• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Voters Prefer Job Creation Over Deficit Cuts, Poll Shows

apdst said:
How do you come that conclusion, when after more than a trillion dollars has been spent, in two years and the economy is still no better off and probably worse than it was?

And, BTW, the interstate system was built for strategic and tactical reasons. You should have learned that at log pack school.
Click to expand...

I can come to that conclusion for two reason:
1) The question was can, not always, does government spending help the economy.
2) I know that I shouldnt judge something on one example, something which you constantly fail to understand whether its Muslims or gov't spending, democrats, whatever. If you find one example of it going bad, suddenly anything associated with it has the same amount of guilt and is equally responsible.

The interstate system was created for strategic and wartime purposes, so was the technology that led to the internet, however they've still contributed to economic growth in incalculable ways and there's no denying it.
 
apdst said:
How do you come that conclusion, when after more than a trillion dollars has been spent, in two years and the economy is still no better off and probably worse than it was?
Click to expand...

Worse? How is 1.1 million new jobs worse? How is GM and Ford in much better positions worse? How is more banks lending worse?

Tell me, why do you think $1 trillion less in aggregate demand over 2 years with higher taxes would produce better outcomes?

Tell me, why do you think doing nothing to prop up banks when they had stopped interbank overnight lending would produce better outcomes?

Tell me, why do you think no qualitative easing, which the market did approve of with direct stock gains, would have produced better outcomes?

You have this condescending attitude towards those who disagree with you, but when pushed into technical issues, you totally flail around like a kid in a pool who never learned to swim.

And, BTW, the interstate system was built for strategic and tactical reasons. You should have learned that at log pack school.
Click to expand...

Where did he say anything to show he did not know that? Seriously dude. Read a post for comprehension before replying.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
You cant spend your way to economic recovery. The government needs to stop the spending, cut taxes and nix alot of these regulations that make it a pain in the ass to start business to create jobs.

U.S. Voters Prefer Job Creation Over Deficit Cuts, Poll Shows - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

For the article, not the OP

funny-pictures-cat-has-obvious-hat.jpg
 
chevydriver1123 said:
You cant spend your way to economic recovery.
Click to expand...

China suggests otherwise. As does South Korea. Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. Not to mention WWII.

The government needs to stop the spending
Click to expand...

Which will reduce total net aggregate demand reducing jobs.

cut taxes
Click to expand...

Which on a real level, effective marginal taxes are relatively low compared to industrial nations.

nix alot of these regulations that make it a pain in the ass to start business to create jobs.
Click to expand...

Do you know how easy it is to start a business in the US? The problem seems more likely lack of financing and demand.
 
obvious Child said:
Worse? How is 1.1 million new jobs worse? How is GM and Ford in much better positions worse? How is more banks lending worse?

Tell me, why do you think $1 trillion less in aggregate demand over 2 years with higher taxes would produce better outcomes?

Tell me, why do you think doing nothing to prop up banks when they had stopped interbank overnight lending would produce better outcomes?

Tell me, why do you think no qualitative easing, which the market did approve of with direct stock gains, would have produced better outcomes?

You have this condescending attitude towards those who disagree with you, but when pushed into technical issues, you totally flail around like a kid in a pool who never learned to swim.



Where did he say anything to show he did not know that? Seriously dude. Read a post for comprehension before replying.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a better debate would be whether the government could have spent the $800 billion in a way to have a long term benefincial impact on our economy. For example if we had used money to more quickly put in place a network of natural gas refilling stations. This would allow people to sell cars feuled by nat gas which is produced here versus imported oil. We could have modernized our railroad track beds as to allow them to run high speed trains to better move product. Rail is much more energy efficient than trucks.

So CAN government spending have favorable impacts, yes. But it seems our congress is not willing to pas this sort of legislation.

It would also be great if they substituted this type of spending with spending e.g. defense that does us little good (in my view).

I did not respond to the TARP comments because the money given to banks will be paid back with interest and profit so it was more a lona than an expense.
 
obvious Child said:
Worse? How is 1.1 million new jobs worse? How is GM and Ford in much better positions worse? How is more banks lending worse?

