President Obama has spent billions on so-called green job programs as part of the economic recovery and plans to spend billions more. He has repeatedly argued this will create good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced.

 

But, according to the green groups themselves, these jobs can be highly expensive, often costing well more than $100,000 per job in subsidies and/or tax credits. Just last month, the White House said it was spending $135,294 per job to create 17,000 green jobs.

 

And research commissioned in part by the Sierra Club found that the jobs often pay less than the industry average and, contrary to Obama's claims, are often outsourced.

 

Link

They are not outsourced if there are strings attached. Economic incentives to businesses rely on them meeting hiring and retaining targets. They don't meet the targets, they don't get incentives.

 

what job creations would you like the federal government to subsidize?

They are not outsourced if there are strings attached. Economic incentives to businesses rely on them meeting hiring and retaining targets. They don't meet the targets, they don't get incentives.

 

what job creations would you like the federal government to subsidize?

I want the government the heck out of the way.

They are not outsourced if there are strings attached. Economic incentives to businesses rely on them meeting hiring and retaining targets. They don't meet the targets, they don't get incentives.

 

what job creations would you like the federal government to subsidize?

 

None. If it needs subsidy alone to survive, it is not economically viable.

None. If it needs subsidy alone to survive, it is not economically viable.

 

So we need to get rid of tobacco, oil, and corn. Cool.

So we need to get rid of tobacco, oil, and corn. Cool.

 

Nope, those are viable on their own without subsidy. They are just subsidized for political reasons. Check my post again. If it can not survive on its on without government dollars propping it up, then it can go bye bye as far as I am concerned.

Nope, those are viable on their own without subsidy. They are just subsidized for political reasons. Check my post again. If it can not survive on its on without government dollars propping it up, then it can go bye bye as far as I am concerned.

 

Tobacco would have failed a long time ago without subsidies (sometimes getting paid to NOT grow the killer weed) and because of the profit margins, without subsidies many farmers would have moved out of the corn business.

 

Without subsidies, and I include incentives, many companies would fail, unemployment would be sky high and then more businesses would fail because demand for goods and services would dry up.

Tobacco would have failed a long time ago without subsidies (sometimes getting paid to NOT grow the killer weed) and because of the profit margins, without subsidies many farmers would have moved out of the corn business.

 

Without subsidies, and I include incentives, many companies would fail, unemployment would be sky high and then more businesses would fail because demand for goods and services would dry up.

 

If the product is viable the market will exist without need for government subsidy. Econ 101.

Tobacco would have failed a long time ago without subsidies (sometimes getting paid to NOT grow the killer weed) and because of the profit margins, without subsidies many farmers would have moved out of the corn business.

 

Without subsidies, and I include incentives, many companies would fail, unemployment would be sky high and then more businesses would fail because demand for goods and services would dry up.

 

Tobacco would not have failed, profits would have gone down in the short term. Farmers would have started to produce other products for a short time, until a shortage of corn would have caused prices to go up and more farmers to switch back to corn.

Tobacco would not have failed, profits would have gone down in the short term. Farmers would have started to produce other products for a short time, until a shortage of corn would have caused prices to go up and more farmers to switch back to corn.

 

Tobacco is failing now . . .

 

Yes because it is so easy to convert your current "sowing and reaping" processes to switch products like that.

 

Government subsidies throw-out Econ 101.

Tobacco is failing now . . .

 

Yes because it is so easy to convert your current "sowing and reaping" processes to switch products like that.

 

Government subsidies throw-out Econ 101.

 

Actually it is entirely easier than you think. Corn and soy are planted and reaped in an almost identical process with identical equipment. I was hunting on a 30,000 acre corn farm this year that is so big of an operation that the owner has $15,000,000 in labor, seen, fertilizer, gas, and maintanace cost per year. The owner told me he sells every little piece to China, not because of any subsidy, but because their demand is so high that is where he makes his highest profit. Tobacco profits are lowering due to less national demand, some of which is caused by government sin tax on their product.

Actually it is entirely easier than you think. Corn and soy are planted and reaped in an almost identical process with identical equipment. I was hunting on a 30,000 acre corn farm this year that is so big of an operation that the owner has $15,000,000 in labor, seen, fertilizer, gas, and maintanace cost per year. The owner told me he sells every little piece to China, not because of any subsidy, but because their demand is so high that is where he makes his highest profit. Tobacco profits are lowering due to less national demand, some of which is caused by government sin tax on their product.

 

and their customers dying off.

and their customers dying off.

It was their choice, right?

It was their choice, right?

 

While that was not the point, you are only partially right. Cigarette smoking is extremely addictive and many became addicted prior to knowing that smoking was harmful, and often being misled about health risk.

While that was not the point, you are only partially right. Cigarette smoking is extremely addictive and many became addicted prior to knowing that smoking was harmful, and often being misled about health risk.

 

Off topic, but do you believe anybody should be responsible for their own actions and personal sucess, or is it always the the fault of a third party when people make bad decisions or are not economically sucessful. In today's society, everyone is made aware of health risk of smoking by the time they are old enough to watch TV.