• 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
Ockham said:
The 1500 workers are private workers or will they / do they receive their payroll from the taxpayer? Good for contractor work, and the furniture, electronics made in China - so it would certainly support the Chinese job market. Coffee shops, restaurants, cleaners, gas stations would show up whether it was a Government building or a private building - so that's irrelevant. The bottom line is, government creates more jobs to increase the size of government - eventually that model collapses on itself. Government's responsibility isn't to make itself bigger, it's to allow it's citzens to use the market and their abilities to create business on their own and become successful; not become yet another government drone on the taxpayer payroll.
Click to expand...

1- nothing is irrelevant in this example. Government creates the building. Government staffs the building. Workers in the building provide services that the American people want. Other businesses come in and provide services for the workers in that building. Everything placed in that building comes from some worker - be it a manufacturer worker or a dock worker or a truck driver or a loading person or just plain grunt who takes it off the truck and places it in the office. That is highly relevant.

2 - And this nonsense about "eventually the model collapses in on itself" is pure hyperbole. When we get to that point, you be sure to let all of us know. In fact, you will not have to let us know since it will be obvious by the economic collapse. Otherwise, thats an interesting theory which has nothing to do with the example I gave you.
 
from Greenvillegrows on the TVA

But, there are other regulated non-government owned utility companies that can do the job just as well.
Click to expand...

In theory... in reality they would not and did not.

Deal with the reality of the TVA and all the good the government did instead of abstract coulda/woulda/shoulda.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I would think that it is more fair to say that Liberals are confused by basic economics, mathematics, and common sense.
Click to expand...

Does "fair" mean the same thing in conservative jibber-jabber as it does in liberal mumbo-jumbo?
 
Government can create jobs related to government-related functions. But it should stay out of the private sector because it will most likely be over-extending its reach on areas it is ignorant about. For example, while the Government may know more about hiring military personnel, it will know nothing about a solar energy company.
 
Government can 'create' jobs...they just cant create 'sustainable' jobs. Private sector jobs are based on product and profit. Government jobs are dependent on taking from private sector sources to pay for them. Yes...federal employees pay taxes...but not enough to pay for the salaries. More government jobs equals more requirement for taxes. MORE government jobs equals future debt because you dont have sufficient tax income to pay for said jobs. That doesnt create long term growth and stability, it detracts from it. MORE government jobs will result in either a greater debt passed on to future generations, or (as is the dream of some) wealth redistribution by taking more from the wealthy to pay for the jobs.
 
Anyone ever heard of a fellow called FDR and the New Deal? It might be wise at this point to take a good look at what did FDR did to pull the US out of the great depression.... My husband retired from the Air Force and then went to work for one of Tennessee's major employers - Tennessee Valley Authority - and retired a second time. He went to work for a company created by the New Deal in the 1930s in 1980. Short terms jobs? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Wanting a prosperous economy is class warfare now????
Click to expand...

This statement by you was not designed to show your burning want of a prosperous economy. You are Mr. Class Warfare... surely you're not surprised since I point it out to you often enough.

Catawba said:
The rich are simply taking their average $58,000 tax break we give them each year and investing it overseas.
Click to expand...

Those dastardly rich!!! :lamo
 
Bardo said:
Is the TEA party prepared to slash the defense budget as well, or only social programs and regulatory agencies?
Click to expand...

Both... all... is that you're only question?
 
Bardo said:
Does "fair" mean the same thing in conservative jibber-jabber as it does in liberal mumbo-jumbo?
Click to expand...

Only time you hear a conservative talking about fair is when he's repeating something a liberal said. The concept of fair to a conservative like me means let me compete without intrusion of the government.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Indeed.

Compare that building to the factory that I mentioned earlier. In my factory, wealth is being created, enriching the economy as a whole. Every worker in my factory is part of the process by which wealth is created.

What wealth are the 1500 government workers in that building creating? None at all. Sure, there is work being done, products being sold. Restaurants and gas stations and such. But the money used to pay for these things was taken out of the economy, with no contribution being made back thereto in return. This building full of 1500 government workers is the opposite of my factory—consuming and destroying wealth rather than creating it.
Click to expand...

How about the roads the government built and maintains that allows the supplies to get to the restaurant or gas station, how about the Hoover Dam that provides electricty and water to hundreds if not millions of people and business? How about the sewer system that allows for clean
 
The government can only directly create jobs if the jobs in question are gov't jobs or other jobs paid by the gov't. Now the government can't directly create any more other jobs than that but they can simulate the creation of jobs by third parties. Like the restrictions of outsourcing, helping companies to limit the amount of lay offs, stimulating new industry and others. So no they can't create a job directly, but can help in the making in it.
 
Over the years the government has created millions of jobs, how many jobs has the internet, aerospace created alone?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
How about the roads the government built and maintains that allows the supplies to get to the restaurant or gas station, how about the Hoover Dam that provides electricty and water to hundreds if not millions of people and business? How about the sewer system that allows for clean
Click to expand...

I guess he also thinks that the NIH doesn't produce anything.

And that NASA doesn't actually build anything.

I'd like to see Blaylock's view of the SEC. I guess their working around ensuring honest financial statements is actually wealth destruction?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
How about the roads the government built and maintains that allows the supplies to get to the restaurant or gas station, how about the Hoover Dam that provides electricty and water to hundreds if not millions of people and business? How about the sewer system that allows for clean
Click to expand...
The infrastructure projects you describe will not likely 'create' jobs...they will 'save' jobs...in other words, they will enable existing government agencies (state and federal) to pay existing employees. The 'shoevl readp' projects proved to be a dismal failure. The better use of the money being considered would not be to create or maintain jobs, it would be to purchase products/increase demand on the private sector. That would also place administrative requirement on those private agencies. The money would go a lot further and would accomplish a lot more.
 
obvious Child said:
So NASA high tech manufacturing plants don't create wealth the same way your factory does?
Click to expand...
Do they sell those products and in a substantial manner so as to turn a profit and make the organization self-sustainable/self funding? then the answer is no...they dont create wealth. Could you run a business where you demanded others pay your start-up costs, salaries of employees, make something you want to make regardless of the market, operate at a loss, and still consider yourself a viable business? Of course not.
 
obvious Child said:
Smartest thing you've heard?

Dumbest thing you've heard?

Vote Maggots.
Click to expand...

The government creates jobs all the time. The problem now is that each person hired for a new position simply adds to the deficit and the debt.
 
LesGovt said:
The government creates jobs all the time. The problem now is that each person hired for a new position simply adds to the deficit and the debt.
Click to expand...
And apparently, even though they know each new 'job' actually costs the taxpayers about 200k, they still find it is worth it.
 
The only thing that creates private sector jobs which produce goods and services for public consumption is "Demand", real or perceived. That's it. There is nothing else. I mean, what's the point in making something that nobody will buy, right?

Now here's the frustrating part of our current dilema... we already have a market for nearly all goods and services. As a nation, we buy more stuff than any other country on the planet, bar none. The "Demand" or "Market" side of the equation already exists in America.

There was a time when the USA was pretty close to self-sufficient. We made virtually all of the stuff we wanted right here at home. But then.. the Government changed the rules.

Here's a little tidbit that many folks aren't aware of. Throughout the country there are 1000's of publicly owned investment trust funds that were created mostly to capitalize public sector programs like police & fire department retirement plans, community owned hospital building funds, even some local highway maintenance funds and the like. All told there are many 100's of Billions of dollars in these funds. All of these investment trusts are funded with YOUR tax dollars, got it? In the early 70's there were laws that restricted these funds from investing more than a stated amount in foreign countries, usually about 5% of the funds total value. Those hundreds of Billions of dollars were used almost exclusively to invest in American enterprises, which in my opinion was a good thing. But then the Government changed that little rule and allowed Billions of American tax dollars to move overseas at the expense of our own private sector growth! Isn't that Special...

Then they came up with NAFTA... which sent literally millions of American jobs to Mexico under the guise of "Free Trade" (which it wasn't.. but it sounded good to the unwashed..).

The point is... our Government has proven quite capable of ELIMINATING American jobs with nothing more than legislation. Just changing the rules to suit the needs of their campaign contributors.

So, can the Government CREATE jobs in the private sector without deficit spending? Gee, whadaya think...?
 
haymarket said:
1- nothing is irrelevant in this example.
Click to expand...
According to you... who uses what I consider irrelevant information to bolster a weak argument.

haymarket said:
Government creates the building. Government staffs the building. Workers in the building provide services that the American people want.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily - American people don't want Obamacare yet we have it anyway. You're hinging your weak argument on now pro-government view that whatever passes Congress and is signed into law the American people want - not always true. Second, it's not just "Workers" in the building, it's Government Workers who are paid by taxpayer dollars.

haymarket said:
Other businesses come in and provide services for the workers in that building.
Click to expand...
I'll point out your irrelevance again... it doesn't matter WHO built the buildings or staffed the building... those "other businesses" would have shown up anyway.

haymarket said:
Everything placed in that building comes from some worker - be it a manufacturer worker or a dock worker or a truck driver or a loading person or just plain grunt who takes it off the truck and places it in the office. That is highly relevant.
Click to expand...
It's only relevant if the chairs, the desks, the computers, etc... are manufactured in the U.S., which I would suggest, most are not. The manufacturer and dock worker would have worked that day anyway - if it wasn't for this government contract, it would have been on someone elses. The dock worker would have still brought ships in, still unloaded the boxes, still transported things whether or not this government building was at the end of it or not.

haymarket said:
2 - And this nonsense about "eventually the model collapses in on itself" is pure hyperbole. When we get to that point, you be sure to let all of us know.
Click to expand...
Apparently you missed it as I've already made that point. Let me take it down a few notches --- your "government building" would have to happen thousands of times a day, in every city in every corner of the country for it to put people to work. The FACT is, Government in your example is irrelevant just as I already stated. If ONLY government existed and government could sustain multiple other industries across the board eventually all private business would depend 100% on government in which case the taxpayer could no longer support that government and that government could no longer sustain the dependency of all private businesses --- therefore the system collapses on itself.

Get it yet?
 
"With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, is the Nation's largest employer."

Federal Government
 
Let's look at this another way. The jobs at Solyndra were created by the Federal Government. They sort of went away, but if it weren't for the Federal Government, those jobs would not have been created... and then lost.
 
LesGovt said:
Let's look at this another way. The jobs at Solyndra were created by the Federal Government. They sort of went away, but if it weren't for the Federal Government, those jobs would not have been created... and then lost.
Click to expand...

Private companies go out of business all the time, always have. That doesn't change the fact that the federal government is the largest employer in the nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom