Fact: US Republicans do not care about jobs

Since the unemployment situation is what got the Republicans elected back into congress, how many jobs bills have they presented in their first 100 days?

NONE.

Why do you think this is?

The fact is, the GOP is fine with the economy the way it is. Their financial backers, large corporations, are doing fine. They have no reason to fight for middle class America. Republicans never have.

I predict we never will see a jobs bill from them.

 

LoL. Thats like asking how many pro-choice bills you saw the Republicans introduce. Newsflash. Republicans don't believe the government creates jobs, especially with something called a "jobs bill", which is usually just spending bill dedicated to some Democratic special interest.

 

I agree with Obamanation's comments: Republicans do not want to introduce a "jobs bill" because they believe, as I do, that it's the private sector and the free market that create jobs. I actually find the idea of a "jobs bill" to be misled--I do not support the idea of creating jobs through government spending. Rather, I see the role of the federal government as to create the best incentives for the economy to operate well on its own.

If I were to create a job-promoting bill, you know what I would choose to do? I would make a bill that eliminates the payroll tax and replaces it with some combination of other taxes and cuts in spending. If you want to read my proposal for this, and explanations of why I think this would be a beneficial change, check out my page on taxes. I believe the payroll tax to currently be the largest barrier to job creation in the U.S. While I would rather repeal both income tax and payroll tax in the long-run, in the short run I think it would be preferable to eliminate the payroll tax and replace it with a single, simpler income tax of a slightly higher rate.

 

I also want to respond to one other thing here:

I would agree with you that the Republicans definitely do have a lot of big corporate backing, and I don't like it--it's a point that concerns me, and I think it is tied to significant corruption. However, the problem exists in both parties--the Democrats also get a lot of big corporate backing. Both parties have problems with corruption, but it's also true that there are many people acting sincerely within both parties.

Making sweeping overgeneralizations about members of one party being totally corrupt or totally unconcerned with the health of the American people or the middle class does nothing to solve problems or advance the interests of America.

I think we ultimately advance America more if we keep our dialogue as respectful as possible, debating specific issues and specific solutions, rather than demonizing whole parties or dismissing whole groups of people.

I don't agree with everything the Republicans do and I don't agree with everything the Democrats do. And I think there are some deep problems with corruption in both parties. But I respect them all as people. And I understand that even the most corrupt politicians sometimes do good things (and especially, can be convinced to do good things if they are held accountable by their constituents).

 

The free market? Is that the one where we privatise profits and socialise loss?

 

Why did Reps bail out banks if they believed in free markets?

 

[video=youtube;J7m9wfFnH6o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7m9wfFnH6o[/video]

This video explains there is no such thing as a 'free' market.

 

Reps and Democrats as well. The answer is four words. "Too big to fail". Four years later, the financial institutions have consolidated, making the few big dogs that are left even bigger. You would figure a breakup of companies like Goldman and Citibank would have been a natural response to "Too Big to Fail", but the Obama admin has not even made a move in that direction, because those institutions hold politicians from both sides of the isle in their pocket.

If they were too big to fail before, they are way too big to fail now, which means the systemic risk to the system is still there. They can do whatever they want and if they fail, they are 100% assured another bailout. Its like a license to steal.

 

What is as interesting as their lack of interest for employment is the Republican obsession with defunding the Administrations healthcare legislation without offering any proposals of their own that would reduce the cost for average American citizens.

The systemic risks that banks represent are embedded in the policies and principles of Republican and conservative Democrats that prevent gov't regulators from managing the nations economy separate from the enterprises they are meant to regulate. The success of the Federal Reserve in curtailing the 07-09 recession is a stark contrast of principle where that bank does function independently from the enterprises it regulates.

