Free Shit?

Quote from nitro:



I actually think that the government has done too much in giving away stuff, when instead it should put that money to work by hiring people to build bridges/roads and/or repair them, clean up wastelands, and other government spending. But the batton has to be passed on to business at some point, and it is their turn to take risk, for the sake of us all.
More...

Anyone who has had to manage the P&L of a business, especially one which answers to outside shareholders, will tell that if they did this, they would be out of a job soon after, as would the "extra" workers they hired.

If I am a hiring manager, do you think I'm going to put my own employment at-risk to hire more people than I need for some abstract social good? Not likely. I will only hire if I anticipate demand. Even then, I can't just hire anyone, I have to hire people with the right skills to meet that demand. From what I've read, there is a big skill gap between many of the unemployed and the jobs that are being created. This shows up in the differentials in unemployment rates among various demographics, with some demographics (graduate-degreed) being at essentially full employment and others (youth, new college grads) being at levels of unemployment even beyond the Great Depression.
 
Quote from nitro:

I am not summing anything up. It is in quotes. These are someone else's words not mine.

It is important to understand all sides of an argument. I think that this is what people on ET and the tea partiers are saying. On the other other hand, there is a whole sector of people, who have done everything right, want no handouts, would be willing to work hard, and are still in a bad way.

It makes no sense to point fingers because that is not solution oriented. I just think that the people that have money should give the world a break and take a chance and make investments. I don't mean give away stuff, although there is a time for that too. I mean take a chance and go out on a limb and start hiring even if you don't need the extra few workers, in the hope that if everyone pitches in a little, we can reach critical mass and start the economy up again.

I actually think that the government has done too much in giving away stuff, when instead it should put that money to work by hiring people to build bridges/roads and/or repair them, clean up wastelands, and other government spending. But the batton has to be passed on to business at some point, and it is their turn to take risk, for the sake of us all.
More...

Well said.

From when 'Economic Rationalism' was the buzz phrase, First World infrastructure has been run down.
Now is the time to rebuild.

Politics: I don't care about left or right. Liberal or Conservative.
 
I mean take a chance and go out on a limb and start hiring even if you don't need the extra few workers, in the hope that if everyone pitches in a little, we can reach critical mass and start the economy up again.
------------------------------

The first one up to do additional hiring with that theory in mind is the fed and state gov't.

I suppose the biggest boost in employment recently was the creation of the TSA.

After that was the temp hiring of census workers.

This is not working to boost the economy.
 
Quote from nitro:

I am not summing anything up. It is in quotes. These are someone else's words not mine.

It is important to understand all sides of an argument. I think that this is what people on ET and the tea partiers are saying. On the other other hand, there is a whole sector of people, who have done everything right, want no handouts, would be willing to work hard, and are still in a bad way.

It makes no sense to point fingers because that is not solution oriented. I just think that the people that have money should give the world a break and take a chance and make investments. I don't mean give away stuff, although there is a time for that too. I mean take a chance and go out on a limb and start hiring even if you don't need the extra few workers, in the hope that if everyone pitches in a little, we can reach critical mass and start the economy up again.

I actually think that the government has done too much in giving away stuff, when instead it should put that money to work by hiring people to build bridges/roads and/or repair them, clean up wastelands, and other government spending. But the batton has to be passed on to business at some point, and it is their turn to take risk, for the sake of us all.
More...
Now you've taken a great opening quote and turned it into stupidity.

The government doesn't need to start hiring more. The government needs to get out of the way. Every job the government creates is a job the private sector can't.

The government has too many regulations, rules and hoops to jump through for small business. Government doesn't create - it destroys. The government is supported on the backs of free enterprise. Only the strenth of the American economy has allowed government to become the huge monster that it is. Make America a good place to do business again by removing the thousands of regulations the Obama administration has created. Presently government is strangling business.
 
“Can’t you live within your income?” He asked?

“No,” she said. “It’s all I can do to live within my credit.”
 
Quote from pspr:

Now you've taken a great opening quote and turned it into stupidity.

The government doesn't need to start hiring more. The government needs to get out of the way. Every job the government creates is a job the private sector can't.

The government has too many regulations, rules and hoops to jump through for small business. Government doesn't create - it destroys. The government is supported on the backs of free enterprise. Only the strenth of the American economy has allowed government to become the huge monster that it is. Make America a good place to do business again by removing the thousands of regulations the Obama administration has created. Presently government is strangling business.
More...

Take a look at the GDP numbers released yesterday, they show that while private sector spending was up, government spending was down.:

http://money.cnn.com//2012/04/27/news/economy/gdp-economic-growth/index.htm


Apparently that is why GDP growth was "only" 2.2%, instead of the 2.6% that was "forecast". So it seems that public sector employment has been kept in check, partly due to the pullout from Iraq and Fughanistan.

Would going back to the "W" system be a better way to go?? You know, the one that took the US from a $300 budget SURPLUS (when Dubya took office), to a trillion dollar DEFICIT??

Rules and regulations prevent the type of greed and manipulation that caused the recent financial meltdown that almost led to the "Greatest Depression", and got the US into the recession that it finds itself mired in. Loosening those restrictions would not foster economic growth, but rather, allow those who believe "greed is good" to thrive as they did under Dubya.
 
Quote from keeptradin':

Take a look at the GDP numbers released yesterday, they show that while private sector spending was up, government spending was down.:

http://money.cnn.com//2012/04/27/news/economy/gdp-economic-growth/index.htm


Apparently that is why GDP growth was "only" 2.2%, instead of the 2.6% that was "forecast". So it seems that public sector employment has been kept in check, partly due to the pullout from Iraq and Fughanistan.

Would going back to the "W" system be a better way to go?? You know, the one that took the US from a $300 budget SURPLUS (when Dubya took office), to a trillion dollar DEFICIT??

Rules and regulations prevent the type of greed and manipulation that caused the recent financial meltdown that almost led to the "Greatest Depression", and got the US into the recession that it finds itself mired in. Loosening those restrictions would not foster economic growth, but rather, allow those who believe "greed is good" to thrive as they did under Dubya.
More...
If that made any sense then the bigger the government the better the economy. That's not how it works. Government is a drag on the economy in the medium and long run.

Sure, government can inject money into the economy through spending and inflationary FED operations but it is our money they are spending and loaning.

The only way to a robust economy in the long term is to shrink our bloated government and remove government impediments to business creation.

Liberals have a difficult time understanding the reality of this. Take Europe for example.
 
Quote from pspr:

If that made any sense then the bigger the government the better the economy. That's not how it works. Government is a drag on the economy in the medium and long run.
More...

Not a bigger government, but a more efficient one. One that does the job that it is mandated to do (enforce existing laws and regulations) and nothing more.

And certainly not one that legislates removing restrictions on corporations that have historically proven to be self-serving and bottom-line oriented. You know, the ones who pay eight-figure bonuses to CEO's who put thousands out of jobs, in order to "make numbers".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top