Obama Says GOP Must Back U.S. First, Create Jobs

I'll bet he won't deport drunk drivers since his illegal alien African uncle is one.

 

So now you're blaming black people for the high cost of tuition and America's inability to compete with the rest of the world? Seriously? I guess when conservatives run out of arguments, they have to play the race card. Pathetic.

Just for ships and giggles, how does someone entering college, paying tuition fees and then not completing their degree program effect tuition rates? The colleges are still getting their money because the student is paying their tuition while they are taking classes. Do colleges get some sort of subsidy for the number of students they graduate? If so, please show us this incredible program. I'd love to hear about it.

What an insightful response. Do you seriously believe that businesses aren't investing in America because they're afraid of risk when they have massive amounts of capital to spend?

 

Why not blame the greedy professors and do-nothing administrators who make more and work less?

 

Let me make sure I get this straight;

China and Europe are "cheating" because they are subsidizing their workforce to better compete on the global market. Meanwhile, the U.S. is playing "fair" because they want their workers to pay out of pocket for their services which leads to less people seeking said services because they can't afford it.

Is that seriously your argument?

The only people strangling the US economically are the conservatives you worship. You believe in some phoney religion which has been proven over and over again to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Yet when a method which has proven to be both effective and superior comes along, you say its "cheating" because you're too dense to realize you have been bamboozled by the very people you put into power.

You want proof of this? Just look at the number of private sector jobs that have been created under the Obama administration versus the Bush administration. During the Bush years, private sector hiring was anemic, while the majority of jobs gained during that time were in the public sector. The ONLY reason we've had any job growth in the last 3 years was because of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and subsequent job bills that were blocked by the GOP but eventually passed because of the Democratic majority in congress. Yes, the GOVERNMENT stimulated economic growth by giving small and large businesses various incentives to hire people.

I'll say it again so it can sink in; The Democrat President and Congress passed numerous jobs bills to give incentives to private companies to hire people. Every single one of these measures were obstructed or blocked by the GOP at one point or another.

I will ask this again, knowing full well that the conservatives on this board are too cowardly to answer the question;

What jobs bill has the Republican congress put forth since January 2011 when they took control of the House of Representatives?

And for the thick among us;

Jobs bill= a piece of legislation that provides direct incentives for companies to increase hiring.

 

Ask Iron River.

 

I asked you first.

 

A company isn't going to hire you if you don't meet the minimum requirements for a job. That is common sense.

For example, if an Aerospace company is looking for plant workers and their minimum requirement is a certification in advanced Diesel Technology, they're not going to hire someone who doesn't have that certification. If someone interested in that job can't afford to go to school to get that certification, then obviously they're not going to get trained. In the end, the Aerospace company will just bring someone in from overseas, or open the plant overseas where they can get the workers they need. There goes dozens if not hundreds of possible American jobs.

 

Relevance to discussion?

 

Libs have been arguing for more tuition assistance and if the lib educators were not charging so much more students could afford to attend college.

 

They will in a workers market, you don't have that, its an employers market, and no 'training program' is going to make a difference. In case you haven't noticed we have 9% unemployment, there are already plenty of qualified people that aren't working, adding more qualified people isn't a solution, its a feel good liberal scheme that doesn't even begin to address the real problem.

 

Even when colleges had comparatively low tuition rates, the cost of college was prohibitive for many people for a variety of reasons. Cost is always a factor. Remove that factor like China and Europe has been doing, and you will have a more adaptable work force.

That is the point.

 

I guess you missed this;

http://www.nwcn.com/news/business/Wanna-job--Check-out-aerospace--111495059.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...n-t-find-qualified-workers-among-jobless.html
http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=206990

Here's some more;

http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-news/2011/sep/04/manufacturers-need-skilled-workers/
http://hrblog.typepad.com/perfect_l...-despite-high-unemployment.html#axzz1XByyF3gb
http://www.ideastream.org/news/feature/41090
http://www.prbuzz.com/business-entrepreneur/54812-employers-cant-find-qualified.html

It is still a worker's market. The reason it appears to be an employer's market is because you have an unskilled workforce that can't get retrained to get the jobs that are currently available.

 

We agree that cost is a factor.

If the greedy educators would charge less then college would be more affordable.

 

So what? A few companies, some in obscure locations, are looking for some help. A national retraining program isn't going to solve that problem. That's a local issue, nothing good could come from a federal program that would require a massive size and scope. This looks like some lazy companies that 'need' help, have applicants and haven't figured out that maybe they should simply train them themselves, problem solved. No need for a federal program for that. Instead you big government liberals want a national program to fill 30 jobs in Bum(*)(*)(*)(*)egypt, USA.

