The Myth the Potus can Create Jobs

**Big Smoothy** · 08-30-2011, 11:07 AM

Only a few will be interested in this but I'd like to hear from them on this. Here in the US, the politicians and the reporters are discussing how the President (potus) can create jobs and how he needs to create jobs. This is a myth that many voters and the public have unquestionably fallen for.

Presidents don't create jobs. Politicians don't create jobs at the Congressional or Senatorial level. Governors don't create jobs. However in certain instances in certain industries they can make conditions for for hiring and business growth, this is very rare, today.

Does anybody notice that the mainstream still does not get it on this issue?
---
Jan. 25 2010
Can the president really do much to create jobs?

With all the criticism and political bellyaching about Obama taking his eye off the jobs problem, there is far too little discussion as to what – if anything – this president, or any other, can actually do about it.

A nasty job deficit is a terrific political issue if you happen to be on the side of the opposition. You can yell and scream that the current administration is not focusing on the ability of Americans to earn a living, knowing that this is a sure way to score political points with the many people who are suffering. Yet, all the while the opposition is hoping that when they do regain power, timing will be on their side and the jobs numbers will somehow begin to turn positive.

In truth, the party in opposition will be as powerless to control the jobs picture as any current or past administration in the modern era.

In today’s economy, the government’s ability to impact on this problem is far less than you might think. Simply put, the United States government is no longer the 800 pound gorilla it once was when it comes to controlling our economy and the jobs that come – or go – with it.
How did that happen?

With private industry free to ship as many jobs overseas as they wish; with the amount we, as a nation, spend on imports now exceeding the amount of taxes the Federal government collects; and with the amount of foreign money invested in our debt, the globalization of the economy has swamped Washington’s ability to mold our economy in the way it once could.

Nobody questions the fact that wages for the middle class have not kept up for many years now. With American industry sending jobs overseas by the millions, domestic labor has not had much in the way of bargaining power to argue for improved wages. Yet, if government were to attempt a reversal of the jobs exodus by putting clamps on a private company’s right to run their businesses as they see fit, the populace would be up in arms over the destruction of our beloved, free enterprise system. And which party would likely be leading that revolt? I think we all know.

For those who feel the need to turn this into a business versus labor fight, some will blame generations of unions run amok for making it too expensive for business to afford labor in this country. The other side will argue that labor was only trying to keep up so that workers would not be losing ground, particularly at a time when the rich continued to get richer. Let’s face it. Both sides have taken advantage when the pendulum swung in their direction. While the expensive labor force no doubt played a role in the initial decision to send jobs elsewhere, that balance has been more than corrected, and the jobs still aren’t coming back home.

The truth is that the business versus labor battle is a dishonest distraction.

....It’s too late. We’ve already sent the jobs overseas.

In a remarkably prescient cover piece in Business Week back in 2006, just before the sky began falling on the real estate market, we find –

Since 1995 imports have risen from 12% of gross domestic product to about 17%. And foreign money finances about 32% of U.S. domestic investment, up from 7% in 1995 (emphasis added). In other words, the U.S. is more open to the global economy than ever before, and the links run in both directions. Now many of the levers affecting the U.S. economy are located not in Washington but in Beijing, London, and even Mexico City.

Entire: Can the president really do much to create jobs? - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - True/Slant

**irish_2003** · 08-30-2011, 11:10 AM

but he's the messiah....the annointed one.....he's the second coming of jesus......

**258884** · 08-30-2011, 11:34 AM

Elect me now.

Dear Mr. President,

Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan":

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes..

Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

**ExLe** · 08-31-2011, 01:17 AM

If the POTUS can't create jobs then why is Obama announcing his so called jobs plan In Sep. 3 years after taking office? You should send this myth link to the White House and let him know that he has done enough damage as it is.

**lovethislife** · 08-31-2011, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by 258884

Elect me now.

Dear Mr. President,

Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan":

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes..

Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

hmmm

**Dale Mabry** · 08-31-2011, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by ExLe

If the POTUS can't create jobs then why is Obama announcing his so called jobs plan In Sep. 3 years after taking office? You should send this myth link to the White House and let him know that he has done enough damage as it is.

What damage has he done?

**OnPoint88** · 08-31-2011, 07:50 AM

Potus does create jobs, offshore and for illegals lol.

**LAM** · 08-31-2011, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by ExLe

If the POTUS can't create jobs then why is Obama announcing his so called jobs plan In Sep. 3 years after taking office? You should send this myth link to the White House and let him know that he has done enough damage as it is.

the POTUS can not "create" jobs in the private sector but he can create a better environment for the creation of capital projects. this is US economics 101

**ExLe** · 08-31-2011, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

What damage has he done?

How about to allow the national debt to increase $4 trillion under his watch in less than 3 years. The most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S president in history leading to the S&P downgrade.

