This past November every GOP candidate ran on job creation. Yet, all of the legislation they've proposed thus far has revolved around limiting abortion rights, preventing same sex marriage and other cultural issues that have no financial bearing whatsover. Other bills pushed by Republicans would repeal the "Wall Street" law, and among other things limit the ability of speculators to affect the price of gasoline by manipulating oil commodities.

John Boeher did nothing but speak about job creation during the November elections, but as of today has not pushed forward a single bill that would do anything to spur the creation of jobs. In fact, the GOP voted last year to block a bill that would've given tax incentives and preferences to American-based companies that actually hired Americans as opposed to American companies that set up shop in other countries and hire non-Americans. Are there any conservative P5ers who can provide clarity here?

I hate titles like this you know it's going to be a condescending OP

 

Originally Posted by coolhandkev

I hate titles like this you know it's going to be a condescending OP

wasn't being condescending at all. seriously wanted honest, open responses from conversatives who had a position on the subject. i know p5 is full of conservatives and thought this would be a great place to pose the question.

 

Originally Posted by saxman

If you consider the number of jobs in the public sector and all of the cries for implementing austerity measures as a means of balancing the budget, any talk of job creation is just plain bullshit.

When Paul is done digging his ditch and filling it back in, make sure you rob enough money from Peter so that you can pay him.

 

Originally Posted by above_films

This past November every GOP candidate ran on job creation. Yet, all of the legislation they've proposed thus far has revolved around limiting abortion rights, preventing same sex marriage and other cultural issues that have no financial bearing whatsover. Other bills pushed by Republicans would repeal the "Wall Street" law, and among other things limit the ability of speculators to affect the price of gasoline by manipulating oil commodities.

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that 'cultural issues' have no financial bearing whatsoever?

 

Originally Posted by coolhandkev

I hate titles like this you know it's going to be a condescending OP

I found this OP to be hardly condescending, and actually inquisitive, although with a few shortcomings in logic.

 

Originally Posted by jasmith85

When Paul is done digging his ditch and filling it back in, make sure you rob enough money from Peter so that you can pay him.

Teachers, firefighters, police and the like could hardly be called ditch diggers. Furthermore, the constant complaint about the decay of infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) would logically assume that more spending is required, not less.

 

Originally Posted by above_films

so you're suggesting that limiting abortion rights and preventing same sex marriage has a basis in the financial stability of the country?

It has some effect on job creation to be certain; take abortion rights - if abortion rights are limited, then people get up in arms and protest - they buy more paper, wood, and magic markers to make protest signs. They get their daddy to drive them to the clinic which brings the family SUV closer to needing maintenance from the local mechanic - more work. These anti-abortion protests bring out the pro-life crowd, getting the over 70 year old crowd out of the assisted living facility and back into the economy when they get together to counter protest, and afterwards go to lunch together which helps the local Red Lobster. The limiting of abortion rights means that they can't use it as a form of birth control any longer, so the people making the sex have to buy more condoms or they rush to the doctor to get one of them IUD's, which leads to the doctor hiring more receptionists and assistants.

When same sex marriage is restricted, people have to travel to states where it is legal, which adds to the transportation economy. They also will more likely honeymoon in the USA, spending money for hotels and restaurants here instead of overseas so that they can 'stick it in everyone's face'.

Every little bit helps - sorry you can't see that.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

Difference being of course that while Conservatives know that more Government is not the solution to high UE while Liberals think they can just magically print money and create jobs.

Correct, the only problems that should be solved by government are immoral sex acts and the excess of brown people who want to come here.

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Correct, the only problems that should be solved by government are immoral sex acts and the excess of brown people who want to come here.

Don't forget keeping uppity 15 year-olds in line when they decide to fight with their Moms.

 

Originally Posted by above_films

Are there any conservative P5ers who can provide clarity here?

I doubt that anyone, conservative, P5er, or anyone else, could provide anymore clarity than you perceive you already have.

Not speaking for those who have been elected, but jobs will be created by the private sector when government gets out of the way by lowering the debt and deficit, lessening regulation, passing fewer laws, reducing taxes, especially on small businesses. Remember, government does not create private sector jobs, businesses run by human beings create jobs. Government however can certainly create an environment is supportive, or not, of creating jobs.

We will clearly disagree on that environment though right?

Jobs are created when there is a demand for goods and services sufficient to require that expansion take place to produce more goods and services to meet the demand. How is that going to happen?

Can you tell me how government can affirmatively create demand for good and services out of nothing. Demand will come from people who have the money and the confidence in the economy to start spending money. Of course it would be nice if, when consumers started spending money again, they actually spent money they have rather than borrowed money, but I guess we'll see about that.

Here is the President's idea as to how to increase jobs:

"It is time for companies to step up," President Obama said Wednesday during a town hall hosted by CBS News that's been broadcast this morning on The Early Show.
American taxpayers, he said, helped bail out several industries in 2008 and 2009.
CBS News

"Companies have benefited from that, and they're making a lot of money," Obama said, "And now's the time for them to start betting on American workers and American products."

http://http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/12/136234886/obama-time-for-companies-to-step-up-and-bet-on-american-workers?ft=1&f=1001

What exactly is he encouraging businesses to do here? It seems that he wants businesses to hire more people, not because it would be a wise business move to increase efficiency and productivity but because the government bailed some of them out. This is some solid reasoning. No?

Seriously, he wants businesses to hire more people because their stock values are going up? Because some industries got bailed out? What does nay of that have to do with whether or not it is a good business decision to hire more people? Does he want businesses to hire more people because it is okay to reduce profitability? I just don;t get this statement by the President at all unless one simply puts it in a political context of now since the economy is not where it needs to be for him to get re-elected, he must find someone to blame for the continuing failures of government in overmeddling with the economy.

President: "Hey we gave some of you something now you give something back". wtf? Is this how an economy operates? It absolutely shows the naivete, immaturity, and reveals him as a simple minded idealogue. Please don't assume this criticism means I think republicans are any better, because on they whole they are not.

Bottomline is if you are looking to Democrats to make things better that would be as silly as me looking to republicans to make things better. Why get out of the way so that people can make things better for themselves?

YES!

Modern day republicans are anything but fiscally conservative. They say what they need to in order to obtain votes. Then they proceed to exchange reach arounds with the libs while in office.

 

Originally Posted by above_films

You misunderstood his point. His position is (and he's said it in several interviews) is that large corporations that received the benefit of bush tax cuts and bailouts owe it to American citizens to not hoarde the wealth they received through all of that assistance, but to hire American workers and invest in smaller American businesses through sub-contracting of services, etc.

That is not what he said here. Besides "big corporation" is a bullshit attempt to divide people. In fact, he used Intel as an example. I am not aware that it received any bailout funds. It also shows a lack of understanding of how many people are employed by small (>50 employees) in this country and the severe disadvantages that the government places on them. He ignores them because they are not useful in being divisive for political purposes. "Workers v Big Business" is the useful political divide.

Your statement about small businesses is non sensical. We simply disagree that anyone, individual or business, has some obligation to share its wealth through what even means the President deems appropriate. If it was such a big deal to Obama that these businesses share the wealth of the bailout he should have put conditions on it. To say that they now owe something for something they received in the bailouts is naive and shows the lack of foresight that went into the bailouts and in fact is an admission of the failure of the bailouts.

Just lol at taking the position that "big business" is evil and greedy, then give them boat loads of cash and then expect them to just "do the right thing" when the time comes. Really? Nobody is really that naive are they? It sound more like it has become useful to use them as a scapegoat for the failures of the bailouts.

Taxes for businesses is at an all-time low. Yet the economy isn't moving faster because companies aren't investing in the American workforce. These "millionaire business owners" are purchasing foreign stock options and their companies are taking jobs overseas and providing employment opportunities for non-American workers. That won't help grow the economy in America. They do have a responsibility to "give something back." You believe the President to be naive and a "simple-minded idealogue" because you simply refuse to accept the culpability of large corporations in regards to the economy in America.

Wow. The sour economy is businesses fault for not investing in the American workforce? That is just absurd. You really think businesses do not want to expand and grow? You have said some really dumb things on this forum but this one is close to the top.

I do accept the culpability of big business in American. In fact, I spend every day of my life pursing lawsuits against large companies, who treat people unfairly. I am no fan of the way business and government have operated together to, among other things, restrict competition and entry into markets by creating regulation and statutory schemes to protect those businesses and industries that are powerful enough to get what they want from government. Business is very culpable, but not for not hiring American workers because they received bailout funds.

 

Originally Posted by above_films

You misunderstood his point. His position is (and he's said it in several interviews) is that large corporations that received the benefit of bush tax cuts and bailouts owe it to American citizens to not hoarde the wealth they received through all of that assistance, but to hire American workers and invest in smaller American businesses through sub-contracting of services, etc.

Taxes for businesses is at an all-time low. Yet the economy isn't moving faster because companies aren't investing in the American workforce. These "millionaire business owners" are purchasing foreign stock options and their companies are taking jobs overseas and providing employment opportunities for non-American workers. That won't help grow the economy in America. They do have a responsibility to "give something back." You believe the President to be naive and a "simple-minded idealogue" because you simply refuse to accept the culpability of large corporations in regards to the economy in America.

Do you (and Obama) really think that big Corporations are going to make bad business decisions just because some people think that they "have a responsibility to give something back"? Like really?

I wonder how you would feel if you owned a huge chunk of stock in IBM and their CEO announced that he was "giving something back" to the country by increasing payroll by 20% without increasing productivity and sales.

I also wonder how the stock price would react to such news. Do you even think of such things before you get up on that soap box of yours?