. The bad is, in a cut throat world, those people aren't contributing anything economically speaking to the growth of the world, and you are taking it away from people who are.

To put it simply, you are taking from a productive "Peter" and giving it to pay for an unproductive "Paul." The bigger the government gets, the more this happens. Oh, and the super rich, they continue to game politics for themselves. We should be eliminating and making government smaller.

The best charity a person can give, is a job. When a gov't takes $ away in the form of higher taxes, it hurts GDP growth, it hurts job creation, it matters. This is fact. It's called fiscal policy. Lower taxes help create a better business environment, just as lower interest rates do (monetary policy). The questions aren't if they help or hurt, the questions really rely upon how much they help/hurt. Some people argue a lot, others argue not a lot.

Actually if you look historically when taxes are raised businesses invest the money back into their business then taking the tax hit pulling it out. Taxes as a percent of GDP is currently very very low. If lower taxes create growth then we should be at 5 percent unemployment and we aren't.
And we must all remember, if it wasnt for government funding there would be no internet.The private sector had no interest in funding the creation of the web.

tony286 · 10-07-2013, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I see mostly low paying service type jobs being created. Technology is allowing businesses to trim expenses and the biggest expenses most have is the employee. The average American is fucked.

You are so right. I see those Google self driving cars. I think of all the people that will be out of work because that technology. Its a blessing and curse.

epitome · 10-07-2013, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

And the "manufacturing" jobs that are returning or being created aren't the same as those that left. They consist of highly robotized factories with a handful of skilled engineers. The high paid worker jobs no longer exist.

The sad thing is that could easily be fixed with higher tariffs and import fees. They are what used to make it attractive for companies to open a factory in your community.

This certainly didn't help:

epitome · 10-07-2013, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

And we must all remember, if it wasnt for government funding there would be no internet.The private sector had no interest in funding the creation of the web.

You make an interesting point. I was reading the Reddit AMA of Bob Metcalfe, the guy that co-invented the ethernet. He mentioned that it pretty much only came about by following what technology the government was making investments in.

It is an interesting read.

Biggy · 10-07-2013, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Actually if you look historically when taxes are raised businesses invest the money back into their business then taking the tax hit pulling it out. Taxes as a percent of GDP is currently very very low. If lower taxes create growth then we should be at 5 percent unemployment and we aren't.
And we must all remember, if it wasnt for government funding there would be no internet.The private sector had no interest in funding the creation of the web.

By that logic, shouldn't have the government created 10 different innovations like the internet by now?

Taxes as a percent of GDP is high relative to history. I just googled it, both overall, and corporate profits are as high as they have ever been (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib364...onomic-growth/)

Maybe you can explain why Apple + everyone else is stock piling cash overseas? Has nothing to do with taxes, right? 100B and counting for Apple alone.

Quine · 10-07-2013, 10:07 PM

Look at this interesting text.

Quote:

The Iowa Car Crop

A thing of beauty is a job forever, and nothing is more beautiful than a succinct and flawless argument. A few lines of reasoning can change the way we see the world.

I found one of the most beautiful arguments I know while I was browsing through a textbook written by my friend David Friedman. While the argument might not be original, David?s vision is so clear, so concise, so incontrovertible, and so delightfully surprising, that I have been unable to resist sharing it with students, relatives, and cocktail party acquaintances at every opportunity. The argument involves international trade, but its appeal is less in its subject matter than in its irresistible force.

David?s observation is that there are two technologies for producing automobiles in America. One is to manufacture them in Detroit, and the other is to grow them in Iowa. Everybody knows about the first technology; let me tell you about the second. First, you plant seeds, which are the raw material from which automobiles are constructed. You wait a few months until wheat appears. Then you harvest the wheat, load it onto ships, and said the ships eastward into the Pacific Ocean. After a few months, the ships reappear with Toyotas on them.

International trade is nothing but a form of technology. The fact that there is a place called Japan, with people and factories, is quite irrelevant to Americans? well-being. To analyze trade policies, we might as well assume that Japan is a giant machine with mysterious inner workings that convert wheat into cars.

Any policy designed to favor the first American technology over the second is a policy designed to favor American auto producers in Detroit over American auto producers in Iowa. A tax or a ban on ?imported? automobiles is a tax or a ban on Iowa-grown automobiles. If you protect Detroit carmakers from competition, then you must damage Iowa farmers, because Iowa farmers are the competition.

The task of producing a given fleet of car can be allocated between Detroit and Iowa in a variety of ways. A competitive price system selects that allocation that minimizes the total production cost.* It would be unnecessarily expensive to manufacture all cars in Detroit, unnecessarily expensive to grow all cars in Iowa, and unnecessarily expensive to use the two production processes in anything other than the natural ratio that emerges as a result of competition.

That means that protection for Detroit does more than just transfer income from farmers to autoworkers. It also raises the total cost of providing Americans with a given number of automobiles. The efficiency loss comes with no offsetting gain; it impoverishes the nation as a whole.

There is much talk about improving the efficiency of American car manufacturing. When you have two ways to make a car, the road to efficiency is to use both in optimal proportions. The last thing you should want to do is to artificially hobble one of your production technologies. It is sheer superstition to think that an Iowa-grown Camry is any less ?American? than a Detroit-built Taurus. Policies rooted in superstition do not frequently bear efficient fruit.

In 1817, David Ricardo?the first economist to think with the precision, though not the language, of pure mathematics?laid the foundation for all future thought about international trade. In the intervening 150 years his theory has been much elaborated but its foundations remain as firmly established as anything in economics. Trade theory predicts first that if you protect American producers in one industry from foreign competition, then you must damage American producers in other industries. It predicts second that if you protect American producers in one industry from foreign competition, there must be a net loss in economic efficiency. Ordinarily, textbooks establish these propositions through graphs, equations, and intricate reasoning. The little story that I learned from David Friedman makes the same propositions blindingly obvious with a single compelling metaphor. That is economics at its best.

*This assertion is true, but not obvious. Individual producers care about their individual profits, not about economywide costs. It is something of a miracle that individual selfish decisions must lead to a collectively efficient outcome?.

Jeremy_Totem · 10-08-2013, 12:30 AM

Fort Knox is empty by now!

10-06-2013, 10:10 PM	#1
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	Why isn't the US Government creating MORE JOBS? Probably, the answer is in the video below __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

10-07-2013, 02:48 AM	#3
notinmybackyard Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 3,230	Nice over simplified and propoganda video. The simple fact of the situation is that the tech sector is destroying jobs faster than they can be replaced. Just look at the difference between Google and General Motors. Google employs world wide a total 44,78 K full time (and part time) employees. But General Motors employs 212,000 full time employees. (estimated 310,000 with part time according to one source) Progress is 1) Putting an end to world hunger. 2) Eliminating illiteracy 3) Cleaning up the enviroment 3) Access to sanitation 4) Creating a world were women do NOT have to suck cock for money. (yes a pornographer said that) 5) Racism, sexism, age-ism, homophobia, etc are eliminated from human consciousness 6) Clean food grown in clean soil 7) A world that seeks diplomacy instead of bullets 8) No one needs to stick heroine in their viens in order to cope with society 9) Entertainment is kissing a woman's breast not cutting it off with a chainsaw 10) Indivdualtity and love are emphasized instead of conformity and competition Progress is not I-shit, Google, Facebook or any other garbage such as that. Steeve Jobs was a scum bag that was worth more than $7 billion and he made it publically known that he hated charity and had no intention of bringing back the jobs he sent to China's Foxxcon factory. In a world of true progress this man shares the same collective public opinion as that of Musolini instead of being worshipped like some sort of demi-god (Worshipped as the video you posted attempted to make us do) http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ercenters.html __________________ *officially retired as of March 01 2018 but still fucking around and getting into shit.*

10-07-2013, 05:22 AM	#4
eroticfem Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Europe Posts: 362	more jobs, thats easy! Insted of putting loads of people in jail for minor offences they should have made work camps, that would give people a new meaning to life maybe not for all but for most part of the prisoners. I am sure many would love a second chance to get an education or learn a skill, there is no life just to sit inside a jailcell and look at the walls that surrounds you. In the very end the US Gov will benefit from all hard work it would be to get this going, cause a skilled person would much easier get work than a ex con that has not done anything than feed his hate of the system. I am not an american but i am sure most people would not disagree. __________________

10-07-2013, 05:25 AM	#5
Barefootsies Choice is an Illusion Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Land of Obama Posts: 42,635	I do not recall at any point agreeing to give tax dollars to the government for "job creation". __________________ Should You Email Your Members? Link1 \| Link2 \| Link3 Enough Said. "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

10-07-2013, 06:38 AM	#9
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Government only creates government jobs. And that are one of the biggest groups responsible for laid off employees over the last 8 years. They help create jobs by assisting companies with lower taxes for hiring and things like that. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

10-06-2013, 10:32 PM	#2
Vapid - BANNED FOR LIFE Barterer Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 4,864	It's the skill set that is lacking.