**LAM** · 08-31-2011, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by ExLe

How about to allow the national debt to increase $4 trillion under his watch in less than 3 years. The most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S president in history leading to the S&P downgrade.

the S&P downgrade had to do with the fight over the debt ceiling increase. in no time in US history has a balanced budget EVER been a requirement to pass that ceiling increase...for that you can thank the tea party and the GOP. it should have been signed end of story...

lol in 2007 the share of national income that goes to labor reached a 70 year all time low. this means that tax receipts are substantially reduced which causes the deficit to increase. it also means that the fed gov has to step in and spend while the private sector has time to pay down consumer debt low enough to feel comfortable spending which increases consumption. letting 10's of millions of people fall into poverty only hurts long term economic growth. in 2008 23M US households of mostly married couples fell into poverty requiring the use of food-stamps.

in 2009 Paul Krugman stated that the stimulus wasn't enough in regards to the size of the US economy in terms of GDP and the amounts of jobs that were lost.

you not a clue about economics in the real world...

**Dale Mabry** · 08-31-2011, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by ExLe

How about to allow the national debt to increase $4 trillion under his watch in less than 3 years. The most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S president in history leading to the S&P downgrade.

Most of that can be attributed to the asshole before him. Just out of curiosity, what policies that he has enacted have raised our debt the most, in your opinion? Our debt is currently $14.67 trillion.

**ExLe** · 08-31-2011, 01:42 PM

So Dale I take it you were not a Bush supporter, but you are an Obama supporter right?

**Dale Mabry** · 08-31-2011, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by ExLe

So Dale I take it you were not a Bush supporter, but you are an Obama supporter right?

No, they are/were both terrible. If I were to divvy up blame on a percentage basis over the last 2 presidencies, I would give close to 80% of it to Bush based on the wars, medicare D, and the tax cuts we could never afford. Over the past year I would say Obama has done a pretty thorough job of fucking up the country. The members of congress and the senate during each president's time deserve an equal share of the responsibility, however. The reason I asked you about what policies of Obama's you thought were increasing the deficit the most is because most of the policies he has pushed that have increased our deficit have been republican policies. Tax cuts, continual war funding in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.

**ExLe** · 08-31-2011, 02:11 PM

I agree Dale. I am was not a Bush fan due to all the spending he did but I think Obama messed things up even worse. I just can't stand liberals or Bush haters who turn around and support Obama when his policies are identical to Bush but don't publicly complain now that their man is in charge. Check out my post on the Obama uncle getting arrested thread where I give some examples. These threads are similar so we should just keep adding to that one to make it easier.

**LAM** · 08-31-2011, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by ExLe

I just can't stand liberals or Bush haters who turn around and support Obama when his policies are identical to Bush but don't publicly complain now that their man is in charge.

the lesser of two evils.

and for the record economic liberals are the keepers of capitalism while neo-liberals prefer fascism and the monopoly....you should really learn the definition of a world before you use it.

**ExLe** · 08-31-2011, 02:28 PM

If he is the lesser of 2 evils then why do you defend him everytime someone post anything negative about him?

If a child gets beaten by his dad and mom, but his mom beats him less is the child going to defend the mom because she doesn't beat him as bad?

How can it be lesser of 2 evils if he is following the same Bush policies. Just because he claims he wants to raise taxes but always finds an excuse not to. You should dislike him more for lying to his supporters.

**ExLe** · 08-31-2011, 02:30 PM

**LAM** · 08-31-2011, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by ExLe

If he is the lesser of 2 evils then why do you defend him everytime someone post anything negative about him?

If a child gets beaten by his dad and mom, but his mom beats him less is the child going to defend the mom because she doesn't beat him as bad?

How can it be lesser of 2 evils if he is following the same Bush policies. Just because he claims he wants to raise taxes but always finds an excuse not to. You should dislike him more for lying to his supporters.

if you thoroughly read most of my posts I rarely defended the policy of the democrats as they really don't have any, they are mainly reactionary to that of the GOP. I'm pretty much anti-conservative economic policy because that policy progresses neo-liberalism in the US which is bad for all but the top 10% of households.

the economy of any country is only as strong as it's weakest link, the low wage earners. the poverty rate in the US is increasing which means that weak link is growing as the "middle class" continues to shrink.

**irish_2003** · 09-01-2011, 09:44 AM

maybe we shouldn't even get to keep any of our paychecks....it should ALL go to the gov't to decide what to do with it....they can then give each person an equal allowance weekly to have and the rest of the money can be used to give freebies and entitlements to those who don't earn a living then......oh wait....fuck that.......there should be a bigger gap between wealthy and poor fuckers....that way i'm rewarded for my hard work.....poor people are dirty and have diseases and smell

**LAM** · 09-01-2011, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by irish_2003

there should be a bigger gap between wealthy and poor fuckers....that way i'm rewarded for my hard work.....poor people are dirty and have diseases and smell

the income gap makes the economy more unstable especially when wage growth is severely lagging behind the CPI. it is actually one of the leading causes of economic stagnation right now. essentially company's in their quest to return to the high profit margins of the 60's have starved themselves as the majority of people no longer can afford to consume.

in the US this extreme wage inequality also causes the FRB to keep interest rates lower than they need to be. if the FRB raised interest rates right now many people (homeowners, etc.) that have revolving credit could not afford the increase in payments and would fall behind in payments leading to more foreclosures, increased poverty, etc.

basically there is a widespread insolvency problem which stems from the absence of industry for legitimate income to fuel consumption. the debit crisis and a lack of legitimate income is what helped to fuel the banking collapse in 2007. with no place to invest monies capitalists have to devise new riskier methods of making money with their excess capital, the FRB is lending at 0%. this is why the derivatives market is so hot right now, and it's going to be the cause of the next market crash.

until some level of homeostasis is returned to the US economy GDP will never increase or real incomes and things are going to continually get worst and worst.

**ExLe** · 09-01-2011, 12:37 PM

So LAM are you happy with the Obama Presidency? Will you be voting for him in 2012?

You keep dodging the question.

**irish_2003** · 09-01-2011, 12:42 PM

i'll vote for the lesser of two evils.....which is ALWAYS voting against liberals/dems......

**LAM** · 09-01-2011, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by ExLe

So LAM are you happy with the Obama Presidency? Will you be voting for him in 2012?

You keep dodging the question.

as happy as I have been with any democratic POTUS.

knowing what i do about economics I can not vote for for a republican for POTUS. the world would be a much better place if neo-liberalism was just a thought and never implemented. conservative economic policy has destroyed the middle class. that being the case I have and will vote for republicans at the local level but never for POTUS. not that it matters since the electoral college ultimately decides who occupies that seat.

**ExLe** · 09-01-2011, 01:24 PM

So is that a yes on both?

**LAM** · 09-01-2011, 01:49 PM

that would be a yes

**ExLe** · 09-01-2011, 02:07 PM

Now that wasn't to hard was it? Do you think Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice for the Dems than Barry?

**LAM** · 09-01-2011, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by ExLe

Now that wasn't to hard was it? Do you think Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice for the Dems than Barry?

It would only have made a slight difference. there are many systemic problems with the US economy and none of them have really been addressed as recession recovery needed to be the primary focus.

we are feeling the effects of 30-40 years of short sightedness and improper planning for the country's future. the GOP probably would have let Hillary do a little more but not much more. the economy of 2011 for the most has been planned by the neo-cons decades ago, they have an agenda. on top of that lobbyists and campaign financing has pretty much destroyed democracy in the US at this point and citizen's united was pretty much the coup de gras.

I truly feel sorry for the young children of today, their future at this point is rather bleak.

**Inventive1** · 09-01-2011, 03:35 PM

Back to the original question of job creation. The Obama administration has already successfully created jobs. The Federal government's workforce is larger now, then when Obama took office. In fact, the federal government has been one of the few employment sectors which has been growing. Now, this is NOT to suggest that I'm in favor of larger government!!! I'm just pointing out what has happened.

All the current Washington gibberish about job creation coming from politians of both political parties is essentially nothing more than election trash talk. And once the next election is finally over, the employment picture will probably look about as dismal as it does now. NEITHER political party is capable of fixing the current economic mess!

Some folks believe the economy runs in cycles. These cycles have been compared to the 4 seasons. For example, the 1980's were an economic "spring"; the 1990's were an economic "summer"; and 2000-2008 was an economic "fall". Using this analogy, we are currently in an economic "winter". Unfortunately, it's going to be a long, cold winter.

**LAM** · 09-01-2011, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Inventive1

Back to the original question of job creation. The Obama administration has already successfully created jobs. The Federal government's workforce is larger now, then when Obama took office. In fact, the federal government has been one of the few employment sectors which has been growing. Now, this is NOT to suggest that I'm in favor of larger government!!! I'm just pointing out what has happened.

you should probably compare the growth of the fed gov to past years for a more accurate assessment. the current growth of the federal government is actually at it's lowest in the past decade.

Current Employment Statistics Highlights July 2011
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – JULY 2011 Total
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/arch...t_08052011.pdf

Historical Federal Workforce Tables
Total Government Employment Since 1962

Occupational Employment and Wages News Release

**Woodrow1** · 09-01-2011, 08:01 PM

We need RON PAUL man!!!

He would be a godsend to USA!

Thread: The Myth the Potus can Create Jobs

Thread Tools

Display

The Myth the Potus can Create Jobs

Similar Threads

how do I create my own avatar

Create a Rule

Help me create something

Create your own SouthPark pix

Create your own slogans!

Posting Permissions