 

I guess you didn't read the articles. This snippet is from Bloomberg;

4,551 Microsoft jobs around the country isn't 30 jobs in bum(*)(*)(*)(*)egypt USA. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Is this guy for real? The GOP passed plans that would help get the government back on track instead of wasting money and putting us further into a hole.

Obama had 2 years with full control of government and has failed.

 

Microsoft is not in Bum(*)(*)(*)(*)egypt, USA, they are based out of the Seattle region, in that I would agree. Let me ask you this, those Microsoft jobs, how long does one need to train in order to be qualified? Two weeks? A Year? Four Years? If the answer isn't less than one year, this program is even stupider than I might have initially thought. It also said, in the quote you gave, it takes them 65 days to fill those jobs, which means they are being filled, imagine that.

Does anyone have a real plan for this retraining program? The problem that seemed to be in every article is that very specific skills were needed in each instance, so how exactly are those specific skills going to be taught in a huge broad based program? This is not a government problem, its failure for companies to recruit and keep employees. Only companies can solve this problem, not some massive waste of tax dollars.

 

65 days is a very long time to fill a position. Imagine if you ran a company and you needed a designer to design a new line of products for your company and it took you over two months to hire someone. Taking that long to fill positions is never a good thing in a rapidly growing company.

Its simple; The government could work with private companies to find out which fields are the most needed in the American work force. People who enter these majors will get their education either fully or partially subsidized by the government. Not only will this attract more people to those fields, it would also cut down on the number of people wasting federal student loans on majors that won't offer them many opportunities when they graduate.

 

That is pathetic. You want government to give free or partially free education to people because they major in something that companies may or may not need?

That is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess.

 

They should offer more money, the time would be decreased dramatically.

No its not simple, its a complex waste of tax dollars. It isn't fields that need to be filled, its individual positions, which require specific skill sets, that is what you fail to realize. If you are talking about majors, you are talking college/university, which is years, so how does this help the 9% unemployment now? It doesn't, this is just another plan to waste tax dollars in a lame attempt to buy votes from the unemployed. So now we want the government to tell people what to study or they don't get a special reward? The thought policing you liberals envision turns my stomach.

 

A jobs bill is a piece of legislation that encourages job creation and job growth through tax policy, educational and vocational initiatives, infrastructure development initiatives, etc.

From what I have read of the "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011", which is the entire bill, it is strictly a budget-oriented piece of legislation, that makes revisions to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balance Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and proposal for a balanced budget amendment.

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/07/15/the-cut-cap

The "Cut, Cap, and Balance, Act of 2011" strictly deals with budgetary spending and policy, as indicated by this description of it. I don't see one policy that promotes job creation or job growth, unless you make the irrational argument that any government proposal that improves the budget leads to a massive change of heart in businesses to hire unemployed Americans.

 

Do you think massive 1.5 trillion dollar spending deficits as far as the eye can see...that businesses know full well they're going to be burdened with paying back...is conducive to private sector economic growth?

How about the red tape, expense and uncertainty surrounding that leftist scumbags 'legacy' entitlement legislation.....do you think saddling the business community with more regulatory bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and expense is conducive to private sector growth?

All of it is "budgetary spending and policy"....and until it is sorted out...by grownups who understand economics.... and businesses know what additional hurdles can be expected in an already tricky economic environment, none of them will stick their necks out farther than absolutely necessary....and I, being a business owner, can hardly blame them.

 

Obama can suck it.

We already gave him a Trillion dollars for all that stuff and he wasted it and didnt create any jobs.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MjQ17kDng"]Obama vs Obama on the Stimulus - YouTube[/ame]​

 

Why is this so irrational to you? Poll after poll, survey after survey of business owners in America say exactly what the problem is which is leftist policies designed to drive up the cost of labor and products in the middle of a recession.

Only an idiot would think that in the middle of an economic downturn, using policy to raise the cost of labor and production is a good idea.

 

Here is policy for you:

1. Decrease the corporate income tax rates, yet decrease loopholes for corporations and the ability to find offshore tax havens.
2. Eliminate the AMT
3. Provide retroactive tax cuts to private construction companies, renewable energy companies, and large-scale technology corporations, and privitize projects to promote private-sector initiated infrastructure and renewable energy stimulus.
4. Open up natural gas reserves within the United States which will allow interested companies to hire workers in this nation.


These are just a few vague policies that we could institute to promote job creation and job growth. Why anyone would state that government should do nothing to promote job growth is ludicrous.


Furthermore, I don't think any of these aforementioned policies make me a leftist. Do you seriously think that solving our budgetary problems is the only thing we must do to return to economic stability?