Is it the president's duty to create jobs and/or try to maintain current ones?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by 426653478, Jan 5, 2010.

  1. Is that one of his duties?

    How about to maintain economic stability?
  2. Lethn


    This is faulty logic to begin with, there is no point in creating new jobs if they aren't even going to help the people who have lost their jobs in the first place. An example would be the healthcare bill that's supposed to be 'creating' thousands of new jobs. What's the point in it if the people who are losing their jobs so much now are from the financial sector or the car industries?

    It makes no sense.
  3. morganist

    morganist Guest

    no his job is to run the country and pass laws whether he runs the country into the ground or not is irrelevant. potentially the job is what the president wants it to be he sets the rules.
  4. new$


    I think the ones since Reagan have seen it as their job to EXPORT jobs.

  5. achilles28


    Yes. Indirectly through sound money, low taxes, low Government spending, no moral hazard bailouts and liberal regulation.

    The Free Market takes care of the rest. Easy, huh?

    President Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Snr, Reagan, Nixon etc did none of that.
  6. Let's not forget their Fed appointees. They all act as a duo, with Congress writing endless checks for crap that they can't pay for.
  7. pspr


  8. jprad


  9. I posted it before on here but here is the best answer I can give you.

    If you want the gov't to basically steal from others to create a paper-pushing job for you then the gov't will take 90% and give you your job. Gov'ts destroy wealth.
  10. drcha


    I don't think that this government, or probably any government, is capable of "creating" jobs in a free society. Businesses create jobs. So environments favorable to business are conducive to job growth.

    Let's see, what do we have now: higher taxes, more big government, more regulation, more debt.

    At the risk of being shot, I'm admitting that I voted for Obama, but for one reason only: we need to get out of this expensive war. Which does not seem to be happening, at least not yet.
    #10     Jan 5, 2010