Who can create more jobs

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Time-Immemorial
Of the three top canidates

Flyattractor
Trump can put all the hot women to work as strippers in his casinos.

The ugly ones can be ....well something were they won't have to be looked at.

Astner
Politicians do not create jobs, businesses create jobs.

Unless you live in a communist nation in which case politicians do create jobs. thumb up

Time-Immemorial
Everyone here thinks the government creates jobs.

I agree with you assner, however I think Trump would mostly likely create the most jobs based on him Beijing jobs back to America that have been outsourced by liberals.

Mindset
Trump can create a lot of jobs in Mexico, he has shown that.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Astner
Politicians do not create jobs, businesses create jobs.

Unless you live in a communist nation in which case politicians do create jobs. thumb up

When the Gummint forces you to do something that isn't a job. Its called slavery.

So if you want that...Vote Sanders or Hillary.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Mindset
Trump can create a lot of jobs in Mexico, he has shown that.

Which ones?

Henry_Pym
Wall builders

Time-Immemorial
laughing out loudlaughing out loud

Stigma
LOL at Sanders. He's a Commie. We had Communism in full bloom here in Poland and.... Thank you very much, I'd advise you to pass.

AsbestosFlaygon
I vote for the one who actually knows about creating jobs.

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Everyone here thinks the government creates jobs.



Of course it can, in two ways.

One, it can hire people directly, or two, it can do things that encourage economic growth and other company's hiring.


The New Deal caused employment to rise considerably. Obama's stimulus is credited with some 3 million jobs.




Some people live in a world where some jobs 'don't count,' but this is largely a fantasy. A government doing something to make jobs is no different than companies doing the same thing- the import thing is that the things get done. Three million jobs doesn't just 'not count,' because you don't like that it's the result of a government policy, that's flat silly.



Though that said, none of the three are likely to make too many jobs whoever is elected, because we're approaching what is known as 'peak employment.' Where if unemployment drops much more, the big employment problem will be companies having trouble finding people. Making jobs to match growth is about the best one can/should do.


Hm... I guess Trump could possibly make the most by losing jobs first ^^ Oh yea! Deporting millions of people will cause a localized economic collapse, and trying to fix that will involve many 'jobs' after the big unemployment spike all the closed companies will cause.

Bentley
Originally posted by Stigma
LOL at Sanders. He's a Commie. We had Communism in full bloom here in Poland and.... Thank you very much, I'd advise you to pass.

Aren't you poles giving power to another extremist nationalist regime already?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Of the three top canidates

Well, the economy does better under democratic presidents, so either Clinton or Sanders. Clinton would probably continue the very successful course of Obama, which has decreased unemployment significantly. On the other hand Sanders social policies could lead to more jobs and free up third jobs that people have to take up to make ends meet. So I'm not sure, either would be good.

Stigma
Originally posted by Bentley
Aren't you poles giving power to another extremist nationalist regime already?
To a nationalist and conservative party, yes. To extremists, no.

Current rulling party Law and Justice is akin to Britain's conservative UKIP.

Besides, in Poland we have parties that are more on the Right like Kukiz 15 (3rd political power in our Parliament) and KORWIN which did not enter it during last election.


On a side-note: If you compare a democratically elected government to the one forcebly imposed by the Soviet Communists, it's rather distasteful and ignorant, to say the least.

On another note: I know in France Mrs. Le Pen is gaing popularity with her national-conservative National Front party, possibly winning the next election. You may need to get accustomed to change in the political ambience. thumb up

Bentley
Originally posted by Stigma
To a nationalist and conservative party, yes. To extremists, no.

Current rulling party Law and Justice is akin to Britain's conservative UKIP.

Besides, in Poland we have parties that are more on the Right like Kukiz 15 (3rd political power in our Parliament) and KORWIN which did not enter it during last election.


On a side-note: If you compare a democratically elected government to the one forcebly imposed by the Soviet Communists, it's rather distasteful and ignorant, to say the least.

On another note: I know in France Mrs. Le Pen is gaing popularity with her national-conservative National Front party, possibly winning the next election. You may need to get accustomed to change in the political ambience. thumb up

Well, I really hope that your current ruling party acts legitimate and valid as you make it sound thumb up

You know, part of my wariness towards Conservative or extreme-left National parties is precisely that France has been under an imposed foreign government before. During that time, a good chunk of the french population willingly participated in the government efforts of the occupation. Some of those same people (let's not call them traitors) went to become partisans of the now poll-favorite National Front.

Is it true that the Government is trying to control national media? In other European countries that's certainly raising some eyebrows.