 

One would have thought that even Lehman was too big too fail. But the fact is that Lehman hadn't infiltrated the US government the way Goldman et al had. When you look at it, Treasury sec, Federal Reserve Chairman, Chairpersons of branches of Fed, chief economic advisers, heads of regulatory bodies were all ex-goldman execs. They all just funneled american taxpayer money into their ex-companies. The amount of corruption in your government is really surprising and people all over the world suffer the repercussions of the actions of your wall street government. You guys can say whatever you want to the Europeans but you are the real pussies. Barclays can't fill up the regulatory bodies and cabinet in UK with its ex-employees but Goldman can in US. Europeans can control their corporations and rein in irresponsible bonus culture but you americans can't even when you agree that it must be done. Even your president is powerless in front of them.

 

I actually agree with pretty much all of your post here, except the last bit about the president. The president isn't powerless in front of them, he is one of them. It was true of Bush too, though perhaps arguably to a lesser extent than Obama. At least Bush gave a go at knocking down the Fannie/Freddie sub-prime mess prior to meltdown, only to be rebuked by Barney Frank and company, along with a few Republicans in congress who were benefiting from the whole mess.

The 2010 Goldman-Sachs congressional hearings were a complete farce that resulted in nothing. Our FTC hearings seem to be a joke as well, while Europe seems to do a much better job of spanking companies like Microsoft and Apple when they misbehave in their marketplace.

From my perspective, the problem is that everyone in Washington, from bottom to top, benefits from the structure the way it is set up right now, and there is a LOT of money involved. Even the new people we send there with big ideas very quickly become part of the machine. Even with the Tea Party, its hard to see how real change can happen in the face of such overwhelming financial power.

 

There's a reason for that. Republicans do not feel that its governments place to create jobs. They believe that if you create an environment conducive to creating jobs, the jobs will come.

There is no such thing as a job creation bill. All that does is create more government jobs that consume what little real wealth was already being created. Government does not create jobs or wealth. Government is here to protect our right to create jobs and wealth ourselves. This can be accomplished through tax breaks and incentives, easing of some restrictions or other barriers that government tends to create.

The GOP is doing just what the majority of American's asked them to do. I certainly hope we NEVER EVER see another "jobs" bill.

 

There's a problem with that philosophy however sweet and Utopian it sounds. Businesses are not in business to create jobs, they are in business to make money. A job is literally an expense on corporate balance sheets. Companies spend a large amount of time actively trying to reduce expenses. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it leads to innovation! That's their nature and it's what they are supposed to do.

I agree the market has to create the jobs, but don't just think free market capitalism automatically leads to jobs because it doesn't. Unless I'm mistaken and the American economy is not a capitalist one.

The government shouldn't be solely in the business of creating jobs but it should be driving the direction of our economy. It can do that by improving education and social programs so that all the people being left behind by the technological revolution have a better chance and or become smarter and innovate themselves.

 

No problem, no philosophy. It's just a proven fact.

Government does not create jobs.

 

Well said man, big businesses also pay attention to pleasing their investors. This could mean expanding operations or strengthening their brand name yeah? oops off topic

 

Job creation by Government is limitless, whether through contract or direct receipt.

Direct receipt is the Military and NASA by contract as examples. Stimulus spending for the nations infrastructure or jobs corps created during the 1930s Depression suit the nations citizens during times of stress or as a balance with enterprise in keeping prices down and wages at an acceptable level and distributed to the greatest number of participants.

No, the Republicans in Congress have done nothing in regards to full employment nor to stem the inflow of immigrant labour nor will they in either case.

 

Absolutely! Just look how well that worked out for the USSR!

 

American Military Industrial Complex is doing just fine O, ask GWB or the present Administration whether there is any room for it to Grow.

 

Did you just recommend asking the debtor if he is good for more debt? Asking the fat guy if a few more donuts are going to harm him? Asking Breeze if smoking pot dulls his wits? Asking the welfare recipient if the free money is discouraging him from seeking work?

The answers to these questions are obvious to everyone except the person being asked.

 

The subject is Jobs creation by the present Administration and the positive GDP since June of 09 - the debt you refer to was the Iraqi war and the recession caused by the previous Administration.

Is there any basis for the slander Republicans are freely allowed to exercise in this forum - their merits apparently are not enough.