10-07-2013, 06:54 AM	#10
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,976	The US government's isn't creating jobs right now because the US government is shut down because the Republicans don't want anyone to have healthcare benefits. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

10-07-2013, 08:25 AM	#12
TheMoneyMan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 345	Government funded Unions are also an issue when talking about jobs. As technology advances, there are going to be less "labor" jobs. Machines are taking over, just look at assembly lines.

10-07-2013, 09:05 AM	#15
Biggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,595	Agree with the video. The bigger the gov't gets, the more it will saddle down the world economic output. It's basic re-distribution. You take from the efficient and give to the less efficient. While it's good-hearted and there needs to be a safety net for the extreme, it also promotes and subsidizes inefficiency. While the free market needs to be monitored, the government doesn't do anything that well. Everyone should be for a smaller government, not a bigger one. A bigger government simply means more corruption, more bureacracy, less efficiency, etc. Contrary to popular belief, the government can't fix your personal problems. We'll see what everyone thinks of the government in 10-20 years when more municipalities go broke, and the good faith of the government is long gone with the printing presses of $$ turned on. And as the gov't gets bigger, the divide between the poor and rich get wider, because the super rich control government. Last edited by Biggy; 10-07-2013 at 09:08 AM..

10-07-2013, 09:08 AM	#16
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	I see mostly low paying service type jobs being created. Technology is allowing businesses to trim expenses and the biggest expenses most have is the employee. The average American is fucked.

10-07-2013, 09:46 AM	#20
96ukssob So Fucking Banananananas Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: If I was in your ass you'd know it Posts: 12,991	why should the government be responsible for creating jobs? you think a job should be supplied to you? everyone is consistently crying about how there are no jobs available, yet I always see companies hiring... oh wait, those people don't want to actually EARN a position in a company, they want to sit behind a desk and earn a half decent wage because they BELIEVE they entitled to it. the biggest problem with our society, IMO, is the push on cheap goods. You want to continue to buy shit at razor thin margins, then companies have to offshore their development to China where people work for $.18/hr. same with those people who complain about auto manufacturers who build cars in Mexico or overseas... if they were all done here in the states, could you afford to spend 20% or more? __________________ Email: Clicky on Me

10-07-2013, 11:52 AM	#22
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Government funding of jobs to make useful repairs or create new infrastructure that would benefit businesses and/or citizens directly is worthwhile. Government funding of research in basic technology that would benefit most citizens is noble job creation and what a government should do when the costs or maybe even the risks are too high for private industry. In this endeavour, the bright side is that any discovery made belongs to all citizens and might be beneficial to the world as a whole -- that is leadership -- not shutting down the government to make a political point. Short of emergency -- like the WPA of the great depression -- government "make-work" jobs are a total waste.

10-07-2013, 01:40 PM	#25
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	For the millionth time, over turning citizens united and reforming campaign finance will go a long way to fixing things.... At least the wealthy people funding the tea party are going to enjoy some profit loss as the tea party fellows fuck things up more __________________ Sup

10-07-2013, 04:09 PM	#26
Sunny Day Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,406	Govt can create jobs Technology can be good. Even before pagers, faxes & cell phones, it was estimated that every person in the USA would have to be a phone operator, the way phone usage exploded in the 1960's. But when the dial phone came along, people were screaming it would cause massive unemployment. It didn't. Government can create jobs, as was done in The Depression. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) put men to work building dams, parks and schools. Most of these beautiful projects are still standing. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) put men to work, on soil and water conservation projects, such as planting tree rows to keep farm soil from blowing away, during the drought of the early 1930's. Government doesn't have to be the employer. They can finance projects, the way they financed the transcontinental railways. They tried to do that now, with high speed rail. But the governors, of several Republican states, refused the money. The government should have just gone straight to the rail companies. Would have saved a layer of state bureaucracy.

10-08-2013, 12:30 AM	#33
Jeremy_Totem Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: France Posts: 158	Fort Knox is empty by now! __________________ [email protected] VirtuaGirl: Free Desktop Strippers, 20+ Millions users, 1200+ Girls to choose from, All HD Exclusive Content. Check our TOP100 detailed stats: http://totemcash.com/free/statistics.php