Stigma
Originally posted by Bentley
Well, I really hope that your current ruling party acts legitimate and valid as you make it sound thumb up
They should and will, though they're not my favourites either way.

Originally posted by Bentley
You know, part of my wariness towards Conservative or extreme-left National parties is precisely that France has been under an imposed foreign government before. During that time, a good chunk of the french population willingly participated in the government efforts of the occupation. Some of those same people (let's not call them traitors) went to become partisans of the now poll-favorite National Front.
I'm aware of the French history in that regard, and I would call them traitors.

Originally posted by Bentley
Is it true that the Government is trying to control national media? In other European countries that's certainly raising some eyebrows.
There have been accusations, mainly from the leftists.

The problem is that the public media, which are state owned, were always, shall I say, partial to the current rulling elite.
What we observe now is the change in the hierarchy at the top, with leftists being dumped in favor of the right. The exact same thing happened 8 years ago, but with the right being dumped in favor of the left.

TL;DR version: Public media are state-owned in Poland, whoever is rulling de facto will in some ways influence them.
This is a problem of bad law regulations that have not been clarified since the Communsit era and do not match modern times.


However, by far the biggest chunk of the media in Poland is private. Most seem to be pro-liberal, with some definitely with a conservative turn.

FinalAnswer
Originally posted by Stigma
LOL at Sanders. He's a Commie. We had Communism in full bloom here in Poland and.... Thank you very much, I'd advise you to pass.

Socialism =/= Communism thx very much

Bentley
That makes quite a lot of sense put into perspective, as you might guess, despite being in the Euro zone, we only get tiny bits of information whenever major political shifts happen in different countries. That's a thing that should probably change at some point, french public opinion is terribly narrow.

All in all you give me good news, so I'm satisfied and thankful of becoming more educated on the subject. Hopefully the vestiges from former Communist organizations will be throughly cleansed in the near future. They were really nests for all kinds of corruption.

Stigma
Originally posted by Bentley
That makes quite a lot of sense put into perspective, as you might guess, despite being in the Euro zone, we only get tiny bits of information whenever major political shifts happen in different countries. That's a thing that should probably change at some point, french public opinion is terribly narrow.

All in all you give me good news, so I'm satisfied and thankful of becoming more educated on the subject. Hopefully the vestiges from former Communist organizations will be throughly cleansed in the near future. They were really nests for all kinds of corruption.
I'm glad I could help.

The truth is media, be it private or public, always serve an agenda and they are a powerful tool to push certain things. But hey, at least we have the Internet.

Also, my French friend, I hope people of good will and of common sense can unite amidst all this info chaos.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the economy does better under democratic presidents, so either Clinton or Sanders. Clinton would probably continue the very successful course of Obama, which has decreased unemployment significantly. On the other hand Sanders social policies could lead to more jobs and free up third jobs that people have to take up to make ends meet. So I'm not sure, either would be good.

Not really, Reagan>all

Bernie is not a democrat, he's a socialist.

There is no way he can create more jobs then Trump.

Stigma
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Socialism =/= Communism thx very much
They're both versions of the same disease. GG thumb up

FinalAnswer
Originally posted by Stigma
They're both versions of the same disease. GG thumb up

Just like how conservatism and fascism is the same right?

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Not really, Reagan>all

Bernie is not a democrat, he's a socialist.

There is no way he can create more jobs then Trump.
Actually:

B. Clinton > Reagan in jobs

Carter also beat Reagan if we compare his single term to Reagan's two terms individually.

There's several others that also beat Reagan if we keep going down the line over the last hundred years or so; several of them Democratic presidents

Stigma
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Just like how conservatism and fascism is the same right?
LOL no.

Also, nice bait thumb up

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Not really, Reagan>all


Eh, he's no Obama or Clinton.


Clinton outdid everyone in economy in our lifetimes.

Obama managed a similar reduction in unemployment in much harder circumstances.




But again, we're near peak employment. No-one's gonna make oodles of jobs because in order to do so you'd have to import oodles of people. We don't have enough Americans to have giant job growth from where we are, thanks to Obama.

Time-Immemorial
Reagan>Obama

In your dreams Obama has outdone Reagan.

FinalAnswer
Originally posted by Stigma
LOL no.

Also, nice bait thumb up

Well your comparison is just as asinine so there you go.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Q99
Eh, he's no Obama or Clinton.


Clinton outdid everyone in economy in our lifetimes.


.


Clinton didn't create the tech boom but he was lucky enough that he got to ride it through his presidency. Just like when people love to talk about his budgets which were congressional budgets (in his case republican congressional.)


