• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government can't create jobs

Government can't create jobs

  • Total voters
    83
haymarket said:
I would strongly suggest you research the TVA and what is has done for the people of that region.
Click to expand...

I come from that region. It choked out private market competitors; I didn't notice passing through that it had made us particularly wealthy.
 
A privatized military? Was the Blackwater fiasco not enough??
 
It can, but they aren't created very efficiently most of the time. What it can do better is make sure that our infrastructure and legal system support the real job-creaters. (no not people making over 250k a year). Smaller and medium sized firms create jobs the most effectively, so our system needs to stop favoring the wealthy and huge multi-nationals. In other words, some government is necessary for a true free market economy.
 
The Barbarian said:
I both disagree and agree, any that says the government doesn't create jobs is seriously lacking somewhere. The problem is with the jobs that the government creates, I would say that (this is a guess) that 95% of government job produce nothing, (in the way of product) and these jobs must be paid by the taxpayers of this country. Part of the problem with our budget, is government payroll. That is and has been increasing faster then the private sector jobs that are source of the money needed to pay there salaries.


Now can government help produce private sector jobs, yeah I suppose they can, but the question there remains is how much bang for the buck do we get when they try. One in here said that “Government can act like a giant Venture Capitalist, pouring large amounts of money into projects that may produce tangible products. “ The problem with that is, well their successes are touted loudly, just as often, or probably more often they fail. Mostly we don't hear about the failures .. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Solyndra[/FONT] is in the news because of questions surrounding how stable it was when they were given 500 million dollars. Now how many more loans will have to be made, paid back with interest, to make up for a 500million dollar loss ?


I don't believe our government creates any wealth, they create ideas, and innovation that the private sector can then use to create wealth, but to say the government creates wealth, is a stretch. If they were so good at creating wealth as one here is saying, then how in the hell did we get 15 trillion dollars in debt, and how could they be running at a 1.5 trillion deficit per year??.....By anyone's standard that I know, they would never anything that is 15 trillion dollars, and growing yearly, in debt something that was any good at creating wealth.


The government is basically a service industry, that produces very little in the over all scheme of things in the way of product. Their job is to spend the money they take in. But that single standard they are now, and have been failing for a long time. Much of the services they provide are needed and wanted by most people, but they have become like pigs that think they have a never ending supply of feed, and have grown bloated, under worked and over paid.
Click to expand...
I agree that government is a necessary evil....it does not nor can it produce wealth, in fact it only consumes wealth......to supply service, sometime necessary for security, or to smooth the ways of private industry.....and most the time just to be a pain in the butt.
 
A.Pearce said:
It can, but they aren't created very efficiently most of the time. What it can do better is make sure that our infrastructure and legal system support the real job-creaters. (no not people making over 250k a year). Smaller and medium sized firms create jobs the most effectively, so our system needs to stop favoring the wealthy and huge multi-nationals. In other words, some government is necessary for a true free market economy.
Click to expand...

Decades of research inventing and improving computers. The internet was born at a university. Satellites were invented and improved by government. All three created the largest economic boom since the industrial revolution. All were invented and improved by government before very bright individuals had something they could profit off of.
 
obvious Child said:
If Baylock and Petulana run away from this it basically proves my point about the weakness of their belief in post #222.
Click to expand...
Actually, I ran away because I have some other things to do with my life, and they were more important to me at the time than a urinating imbroglio with you.....:doh
 
iliveonramen said:
Decades of research inventing and improving computers. The internet was born at a university. Satellites were invented and improved by government. All three created the largest economic boom since the industrial revolution. All were invented and improved by government before very bright individuals had something they could profit off of.
Click to expand...
No, satellites were invented by private contractors working for the government....and their expertise came from working also on products in the private sector. Would they never have been invented and designed without unending government money?..Depends on the market......doesn't it?......How much money was wasted in the process?
 
petaluna said:
Actually, I ran away because I have some other things to do with my life, and they were more important to me at the time than a urinating imbroglio with you.....:doh
Click to expand...

If that was true, you wouldn't be posting here. The typical "I have better things to do.....while I'm posting here" is rather ludicrous. If you had more important things to do with your time, you wouldn't be here. The only people who use that pathetic line are those who routinely get annihilated.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You still are missing the point.

Sure, government can “create” jobs. But if, in order to do so, it is taking wealth out of the economy that, left in the private sector, would create more jobs than government would use that wealth to create, then, in effect, government is destroying more jobs than it is creating. The net effect is that no, government is not actually creating jobs; there are fewer people working than if government left that wealth in the private sector, where it would do more good.
Click to expand...


Bob are you saying that Police, Firemen, Teachers, RoadWorkers, City, County, State adminstrative workers...such as Tax office, Health Depts, Motor vehicle. EMTs.....that they dont return their money to the economy by buying homes...food, televisions and everything else that private sector workers do with their money.
Are you saying that service jobs have no value ? If that was the case by all means if your ever in trouble call a productive member of society to come save you like..a your local convenient store clerk...
 
petaluna said:
No, satellites were invented by private contractors working for the government....and their expertise came from working also on products in the private sector. Would they never have been invented and designed without unending government money?..Depends on the market......doesn't it?......How much money was wasted in the process?
Click to expand...

Project Vanguard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't depend on the market. There will always be projects where the scope and length of research required to produce a profitable good is beyond the capabilities of a corporation. It's happened for centuries. There's always been a marriage between government and private organizations and always will be.

The research of future technologies are done at places like CERN or government subsidized/funded companies.

I'm not going into waste because you can't prove there was waste.
 
I'm still waiting for an analysis of why the government supposedly can't create jobs.
 
I looked at the voting on this poll and it seemed a bit lopsided. Then I looked at the poll w/o being loged in. It gave me the list of those that voted and some hidden percentages that make no sense at all.So unless there is some inconsistancey that is also creating more errors the poll poll percentages are AFU. 57 voted yes it can, 17 voted no it can't and one voted dont'konw. 75 votes. 1 and 1/3 % per vote. 76% yes, 23% no and 1% don't know. My vote was properly recorded. What is going on? Acopy and paste follows.

• Don't Know
10.58%
1. Wiseone
• Agree, it cannot
11063.58%
1. apdst
2. Bob Blaylock
3. celticwar17
4. coolwalker
5. Councilman
6. cpwill
7. DontDoIt
8. GreenvilleGrows
9. Juiposa
10. ksu_aviator
11. Mr.Dand4Life
12. Ockham
13. petaluna
14. Proud South Korean
15. Shadow Serious
16. TeaPartyBiker
17. ualsdu7777
• Disagree, it can
6235.84%
1. A.Pearce
2. American
3. atrasicarius
4. Bardo
5. Catawba
6. Cephus
7. Chappy
8. DaveFagan
9. DemonMyst
10. disneydude
11. dixiesolutions
12. Djoop
13. earthworm
14. Easy Rider
15. FilmFestGuy
16. finebead
17. Frolicking Dinosaurs
18. GhostlyJoe
19. Graffias
20. Helix
21. Ikari
22. iliveonramen
23. imagep
24. jamesrage
25. JohnWOlin
26. Jryan
27. LesGovt
28. Lord Tammerlain
29. lpast
30. Luna Tick
31. MaggieD
32. Manc Skipper
33. mbig
34. Mickey Shane
35. mike2810
36. NGNM85
37. obvious Child
38. OhIsee.Then
39. OrphanSlug
40. pbrauer
41. Phys251
42. roughdraft274
43. samsmart
44. SmokeAndMirrors
45. snilloctjc
46. snodog
47. SouthernDemocrat
48. spud_meister
49. StillBallin75
50. TacticalEvilDan
51. TheDemSocialist
52. U.S. Socialist.
53. upsideguy
54. Voltaire X
55. votewho2012
56. whysoserious
57. Your Star
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
I'm still waiting for an analysis of why the government supposedly can't create jobs.
Click to expand...

:shrug: well, as a quick way of compressing the point, in relatively open economies that are marked by high levels of debt (such as ours), the multiplier effect is actually NEGATIVE. So, in order to "create" jobs, the government first destroys or chokes off a greater number of jobs - which means that net there are fewer rather than more jobs. This has been one of history's most consistent economic experiences. If you were to study every major attempt to stimulate an economy in an OECD country since 1970, you would find that those that succeed are the ones that cut taxes, whereas those that fail are the ones that increase transfer payments. Every. Single. Time.


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I looked at the voting on this poll and it seemed a bit lopsided. Then I looked at the poll w/o being loged in. It gave me the list of those that voted and some hidden percentages that make no sense at all.So unless there is some inconsistancey that is also creating more errors the poll poll percentages are AFU. 57 voted yes it can, 17 voted no it can't and one voted dont'konw. 75 votes. 1 and 1/3 % per vote. 76% yes, 23% no and 1% don't know. My vote was properly recorded. What is going on? Acopy and paste follows.

(list)
Click to expand...

Noticed, did you? The extra votes are made up of conservative votebots "guests." Seriously guys, cheating on an online poll?
 
obvious Child said:
That depends what time frame we're looking at.

A short term period, a PMC is more expensive. Over the long term with pension and benefits, a PMC is cheaper.
Click to expand...

the rough figure is that it costs a million dollars per servicemember per year to deploy to Afghanistan. as a guy with multiple friends in PMC's, their costs are much lower per man, per year.

furthermore (this is perhaps crass, but still true), the government loses nothing when a contractor dies other than the loss of his services before the company can get someone else out there. when a servicemember dies, the costs start at half a million dollars and go up from there - that's not counting for transport, burial, or any of the services we offer to the families of the fallen.

but yes, I think that the DOD is now spending more on pension/benefits than we are on pay - it's a huge issue and one reason we are looking to move to a defined contributions plan.
 
Last edited:
atrasicarius said:
Noticed, did you? The extra votes are made up of conservative votebots "guests." Seriously guys, cheating on an online poll?
Click to expand...

as my uncle from Chicago might tell me: Imaginary People Deserve Votes Too :D
 
atrasicarius said:
Noticed, did you? The extra votes are made up of conservative votebots "guests." Seriously guys, cheating on an online poll?
Click to expand...

Its why I always make my poll's public, so we can see what the actual vote is (without the cheaters anonymous votes).

Happy to see, as OhISeeThen pointed out, that the great majority of members here agree that the Government can create jobs:

"57 voted yes it can, 17 voted no it can't and one voted don't know." This does not bode well for the GOP who are against job creation.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
the rough figure is that it costs a million dollars per servicemember per year to deploy to Afghanistan. as a guy with multiple friends in PMC's, their costs are much lower per man, per year.

furthermore (this is perhaps crass, but still true), the government loses nothing when a contractor dies other than the loss of his services before the company can get someone else out there. when a servicemember dies, the costs start at half a million dollars and go up from there - that's not counting for transport, burial, or any of the services we offer to the families of the fallen.

but yes, I think that the DOD is now spending more on pension/benefits than we are on pay - it's a huge issue and one reason we are looking to move to a defined contributions plan.
Click to expand...


Cutting seniors benefits, cutting teachers benefits, cutting veteran's benefits, whatever it takes to save those tax cuts for the rich, right? :elephantf
 
Catawba said:
Cutting seniors benefits, cutting teachers benefits, cutting veteran's benefits, whatever it takes to save those tax cuts for the rich, right?
Click to expand...

I've been in favor of switching from a pension to a 401(k) style program for military members for some time now - this way we can actually provide a benefit to the vast majority of servicemembers who honorably serve their country and then get out to go to college or take other employment in the workforce. As pertains to the wealthy and entitlement cuts - I and congressional Republicans am on record as supporting means testing them out of the entitlement programs, while in my proposed Social Security Reform I suggested hiking the FICA cap to (as I recall) a little over $400K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom