• 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
So we have 40 REAL people voting government can.

12 REAL people voting it can't, and one really immature prick spamming the vote 57 times in favor of can't. Seriously. Pathetic. Even for this place.

How can you tell?
 
No you aren't. The firm existed prior to the loan. Stop making **** up and pretending someone else said it.

The President said it would create jobs. It not only lost those new jobs, but lost the old ones too. That's not good.
 
How can you tell?

He's counting the number of registered users that voted and comparing that to the number of votes.

For example, 42 people in total have voted for "yes it can". Additionally, 42 of those 42 people are all registered members whose names we can see.

On the flip side 70 people have voted for "no it can't". However, only 12 of those 70 are actually registered members and one of them has stated they voted that way incorrectly (Ockham).

So the only 58 votes in favor of "no it can't" come from unregistered people.

We have a tendancy on threads that are near and dear to extreme hyper partisans to see the answer that dramatically fails when looking at the general membership somehow have an overwhelming majority of the "non-registered voters". This tends to be because an actual registered voter, mad that this pet hyper partisan issue is getting thoroughly trounced, decides to vote unregistered a ton of times so they can try and claim some kind of victory. Global Warming and Gay Marriage threads see this often.

At times, unregistered votes are reasonably accurate. However, when registered members are going essentially 43 to 11 in favor one way and unregistered membesr are going 58 to 0 another its a pretty good guess that someone is screwing with the poll. Especially when that 43 is made up of a significant mix of people on both sides of the political aisle.
 
Of course government can create jobs. It's a fact. Government jobs wouldn't exist otherwise. I think the OP needs a more specific question :2razz:
 
Of course Government can create jobs. What it cannot create is self sustaining (or self funding) jobs. There is no profit, nor will there ever be a fee structure, that can carry the cost of those jobs.

The issue is getting government of all levels to understand that they have an obligation to create jobs only to the minimum level necessary to fulfill thier responsibilities to the citizens. In the real world unfortunately government players with the power to do so tend to build their own kingdoms and keep looking to grow their power through increasing the size of their organizations and their areas of influence/control (new responsibilities/programs/etc).

Government jobs carry with them ling tail costs - ie defined benefit and generous pensions. Since there is np accountability for providsing a means of funding these benefits - other than increased taxes, we have what we have.
 
You mean just as some whine about cutting military spending by two-thirds?

it's not exactly whining to point out that eating seed corn is only good for you in the short term.
 
And fortunately, the founders of the Constitution understood that times and circumstances would change and provided a process for those changes to be implemented by we the people.

that's correct. that process, of course, is known as the amendment process. if you can point me to the Amendment establishing all these things, I would be most fascinated to hear about it, as my Constitution is evidently out of date.

None of the candidates that call for the elimination of the Education and Transportation have a snowballs chance in hell of winning a general election.

Obama is running in a 9% unemployment atmosphere. your hyperbole aside, every single candidate on that stage - to include bachmann - has a better than the chance you are ascribing to them. Ron Paul has polled within single-digits of Obama multiple times. Paul, Bachmann, and Johnson have all said they would abolish the DOE immediately, and every other candidate has called for greatly restricting and shrinking their role.

It is why the libertarian party only receive 0.4% of the vote in the last election.

yeah? how did the Tea Party Republicans do in 2010?

What????????? That might require some more explanation there, you think?

not to mention a few more question marks :). You made the argument that the fed had the right to impede upon the rights of individuals and states for any reason that was deemed "for the greater good". I pointed out that the current US Citizenry is failing to produce itself, which means eventually it will die out - but that prior to that, it will go through a societal collapse; the first strains of which we are seeing right now in Greece, as not enough workers come up to replace and support too many retirees. Ergo, using your logic that the Fed must intercede in our freedom of movement to force us to place higher priorities on things than we would ourselves, the Federal Government has a mandate to penalize/criminalize homosexuality, and incentivize/force women to serve as baby-makers. It is, after all, for the Greater Good.

"New knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth. The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become."
- Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

see.... the difference there? is that my quote made sense in the context.

Before unions, minorities and the mentally impaired were not allowed in schools with the "normal" white kids.

that is correct. and, after unions, minorities and the mentally impaired were not allowed in schools with the "normal" white kids. what was your point supposed to be? something explaining why our costs have exploded even as our results have stagnated or dropped?

Charter schools were supposed to be the market place alternative to public schools

supposed to be - but only if a market is allowed to function. for a market to function, consumers must be able to choose between competing products. hence, the parental choice movement, to put choice into education. if public-union/public-school advocates were really so sure that their alternative was superior, they would welcome this opportunity to prove so, and justify the money we spend on them. that instead they hate, fear, and rally against it is most telling.

Obama's support is still head and shoulders above the support given to the libertarian views you espouse.

Obama is significantly less than 50% likely to be president come February 2013. the main agenda in 2012 will not be the DOE, but 1 Jobs and 2 budgetary/entitlement reform.
 
No problem my friend, we just have to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich to repay the money taken from it to pay for the unfunded wars and raise the cap on FICA, and SS is set for the foreseeable future!

sadly, that is not correct. there is literally not enough money in the world to make our entitlement system solvent.
 
The goverment can enforce stricter rules, and much higher importation cost on all those large corporations that have closed down in America, and relocated overseas.

All those thousands of large American companies in Indonesia, China, Pakistan, India, Central America, Mexico....Crucify those turn-coat bastards.
 
it's not exactly whining to point out that eating seed corn is only good for you in the short term.

Ultra-conservative Ron Paul explains the distinction very well here between defense spending and unnecessary spending on the military-industrial complex:

 
that's correct. that process, of course, is known as the amendment process. if you can point me to the Amendment establishing all these things, I would be most fascinated to hear about it, as my Constitution is evidently out of date.

Look to the purpose and guiding principals of the Constitution as stated in the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense. promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 
sadly, that is not correct. there is literally not enough money in the world to make our entitlement system solvent.

We were discussing SS, and it is easily "fixed" for the long term by the methods I outlined above. The only way to "fix" our health care system, public and private, is to switch to UHC as the rest of the industrialized world has done.

I fail to see however what this has to do with the topic of this thread. Do you have some point related to the OP that you would like to discuss?
 
Look to the purpose and guiding principals of the Constitution as stated in the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense. promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Liberals should not discuss constitutionality. It is a foreign subject to them.

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.


FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
Liberals should not discuss constitutionality. It is a foreign subject to them.

So your say, yet the Supreme Court, the body authorized under the Constitution in its interpretation has held for decades that SS and Medicare are Constitutional, just as I have.
 
So your say, yet the Supreme Court, the body authorized under the Constitution in its interpretation has held for decades that SS and Medicare are Constitutional, just as I have.

I have never said they were perfect and they are not.
 
Ultra-conservative Ron Paul explains the distinction very well here between defense spending and unnecessary spending on the military-industrial complex

Ron Paul also either does not understand or chooses to ignore the fact that our economy depends upon global trade, which depends upon global stability, which depends upon a forward-deployed US Military. That is the main reason he won't get my vote - because either of those disqualifies him (imo) from the Presidency.

however, color me surprised that you of all people would advocate slashing public employee pensions.
 
Last edited:
We were discussing SS, and it is easily "fixed" for the long term by the methods I outlined above

it is not, as even the AARP now admits. expenditures will be reduced - the question is, whether or not we get to control how they are reduced, or whether or not we are able to protect current seniors from the reductions.

The only way to "fix" our health care system, public and private, is to switch to UHC as the rest of the industrialized world has done.

:lol: in order to watch quality and accessibility sink while costs explode? no thanks. the way to fix our healthcare market is to allow it to function as one.

I fail to see however what this has to do with the topic of this thread. Do you have some point related to the OP that you would like to discuss?

as i recall, you brought it up.
 
He's counting the number of registered users that voted and comparing that to the number of votes.

For example, 42 people in total have voted for "yes it can". Additionally, 42 of those 42 people are all registered members whose names we can see.

On the flip side 70 people have voted for "no it can't". However, only 12 of those 70 are actually registered members and one of them has stated they voted that way incorrectly (Ockham).

So the only 58 votes in favor of "no it can't" come from unregistered people.

We have a tendancy on threads that are near and dear to extreme hyper partisans to see the answer that dramatically fails when looking at the general membership somehow have an overwhelming majority of the "non-registered voters". This tends to be because an actual registered voter, mad that this pet hyper partisan issue is getting thoroughly trounced, decides to vote unregistered a ton of times so they can try and claim some kind of victory. Global Warming and Gay Marriage threads see this often.

At times, unregistered votes are reasonably accurate. However, when registered members are going essentially 43 to 11 in favor one way and unregistered membesr are going 58 to 0 another its a pretty good guess that someone is screwing with the poll. Especially when that 43 is made up of a significant mix of people on both sides of the political aisle.
Seems to me liberal minded folks would full on embrace that strategy. Why should anyone have to bother to actually show who they actually are to cast a ballot after all?

The reasons you described are the reasons I dont bother voting in polls.
 
Look to the purpose and guiding principals of the Constitution as stated in the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense. promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

thank you yes precisely?

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison


or, if you like, we can discuss the Federalist Papers, where they made themselves even more plain about the very limited power of the federal government?
 
Ron Paul also either does not understand or chooses to ignore the fact that our economy depends upon global trade, which depends upon global stability, which depends upon a forward-deployed US Military. That is the main reason he won't get my vote - because either of those disqualifies him (imo) from the Presidency.

however, color me surprised that you of all people would advocate slashing public employee pensions.

You assume too much.
 
thank you yes precisely?

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison


or, if you like, we can discuss the Federalist Papers, where they made themselves even more plain about the very limited power of the federal government?

Thankfully, the Constitution did not specify that its interpretation be left up to you, but rather to the Supreme court.
 
How can you tell?

Click on the numbers. It shows who actually voted. It's pretty obvious the losing side of this debate has once again resorted to spamming a public poll. Considering the "strength" of their arguments, it does make sense they didn't have the intellect to figure out it's a public poll.
 
Seems to me liberal minded folks would full on embrace that strategy.

Yet that doesn't happen here. You'd expect in polls about gun control where liberals tend to get trounced, we'd see this type of immature spamming. I can't think of a single poll where that happened. Generally, and this is borne out by numerous polls, the hyper partisan self proclaimed rightists tend to do the immature spamming. Furthermore, generally it's those people who don't realize that polls can (and often are) made public.
 
The President said it would create jobs. It not only lost those new jobs, but lost the old ones too. That's not good.

And that disproves you are wrong how?

You claimed that the firm was created by the government. You are wrong on that. Rather then admit you are wrong, you change the subject.

Do you really want to get branded as someone very dishonest? Did you really expect me not to notice what you were trying to pull there?

You CLAIM be a conservative, but you apparently hold no respect for the belief in self responsibility.
 
And that disproves you are wrong how?

You claimed that the firm was created by the government. You are wrong on that. Rather then admit you are wrong, you change the subject.

Do you really want to get branded as someone very dishonest? Did you really expect me not to notice what you were trying to pull there?

You CLAIM be a conservative, but you apparently hold no respect for the belief in self responsibility.

I went back to find the posting to which you were referring. In the posting, I said "The jobs were created..." It was an inadvertent error. I should have said and meant to say "Jobs were created..." The statement is actually factually correct. It depends on what jobs I was talking about and, of course, it had to do with those created after the loan. I understand why you did not understand as I was not clear. Sorry for not being clear. If you would like to sue me, please don't file it in Federal court. The Feds cannot afford it. They have guaranteed too many bad loans. :doh

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/108220-government-cant-create-jobs-8.html#post1059830202
 
Back
Top Bottom