Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
I'm genuinely curious: from a Republican perspective ...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Given that jobs were the primary focus of Republican candidates in the last Congressional election, what has the Republican party done 9or even proposed) that address the jobs issue?
I see a lot of discussion about cutting the budget and some social issue positions, but nothing on jobs. What gives? |
Anonymous
|
In my opinion, they have dropped the jobs piece like an out-of-favor word of the day.
They are focused on spending cuts, and they can't cut enough to make the claim that it is going to produce jobs. The cuts in fact will just result in layoffs. |
Anonymous
| Empower the private sector. Shrink the feds. Its philisophical and is going to have to be done no matter who is running the show. Permanant corporate tax cuts are probably the best job producer. Breaking unions will help create more jobs by lowering inflated salaries/benefits and hiring spreading it around to more people. |
Anonymous
Dogma uber alles! |
Anonymous
I just read GE made $14 billion profits worldwide and I think $8 billion of that was here in the U.S., but the company paid NO corporate taxes at all. So who does? And I didn't think there were many unions left in the private sector. They seem to have migrated to public life. And actual salaries have remained pretty constant for the middle class since the 1970s. How much lower should they go? |
Anonymous
Philosophy does not always equal reality. And you should not talk about it if you can't even spell it. |
Anonymous
And if we did lower the corporate tax rate, corporations will find another place to call home to eliminate paying US taxes. It's become a moral issue. |
Anonymous
A moral issue in what sense? That the corporations will get out of paying in any case, so we should forget it, or in the sense that something has to be done to make a step toward fairness. If the tea party hasanything to be enraged about, I would think this should be near the top of the list. |
Anonymous
|
Only 7.6% of the private sector jobs are union. Even if you abolished them, it's going to have a small effect on employment. They just aren't big enough to matter.
The only place they would matter is public sector, but fiscal conservatives are not going to increase staffing levels no matter what union concessions they get, so no jobs will come from there. |
Anonymous
well corporations are making fat profits now but plowing it all back into overseas operations rather than U.S. jobs - why do we think that would change if we just give them more money? |
Anonymous
| Unions and regulations kill manufacturing. It leads to less pollution lazy but "fair" workers, and eventual bankruptcy, loss of jobs , deficits , poverty and Kenyan leaders. |
Anonymous
| The corporations would be smart to just leave the united states if Obama gets re elected. Go to Singapore, Australia, new Zealand, brazil , and have factories in china, Mexico, south America etc,,.suffocate the welfare state. |
Anonymous
It's really not that hard to explain. From the Republican perspective, the government can't really do much to create jobs, on net. Yes, it can tax people and fund jobs with that money, for example, but overall that actually reduces the net number of jobs, because the taxes etc. crowd out more private economic activity than the government spending creates. It's just that you can see the direct beneficiary of the government action, but the costs are invisible and spread across the economy. The same is true for regulations. While some regulations are necessary, any regulations above what is actually necessary--and can we at least all accept that some regulations are unnecessary--has the same effect, suppressing job-creating economic activity that should otherwise happen. Hence, the best thing to do to facilitate job creation is to try to get the government out of the way. Is this perspective correct? I imagine that is a pretty complicated question about which economists disagree, and my own guess would be that at certain levels of taxation/government spending/regulation, it is a pretty compelling argument, and at other levels of taxation/etc. it probably isn't that big an effect, and where we are on that spectrum is probably pretty hard to tell. Look, I know the talking point here is that Republicans are evil, but that really isn't a particularly interesting world view, and it's just not correct. Republicans and political conservatives of other stripes are generally trying to do what they believe is best for this country, and it is just that they have different premises and assumptions about how the world works than those on the political left, and this yields different points of view on what is the best policy. In my view, most of those types of assumptions are debatable and, heaven forfend, the Republicans are probably right on at least a few. Certainly they are wrong on a few as well. I'll even give you one. I'm pretty right-wing politically, but I think conservatives are dead wrong on the issue of gay marriage, which I support. I think many conservatives (incorrectly) see gay marriage as a symbol of all the many negative social trends that left-wing social policy has inflicted on this country, and oppose it for that reason, when in reality, I think it is very hard to dispute that homosexual orientation is basically innate and gays should have the same opportunity to form families as straights. |
Anonymous
LOL, troll, Singapore? Yes, because they are known for their vast manufacturing capacity! Australia and NZ? Yeah, because they have waaaay fewer gov't protections of workers than the U.S. 
P.S. Most big corporations have already moved their factories to China and Mexico. But they did it under George W. Bush. |
Anonymous
| headquarters in Singapore not factories. Finish reading. The Wisconsin mentality leads to bankruptcy, and poverty. |