Tell me, why do you think $1 trillion less in aggregate demand over 2 years with higher taxes would produce better outcomes?

Tell me, why do you think doing nothing to prop up banks when they had stopped interbank overnight lending would produce better outcomes?

Tell me, why do you think no qualitative easing, which the market did approve of with direct stock gains, would have produced better outcomes?

You have this condescending attitude towards those who disagree with you, but when pushed into technical issues, you totally flail around like a kid in a pool who never learned to swim.



Where did he say anything to show he did not know that? Seriously dude. Read a post for comprehension before replying.
Click to expand...

But are there really 1.1 million new jobs ? Who can ever forget the 2 million "new jobs created" BS created by the Bush administration in the months leading up to the 2004 election, when they used every phony ruse you could think of (construction workers returning to work after a cold winter, union workers returning back to work after striking, etc.) ?
If 1.1 million new jobs have been created, then how is it that unemployment has jumped to the government figure of 10 million ?
Want to get Americans back to work ? Get the 8 million illegal aliens in the US out of here, and stop giving out 150,000 work visas to foreigners every month, and get unemployed Americans into those jobs.
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
Perhaps a better debate would be whether the government could have spent the $800 billion in a way to have a long term benefincial impact on our economy.
Click to expand...

Of course. My biggest dig with the stimulus was in its timing. What kind of stimulus program takes effect 2 years from the recession? A stupid one. It's like giving a blood transfusion next month to someone who needs it now.

For example if we had used money to more quickly put in place a network of natural gas refilling stations. This would allow people to sell cars feuled by nat gas which is produced here versus imported oil. We could have modernized our railroad track beds as to allow them to run high speed trains to better move product. Rail is much more energy efficient than trucks.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of ideas that are worth consideration. However, considering the state of disrepair of America's infrastructure, we probably should have spent it there. There are hundreds of bridges (and thousands of overpasses) in the US in need of repair and rebuilding and our roads across the country needs to be replaced.

So CAN government spending have favorable impacts, yes. But it seems our congress is not willing to pas this sort of legislation.
Click to expand...

And it's getting worse. The GOP is now putting security at risk for political points. The Dems are worthless, but when the GOP is now making good on getting Obama out at all costs, we have real problems.

I did not respond to the TARP comments because the money given to banks will be paid back with interest and profit so it was more a lona than an expense.
Click to expand...

Except for AIG and maybe Chrysler. AIG's money is gone.
 
Protectionist said:
But are there really 1.1 million new jobs?
Click to expand...

I think so. That data is coming from new private sector jobs.

Who can ever forget the 2 million "new jobs created" BS created by the Bush administration in the months leading up to the 2004 election, when they used every phony ruse you could think of (construction workers returning to work after a cold winter, union workers returning back to work after striking, etc.) ?
Click to expand...

That is a good point.

If 1.1 million new jobs have been created, then how is it that unemployment has jumped to the government figure of 10 million ?
Click to expand...

The way the unemployment number is calculated. As I understand it, the numbers now include those formerly searching and who left searching and have now restarted searching for jobs. The real question has U6 changed?

Want to get Americans back to work ? Get the 8 million illegal aliens in the US out of here, and stop giving out 150,000 work visas to foreigners every month, and get unemployed Americans into those jobs.
Click to expand...

Eh. Colbert showed that the jobs illegals do America's won't. Furthermore, most of those work visas as for jobs we can't fill. Highly skilled worker visas are not cheap and firms would rather hire a American then have to issue one of those. The paperwork ALONE for a skilled worker visa and fees are pretty high. The reason we issue so many is we don't have the people here for those jobs.
 
apdst said:
The government can't replace private sector cash flow. The past two years and over a trillion dollars has proven that.
Click to expand...

No, but who said anything about replacing it? If you'd really paid attention to how this country got into this mess you'd know that corporate America could not correct the economic problem because THEY WERE THE PROBLEM! Even GW Bush said so when he addressed the nation in October 2008. No one else had the economic capacity to put the private sector (banking, securities, mortgage lenders and insurance companies, particularly property) back on sound fiscal footing than did the federal government. Yet, it is NOT advocating a takeover of anything from the private sector. TARP was NOT a takeover initiative orchestrated by GW Bush; it was a financial crutch for the private sector to stabalize it so that the economy could repair itself.

And in doing so, the federal government then stepped in with public-private partnerships (i.e., government contrators) to help supplement the economic base that has been lost due to the economic downturn. I don't know of any new federal agency that has been created since Pres. Obama took office and yet everyone keeps talking about this expansion of government. If all you have to go by are these federal contract jobs, most of which were temporary job for the Census which by law occurs approximately every 10 years anyway, I really don't see where the government expansion has truly taken place. But Conservatives will push that line knowing there's really no truth to it. But folks soak it up anyway.
 
obvious Child said:
Eh. Colbert showed that the jobs illegals do America's won't.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand the argument that there are jobs that Americans "won't do." If Americans "won't do" a job and there is nobody else to take the job, then the people seeking to fill those positions will be forced to raise the salaries or otherwise improve the position until Americans will do those jobs.

It's not like prior to illegal immigration, nobody on the planet picked vegetables or bussed tables. Those jobs simply paid more than they do now.
 
obvious Child said:
Except for AIG and maybe Chrysler. AIG's money is gone.
Click to expand...

That is why I mentioned the bank portion. AIG will be interesting. The mutual fund with a great 10 year track record has been buying up AIG stock. It now holds nearly 30% of the common stock which will only have value if they can pay off the government or Geithner turns the debt to some type of stock.
 
RightinNYC said:
I still don't understand the argument that there are jobs that Americans "won't do." If Americans "won't do" a job and there is nobody else to take the job, then the people seeking to fill those positions will be forced to raise the salaries or otherwise improve the position until Americans will do those jobs.
Click to expand...

In the context of current pay.
 
RightinNYC said:
I still don't understand the argument that there are jobs that Americans "won't do." If Americans "won't do" a job and there is nobody else to take the job, then the people seeking to fill those positions will be forced to raise the salaries or otherwise improve the position until Americans will do those jobs.

It's not like prior to illegal immigration, nobody on the planet picked vegetables or bussed tables. Those jobs simply paid more than they do now.
Click to expand...

I agree that the pay could and should be raised until people are willing to do the jobs. It used to be a man could support his family on the pay of a janitor. Today that's hardly enough to support himself let alone his family.
 
RightinNYC said:
I still don't understand the argument that there are jobs that Americans "won't do." If Americans "won't do" a job and there is nobody else to take the job, then the people seeking to fill those positions will be forced to raise the salaries or otherwise improve the position until Americans will do those jobs.
Click to expand...

And if they're forced to raise the salaries, then they no longer make any profit, the industry becomes uncompetitive, and it leaves the country entirely.

RightinNYC said:
It's not like prior to illegal immigration, nobody on the planet picked vegetables or bussed tables. Those jobs simply paid more than they do now.
Click to expand...

If you have to pay tomato pickers enough to motivate American workers to pick tomatoes, then the price of American tomatoes will increase. This makes imports from other countries more attractive, and bankrupts the domestic industry entirely. So the net result won't be more jobs for Americans at the expense of foreigners.
 
obvious Child said:
In the context of current pay.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't really address "Protectionist's" point - in an imaginary world where we could actually kick the illegals out, that would go a long way toward reducing unemployment. A substantial portion of those jobs would be filled by legal citizens at higher wages, increasing taxable income and reducing unemployment.
 
Kandahar said:
And if they're forced to raise the salaries, then they no longer make any profit, the industry becomes uncompetitive, and it leaves the country entirely.
Click to expand...

This is an argument against minimum wage, not just against kicking out illegal immigrants. If the minimum wage is so high that it would drive jobs overseas, then I'm open to a discussion on lowering it. I just think that Americans and illegals should be on an equal playing field when competing for these jobs.

If you have to pay tomato pickers enough to motivate American workers to pick tomatoes, then the price of American tomatoes will increase. This makes imports from other countries more attractive, and bankrupts the domestic industry entirely. So the net result won't be more jobs for Americans at the expense of foreigners.
Click to expand...

A non-trivial portion of these jobs are not portable. There are around 500k illegal immigrants in NYC. I would wager that less than 10% of the jobs they fill are jobs that could be exported overseas. The majority that I know of work as barbacks, delivery people, maids, porters, cooks, etc.
 
apdst said:
The government can't replace private sector cash flow. The past two years and over a trillion dollars has proven that.
Click to expand...

Government spending cannot force businesses to reinvest. However, government spending can prevent businesses from having to close. For example, consider unemployment benefits.

If 8 million people watched their incomes go from a positive number to zero, their consumption expenditures will then become completely dependent on their level of savings. Yet if they are heavily in debt (as is common in the US), liabilities will have a negative impact on personal consumption expenditures. Businesses that depend on their spending will then be negatively impacted.

Unemployment benefits help keep local businesses afloat during tough economic times. The majority of all UI benefits are allocated to consumption.
 
RightinNYC said:
This is an argument against minimum wage, not just against kicking out illegal immigrants. If the minimum wage is so high that it would drive jobs overseas, then I'm open to a discussion on lowering it. I just think that Americans and illegals should be on an equal playing field when competing for these jobs.
Click to expand...

This ignores the nature of the job. Minimum wages only affect low skill aspects of the economy. Policies that support low skilled labor equilibria are a negative for long term growth outlooks given the earning potential of this demographic, and their particular cost of living differentials in comparison to low skilled laborers abroad. Lowering minimum wages increases the demand for low skilled labor, and is a comparative disadvantage for a post industrial economy.
 
RightinNYC said:
But that doesn't really address "Protectionist's" point - in an imaginary world where we could actually kick the illegals out, that would go a long way toward reducing unemployment. A substantial portion of those jobs would be filled by legal citizens at higher wages, increasing taxable income and reducing unemployment.
Click to expand...

This assumes the demand for low skilled labor remains constant. America's strength is it's innovative take on increasing productivity, not policy applications that increase the demand for low skilled labor.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This ignores the nature of the job. Minimum wages only affect low skill aspects of the economy. Policies that support low skilled labor equilibria are a negative for long term growth outlooks given the earning potential of this demographic, and their particular cost of living differentials in comparison to low skilled laborers abroad. Lowering minimum wages increases the demand for low skilled labor, and is a comparative disadvantage for a post industrial economy.
Click to expand...

Goldenboy219 said:
This assumes the demand for low skilled labor remains constant. America's strength is it's innovative take on increasing productivity, not policy applications that increase the demand for low skilled labor.
Click to expand...

There are always going to be barbacks, delivery guys, maids, dog walkers, etc. Not too much room for productivity increases there. My argument is that if there are going to be people doing those jobs, it makes more sense for them to be earning whatever they earn above the table and in fair competition with other potential employees. A system where illegal immigrants work for $5/hour and pay no taxes while an unemployed American receives welfare checks because he can't take that job benefits no one (except for the owner and the consumers who might pay a penny less for their bud light lime.)
 
RightinNYC said:
This is an argument against minimum wage, not just against kicking out illegal immigrants. If the minimum wage is so high that it would drive jobs overseas, then I'm open to a discussion on lowering it. I just think that Americans and illegals should be on an equal playing field when competing for these jobs.
Click to expand...

It's not just the fact that we have minimum wage laws. It's more related to the fact that Americans, by choice, will not pick tomatoes at a low wage. Picking tomatoes in the hot sun sucks; no one's going to volunteer to do that if they can get a job at Wal-Mart that pays the same. So repealing minimum wage laws isn't going to have much of an impact on this. The real problem isn't that Americans aren't ALLOWED to pick tomatoes for $2 per hour. It's that they WON'T pick tomatoes for $2 per hour. And the American tomato industry would be uncompetitive if it had to pay its workers $12 per hour instead.

RightinNYC said:
A non-trivial portion of these jobs are not portable. There are around 500k illegal immigrants in NYC. I would wager that less than 10% of the jobs they fill are jobs that could be exported overseas. The majority that I know of work as barbacks, delivery people, maids, porters, cooks, etc.
Click to expand...

OK, so those jobs won't move elsewhere the same way that the tomato-picking jobs will...they'll just disappear entirely and/or cost the consumers more money.
 
Kandahar said:
It's not just the fact that we have minimum wage laws. It's more related to the fact that Americans, by choice, will not pick tomatoes at a low wage. Picking tomatoes in the hot sun sucks; no one's going to volunteer to do that if they can get a job at Wal-Mart that pays the same. So repealing minimum wage laws isn't going to have much of an impact on this. The real problem isn't that Americans aren't ALLOWED to pick tomatoes for $2 per hour. It's that they WON'T pick tomatoes for $2 per hour. And the American tomato industry would be uncompetitive if it had to pay its workers $12 per hour instead.



OK, so those jobs won't move elsewhere the same way that the tomato-picking jobs will...they'll just disappear entirely and/or cost the consumers more money.
Click to expand...

Neither of those things are likely to happen to a significant degree. For business owners who can't afford to pay a proper American wage, yes, they'll drop out. So what ? If they couldn't pay a proper wage, they shouldn't be in business in the first place. I say to all those employers, go out and do the same thing that all the rest of us who cant afford to run a business do. Get a job.
As for the costing the consumers more money, standard Microeconomics tells us when prices go up, sales (and business income) goes down. Business owners cannot raise prices in response to deportation of illegal aliens, raise in minimum wage, or any other increase in our costs. If we do we lose even more money, not gain.
Actually, we have nothing to say about the price of our product. We don't determine it. it comes from the market. It is the "market price" (ie. the highest price we can charge without suffering losses from reduced sales). > Ye old bell-shaped curve.
In most cases, business owners actually do quite well after wages go up, due to the increase in disposeable income, and thereby increase in sales. Toughest thing in business is when you're selling a product for $500, and you ask the caller how much he can afford to put down, and he says "Uh 10 bucks". For businesses whose wages are already high, this increase in sales is pure gain. Same thing for businesses where all the workers are paid by commission (as in auto and other sales).
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
This is an argument against minimum wage, not just against kicking out illegal immigrants. If the minimum wage is so high that it would drive jobs overseas, then I'm open to a discussion on lowering it. I just think that Americans and illegals should be on an equal playing field when competing for these jobs.



A non-trivial portion of these jobs are not portable. There are around 500k illegal immigrants in NYC. I would wager that less than 10% of the jobs they fill are jobs that could be exported overseas. The majority that I know of work as barbacks, delivery people, maids, porters, cooks, etc.
Click to expand...
Almost all these illegal alien jobs are non-portable. They (landscaping, construction, janitorial, hotels, etc) are "Domestic Outsourcing" (ie. that part of the workforce where the jobs can only be done INSIDE the country). If they could be done outside the country, they would be.
 
obvious Child said:
I think so. That data is coming from new private sector jobs.



That is a good point.



The way the unemployment number is calculated. As I understand it, the numbers now include those formerly searching and who left searching and have now restarted searching for jobs. The real question has U6 changed?



Eh. Colbert showed that the jobs illegals do America's won't. Furthermore, most of those work visas as for jobs we can't fill. Highly skilled worker visas are not cheap and firms would rather hire a American then have to issue one of those. The paperwork ALONE for a skilled worker visa and fees are pretty high. The reason we issue so many is we don't have the people here for those jobs.
Click to expand...

Looks like Colbert didn't do his homework. Center for Immigration Studies reported some years ago that of over 450 occupations, immigrants were in the majority in practically none. As for visas for skilled jobs, the Director of the National Society of Black Engineers said that when you have a labor shortage, wages goes up. He's right. But wages for engineers have been plummeting. Why ?
Simple answer - domestic outsourcing with work visas (hiring cheap, foreign labor). This isn't happening because of a labor shortage. It's happening because of greed - employers maximizing profits any traitorous way they can.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom