• 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
I can hire 10 MILLION! Guaranteed. I can put them to work RIGHT NOW. All you all have to do is pay me 200k per job (of which I will ensure the employee gets almost half)...and your unemployment problems are OVER. Deal?
 
The government creates jobs such as the military, and economic systems that form to provide services in return for payment from the guy that has a steady paycheck and is protected by red tape from losing a job. Public servants are payed by the people because either no one else will, or the public servant really wants to work for the government.
Ex.2: Teachers and other public education staff.
 
Yeah the government can at will create jobs, but they are all socialist type jobs...right? I mean if you have a government job isn't that kind of like paying yourself your salary (or a portion of it)? I guess the same could be said for the next door neighbor who you car pool with to work everyday. You pay yourselves and each other's salaries. Wild, huh?

Public confidence and spending create the most (American Dream) jobs. Oh, lets not forget about inspiration and creativity, which fuels entrepreneurs. But then again, if people aren't confident in the economy...they won't buy from the entrepreneurs either. Back to square one. Welp, head to the nearest government facility and sign up...for whatever. Pay is good. Benefits are good. Hard to get fired.

Hell, we all need a government job. Maybe government socialistic practices are so bad after all. Now the mega-wealthy aren't gonna be all that happy if you get a government job because they can't be wealthy without the poor. And the government pays well about poverty wages. Soooo.

Wait... Whose gonna pick up the tab for all these government jobs if everybody has one? I mean you can't make enough to pay yourself your total salary and benefits.

Yep, Wall St Hedge Managers are gonna be plenty pissed off. Their 3 Billion a year salaries will shrink to 1 billion a year. That's a rich person's poverty wage, you know.
 
Yeah the government can at will create jobs, but they are all socialist type jobs...right? I mean if you have a government job isn't that kind of like paying yourself your salary (or a portion of it)? I guess the same could be said for the next door neighbor who you car pool with to work everyday. You pay yourselves and each other's salaries. Wild, huh?

Public confidence and spending create the most (American Dream) jobs. Oh, lets not forget about inspiration and creativity, which fuels entrepreneurs. But then again, if people aren't confident in the economy...they won't buy from the entrepreneurs either. Back to square one. Welp, head to the nearest government facility and sign up...for whatever. Pay is good. Benefits are good. Hard to get fired.

Hell, we all need a government job. Maybe government socialistic practices are so bad after all. Now the mega-wealthy aren't gonna be all that happy if you get a government job because they can't be wealthy without the poor. And the government pays well about poverty wages. Soooo.

Wait... Whose gonna pick up the tab for all these government jobs if everybody has one? QUOTE]Dont worry about it. We'll pass the cost on to your grandkids. Who cares...its not like WE actually have to be responsible for it! **** them!
 

Wait... Whose gonna pick up the tab for all these government jobs if everybody has one? QUOTE]Dont worry about it. We'll pass the cost on to your grandkids. Who cares...its not like WE actually have to be responsible for it! **** them!

So how many of the 2,278,895 Armed Forces jobs do you recommend we cut to reduce our debt?
 
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.

They actually create jobs in two ways. \

The direct spending on the projects. A generally short term job creator for the life of the construction (excluding of course the maintance of the infrustructure.

The second way is for the transportation network (ie roads) is that it makes business far more efficient allowing for the rapid transport of goods across the nation and into the world at large. Imagine how inefficient domestic US travel would be if everyone was travelling on 2 lane highways rather then the interstate freeways. That promotes jobs, private sector jobs created through government spending

The Hoover Dam, is creating jobs in three ways. The electricity it produces allowing for business to run efficiently and cheaply as hydro power is fairly cheap. Tourism jobs as people come to see the dam and boat on the resivoir(sp). Third by providing water to the various cities and agriculture in the area. No Hoover Dam, many of the jobs in the region would not exist
 
So how many of the 2,278,895 Armed Forces jobs do you recommend we cut to reduce our debt?
A BUNCH. Ive already said so. We have massive waste in the civ service. We can use our military MUCH more efficiently with a reduced manpower footprint. Oh...and thats just the start. we can kill of the Dept of Education, the Dept of Transportation...conservatively, Id say doing a top down review of the fed, we could reduce over half and remain as efficient.
 
A BUNCH. Ive already said so. We have massive waste in the civ service. We can use our military MUCH more efficiently with a reduced manpower footprint. Oh...and thats just the start. we can kill of the Dept of Education, the Dept of Transportation...conservatively, Id say doing a top down review of the fed, we could reduce over half and remain as efficient.

I would agree that our military costs could be cut by 2/3 and we would still have the most powerful military on the planet. However, to short change education and tranportation that is vital to our future would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
The TSA doesn't create jobs.
NASA doesn't create jobs.
The CIA doesn't create jobs.
Neither does the FBI.
Nor the Army.
Or the Navy.
The Air Force doesn't, either.
And certainly not those Marines.

At least, if we bought the Republican lie, we'd have to believe all those lies, every single one, and many more like them.
 
I would agree that our military costs could be cut by 2/3 and we would still have the most powerful military on the planet. However, to short change education and tranportation that is vital to our future would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You wouldnt be shortchanging it, you would be eliminating federal bureaucracy. Education occurs at the state level, which, by happy coincidence, also has education departments. States also manage their own transportation departments. IMAGINE how much more effective they would be if they didnt have to dump taxes into a bloated and wasteful federal system.
 
The TSA doesn't create jobs.
NASA doesn't create jobs.
The CIA doesn't create jobs.
Neither does the FBI.
Nor the Army.
Or the Navy.
The Air Force doesn't, either.
And certainly not those Marines.

At least, if we bought the Republican lie, we'd have to believe all those lies, every single one, and many more like them.
Who pays for those services? Who pays those salaries. how are they financed? They exist and are able to exist because the PRIVATE SECTOR supports them. Without a private sector you can make however many fed jobs you want...no one will pay for them and your country goes bankrupt. Sort of...well...like what is happening NOW and like what you want to see happen FASTER.
 
So how many of the 2,278,895 Armed Forces jobs do you recommend we cut to reduce our debt?

Personally, I think we should not cut one person in the constitutionally authorized military.
 
Government can create jobs within its own agencies. Outside of that, all the government can do is create incentives for third parties to create jobs.

At least, that is how it's supposed to work in the "free" world.
 
And now wait for somebody to tell y0u that the TVA never created one job.

that is correct - all it did was crowd out private companies that had been seeking to provide the same service.
 
You wouldnt be shortchanging it, you would be eliminating federal bureaucracy. Education occurs at the state level, which, by happy coincidence, also has education departments. States also manage their own transportation departments. IMAGINE how much more effective they would be if they didnt have to dump taxes into a bloated and wasteful federal system.

And if states decide they do not want to place a high priority for public education or transportation, what then?
 
Personally, I think we should not cut one person in the constitutionally authorized military.

Then you would not be addressing our most wasteful spending and the source of most of our national debt. The Constitution only authorizes defense. By cutting our military expenditures by 2/3s we would still be the most powerful military on the planet.
 
And if states decide they do not want to place a high priority for public education or transportation, what then?

precisely. if you leave people free to make their own decisions, they might make ones we disagree with.

thank God we don't live in a country where crap like that can happen.
 
precisely. if you leave people free to make their own decisions, they might make ones we disagree with.

thank God we don't live in a country where crap like that can happen.

And you think that having a less educated populace with an inferior transportation system would benefit the country, or do you just not care?
 
I think that we live in a nation where the people are sovereign, and have a government, not the other way around :).

If (say) the citizens of Georgia decide that they want to replace much of their educational system with a series of youtube videos and monitored tests, then I may think that's a poor decision - but guess what? Disagreeing with them doesn't make me king.
 
I think that we live in a nation where the people are sovereign, and have a government, not the other way around :).

If (say) the citizens of Georgia decide that they want to replace much of their educational system with a series of youtube videos and monitored tests, then I may think that's a poor decision - but guess what? Disagreeing with them doesn't make me king.