If Trump sticks to his guns on making deals I'd wager that perhaps he could help to create an economic enviroment to boost private sector jobs.

Bernie could be good as well though if he is able to focus on small business and spank some of the babied large corporations.

Robtard
Conservacons love to try and rob the states-master Bill Clinton of his glory, but they can't. No. They. Can't.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Robtard
Conservacons love to try and rob the states-master Bill Clinton of his glory, but they can't. No. They. Can't.


laughing He was a very successful president but he didn't create the tech boom and that was what drove "his" economic accomplishments in the private sector.

Then again people like to look exclusively at the president and tend to forget the congress and the courts and what current events/market factors are driving regardless of DC.

Stigma
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Well your comparison is just as asinine so there you go.
No, not really.

Socialism and Communism have something important in common (pun intended). I let you figure out what it is.

Stigma
Originally posted by snowdragon
laughing He was a very successful president but he didn't create the tech boom and that was what drove "his" economic accomplishments in the private sector.

Then again people like to look exclusively at the president and tend to forget the congress and the courts and what current events/market factors are driving regardless of DC.
Absolutely. No president can create jobs single-handedly, but the ones that have better understanding of business and economy will have a much bigger chance to succeed in this during their term. That's why Trump should be good at it.

FinalAnswer
Originally posted by Stigma
No, not really.

Socialism and Communism have something important in common (pun intended). I let you figure out what it is.

Just like Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler have important traits in common right?

Stigma
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Just like Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler have important traits in common right?
LOL Talk about asinine comparison.

Your conditioning is working well, liberal stormtrooper thumb up


But seriously I think we can safely say that our viewpoints are too different to reconcile, so there's no point in going back and forth about it. Just read the wise words of Winston Churchill in my signature and peace with you, bro.

FinalAnswer
https://saboteur365.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/trump-compared-to-hitler.jpg

And Winston Churchill was a ****ing scum bag responsible for Gallipoli and the current situation in the Middle East.

Q99
Originally posted by snowdragon

If Trump sticks to his guns on making deals I'd wager that perhaps he could help to create an economic enviroment to boost private sector jobs.

If he sticks to his guns on immigration, he'll cause a regional economic implosion, though.

What do people think happens when you remove 10 million people? Quick answer, you have massive amounts of companies shut down, demand drops, etc.. The Southwest becomes an economic pit for decades.


His deal-making ability could be helpful, but that's just one aspect of his platform, and his actual tax proposal mentioned isn't one that'd help either.

And as a businessman, he's ok, but If he had taken his inherited money and invested it in a mutual fund that tracked the S&P 500, he'd be at about the same wealth level to slightly richer. If he put it in a more diverse high-performing portfolio (but still not getting involved in actual managing the investments more specifically), he'd be a few times richer.

Warren Buffet, interestingly, did start with about the same amount of money at about the same time, and via choosing and managing his investments, he's over an order of magnitude richer.

And of course, managing investments and managing an economy is, itself, pretty different, experience in one doesn't mean one will be great at the other.



His minimum wage would be pretty interesting. I don't think we'd necessarily see much job *growth* but we would likely see the same jobs providing higher quality of life, which is at least as important if not more-so.

Robtard
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
https://saboteur365.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/trump-compared-to-hitler.jpg

And Winston Churchill was a ****ing scum bag responsible for Gallipoli and the current situation in the Middle East.

It forgot the one where Trump purposed that Muslims in America where Muslim Identifier tags, so everyone will known when there are Muslims about. Similar in how Jews were made to where the Star-of-David and homosexuals a Pink Triangle in Nazi Germany.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
https://saboteur365.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/trump-compared-to-hitler.jpg

And Winston Churchill was a ****ing scum bag responsible for Gallipoli and the current situation in the Middle East.

Isn't there a saying that the person that uses the Hitler argument to start any conversation always loses?

Pretty sure you are just posting off topic and that has nothing to do with jobs.

You just seem a bit hurt cause Trump has the most votes in the polls for job creation.

FinalAnswer
Never even voted in the poll lol

You seem a bit hurt the comparison is valid.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Q99
Eh, he's no Obama or Clinton.


Clinton outdid everyone in economy in our lifetimes.

Obama managed a similar reduction in unemployment in much harder circumstances.




.

Yeah. Obama got the Unemployment numbers down from 95 Million to 94.99 Million.

THANKS OBAMA!!!!

Nemesis X
I'm not sure if even with half the crap Trump gets away with saying, nobody would ever be okay with concentration camps. EVER. If he took notes after Romney, his Plan B can be increasing the tax on businesses that hire undocumented workers to the point annoyance ensues.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.