It seems to me that when politicians talk about wanting to protect the job creators (meaning businesses), they are forgetting that businesses can only create jobs when the economy is good and products and services are in demand.
When the economy is in a slump or recession, workers are laid off and other expenses cut. The same job creators, therefore, become job destroyers. Businesses are not going to hire people out of kindness, but necessity.
When people have jobs, they have money to spend, production goes up and businesses hire workers to meet the increased demand for goods. When people have jobs, government has a better revenue base (income taxes) and saves money because less people qualify for public assistance.
But the government must be the job creator in the present situation, simply because nobody else is going to do it.
Once the economy is stable, the deficit can be attacked from a position of strength.
Doris McNally, Leeds
Report a correction
Doris, What you are proposing
Doris,
What you are proposing is classical Keynesian economic theory. However, this theory may not work contemporarily:
Keynesian economics assumes a balanced budget (on average). That is during times of economic growth, taxes are increased to temper inflation. This surplus is later injected into the economy to stimulate it during a downturn. The Government has been growing the monetary base for decades thereby stimulating the economy to an unsustainable equilibrium. At some point, possibly now, the country can no long inject enough money into the economy to sustain the artificial equilibrium.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Creating JOBS
can NOT be accomplished by BIG BROTHER except to stay out of the way !! Excessive Regulations = Job cuts.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."President of the United STATE, Dan?
An honest typo on your part or a deeper, subliminal message?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.BHO is president of the United 57 States.
He and all other Progressives want exactly one state, the "national" government, replacing the "federal" government.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Good one, Frosty...
Good one, Frosty...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Correction
That's low interest loans.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hiring the unemployed to sharpen pencils
This actually has a historical precedent. During the Great Depression when we had 25% unemployment the government had programs to hire people to build roads and do whatever and after WWII when the soldiers returned home to an economy that had no jobs for them the government came up with the GI Bill that sent a bunch of them to school and gave others low income loans to buy homes which created a slew of construction and manufacturing jobs and boosted the American economy to the point where we were able to revive the economies of Japan and Europe. Putting money in the pockets of people who will readily spend it does create jobs and businesses.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yes Claire, and the principal
Yes Claire, and the principal on the money we borrowed in 1950 to achieve this was never paid off. Moreover, we have continued to borrow since then to a point were $0.40 on every dollar spent is borrowed. This borrowed money has stimulated to a false equilibrium that cannot be sustained.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.All good stuff, Claire, but
All good stuff, Claire, but the national debt, then, wastn't 15 trillion dollars.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If public sector jobs netted
If public sector jobs netted a benefit to the economy whether necessary or not, local, state and the federal governments could have solved our economic woes by hiring all of the un-employed to sharpen pencils or whatever. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Common sense
You would think that it would be common sense that businesses can only prosper and thrive when they have customers with money in their pockets. Yet all the government activity you see lately results in lost employment for teachers, police , firemen, government workers and now with the latest budget cuts a horde of health care workers. And somehow they call this job creation. One bright light in the budget catastrophe of 2008 is that seniors managed to hang on largely thanks to programs like Social Security, Medicare and Veterans benefits. Another is unemployment insurance. Now, these programs are now under attack. Giving tax breaks and subsidies to businesses and eliminating the income sources of their customers does not prosperity make. You also need feet on the ground if a business is going to thrive. A community that is looking to drive people out of it is not helping businesses. The more people you attract the better chance you have for economic development.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.well after a year, lepage
well after a year, lepage hasn't done much, has he? I know, all his buddies will say 'it's only been a year' but he has manage to enrich his buddies, create havoc with the safety net, hire his daughter, destroy a $60,000 mural, vacation in Jamaica, but no jobs created, in fact more jobs have been loss under his administration then have been created. I'm sure his clan is real proud of him.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (10) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Dan, If Lepage created a job
Dan,
If Lepage created a job for his daughter (as you assert) and created jobs to remove the mural (as you assert), then you cannot claim he did not create any jobs.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Dan you obviously don't
Dan you obviously don't understand the process of writing and passing bills to bring those jobs in.........it's a process that takes a bit of time whether you are a republican or democrat. As far as the "safety net" is concerned, it is so far only a proposal. Nothing has been passed, but even that will take a bit of time so the "havoc to the safety net" as you put it, doesn't exist.
Ps: Yes, I am proud of him! For having the strength to do what is right for our state without fear of what it might do to his reputation with Dan Breton.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.oBAMa still says, "It's only
oBAMa still says, "It's only been 3 years; I need more time", and still blaming stuff on Bush. What's the difference?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.and what has THAT got to do
and what has THAT got to do with the topic of discussion? Seems that when you cannot support lepage, you go to an unfounded attack on the President of the United State.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (7) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Read both posts again while
Read both posts again while holding a light bulb in your hand; it'll come to you.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.