To say your view is short sighted and selfish would be an understatement. We had a civil war because states did not consider what was in the best interest of the country or all of its people. To be competitive in the world requires a well educated populace and a efficient transportation system. It is too vital to the country's economy and well being to do otherwise.

However, there is a party that espouses your views, and during the last election those views received 0.4% of the voters support. It would appear that 99.6% of the voters do not share those views.
 
To say your view is short sighted and selfish would be an understatement. We had a civil war because states did not consider what was in the best interest of the country or all of its people. To be competitive in the world requires a well educated populace and a efficient transportation system. It is too vital to the country's economy and well being to do otherwise.

However, there is a party that espouses your views, and during the last election those views received 0.4% of the voters support. It would appear that 99.6% of the voters do not share those views.

About 90% of spending for education comes from state and local governments. Let's assume that the federal government would only spend money in places where the local government decides it does not want to do it. Just a fairness question, if I pay high property taxes to insure that the public schools in my town are top notch, why is it fair for me to also pay federal income tax to pay for the next town over that has lower property taxes because they don't fund their schools. Not to even get into the issue as to how the federal government can decide which of the thousands of school districts are underfunded. Also impossible to say you are sending money to a state or local government to pay for teachers as money is FUNGIBLE. All the government gets to do is throw money into a state coffer. Seems like an attempt to help out states like Ill. and Calif, that refuse to pay their on pay, The Greece and Ireland of America.
 
About 90% of spending for education comes from state and local governments. Let's assume that the federal government would only spend money in places where the local government decides it does not want to do it. Just a fairness question, if I pay high property taxes to insure that the public schools in my town are top notch, why is it fair for me to also pay federal income tax to pay for the next town over that has lower property taxes because they don't fund their schools. Not to even get into the issue as to how the federal government can decide which of the thousands of school districts are underfunded. Also impossible to say you are sending money to a state or local government to pay for teachers as money is FUNGIBLE. All the government gets to do is throw money into a state coffer. Seems like an attempt to help out states like Ill. and Calif, that refuse to pay their on pay, The Greece and Ireland of America.

I concur with the majority of voters that it is important to have federal oversight of programs that are of vital interest to our country as a whole. To me that overrides a few individual wants or sense of fairness to themselves personally. It is the federal governments role to act in the best interest of the greater good for ALL of its people, IMO.
 
I concur with the majority of voters that it is important to have federal oversight of programs that are of vital interest to our country as a whole. To me that overrides a few individual wants or sense of fairness to themselves personally. It is the federal governments role to act in the best interest of the greater good for ALL of its people, IMO.

I have no problem with oversight, but that is not what you were talking about. If the Federal government wants to admonish a state for not providing decent education and threaten to withhold funds from other areas fine. But to say they will fund one state over another just seems wrong. Plus we know that when politicians do something like this, more than the kid's education comes into play.
 
To say your view is short sighted and selfish would be an understatement.

so selfish of us Americans, to want to live free of the tender controls of our Superiors.

We had a civil war because states did not consider what was in the best interest of the country or all of its people.

we had a civil war fundamentally over slavery, and fundamentally because of the attempt to impose a federal solution.

now, there are areas where the Federal Government has the right to impose its' will on the states. Those Areas are listed in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, for example); and slavery is one of those areas. Education is not one of those areas. We call this system "federalism". you may recall having heard about it in school - though I imagine you went to a public school, so I won't hold it against you if you didn't.

To be competitive in the world requires a well educated populace and a efficient transportation system.

I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I oppose handing that mission to our least efficient level of government. That's like asking your loser high-school-drop-out brother in law to do your taxes for you.

It is too vital to the country's economy and well being to do otherwise.

agreed! so you will stand with us as we move to break the power of the public sector unions which stand against improving it?

However, there is a party that espouses your views, and during the last election those views received 0.4% of the voters support

looks like someone didn't watch the Fox/Google Republican debates ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom