• 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
Smartest thing you've heard?

Dumbest thing you've heard?

Vote Maggots.

government creates lots of jobs: Military, bureaucracy, etc

whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is subject to much debate.
 
government creates lots of jobs: Military, bureaucracy, etc

whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is subject to much debate.

Dammit, don't go stealing my answers like that.
 
Government can create jobs, it's just a simple fact.
 
Government can create jobs, it's just a simple fact.

One would have to be an idiot to deny the claim. However, I think the real debate is not whether the Government can create jobs like more TSA clowns, FBI special agents, poultry inspectors, district judges, DOJ prosecutors or Navy SEALS but rather can government activity create more PRIVATE sector jobs through tax hikes, tax cuts, tariffs, less or more regulations etc
 
Uhhh of course the government can create jobs... 2.70 million people i believe are employed to the federal government
 
One would have to be an idiot to deny the claim. However, I think the real debate is not whether the Government can create jobs like more TSA clowns, FBI special agents, poultry inspectors, district judges, DOJ prosecutors or Navy SEALS but rather can government activity create more PRIVATE sector jobs through tax hikes, tax cuts, tariffs, less or more regulations etc

The answer to this of course would be it depends on what the government was spending the money on

The amount of jobs created directly and indirectly from the Interstate freeway system and projects like the Hoover Dam were and have been tremendous. Smart infrustructue projects help and economy become more efficient, more productive and normally would increase the number of jobs. One reason you see China doing far better at creating tens of millions of jobs then India. The level of infrustructure spending has been far greater in China then India, allowing China to actually support the manufacturing that is being done, from the electricity generation to getting the products to port for shipping (internally or externally)
 
One would have to be an idiot to deny the claim. However, I think the real debate is not whether the Government can create jobs like more TSA clowns, FBI special agents, poultry inspectors, district judges, DOJ prosecutors or Navy SEALS but rather can government activity create more PRIVATE sector jobs through tax hikes, tax cuts, tariffs, less or more regulations etc

That is a real question right now, and to be honest, I am not sure you are going to get much effect on private sector jobs(entirely unrelated to the government, not road crew or construction from stimulus) from cutting taxes, etc. However, you could certainly stifle such job creation through government action.
 
I think when people say that they are meaning to say private sector jobs. In that sense, it is impossible for a government to directly create a private sector job but very possible for it to encourage private sector growth by a number of means be it tax credits, contracting for infrastructure and military, etc.
 
I think when people say that they are meaning to say private sector jobs. In that sense, it is impossible for a government to directly create a private sector job but very possible for it to encourage private sector growth by a number of means be it tax credits, contracting for infrastructure and military, etc.

It's impossible for the government create jobs. 90+% of the government's money comes from the private sector; that being a fact, there's no way for the government to create jobs without private sector funding. IOW, the private sector pays for, ergo, creates those jobs.
 
Of course the government can create jobs. Whether the government will create jobs remains to be seen.
 
Come on everyone, look at who started this thread. Clearly he's up to his old tricks and wants to trap everyone. You're all falling for his fake-out. The answer is that government can't create jobs because governments are organizational structures and they don't have sentience. The correct answer is that people create jobs. People in government, people in private enterprise, and people as individuals. People have to decide to create a job, or to craft an administrative rule which permits other people to create a job. It's like Soylent Green. It always comes down to people.
 
The government doesn't create jobs. The government is a job. We pay people to do things for the community we have established. The real question is how do we decide how much the government should be involved with things that private sector folks can do.

If I live in a neighborhood, would I rather we all join a property owners' association and pay the association to have all of our yards landscaped? Or, would I rather take care of landscaping my own yard. What's more efficient? What brings about results in line with my interests?

The property owners' association doesn't create the job. The job is there. The question is, does creating a property owners' association make it more likely the job will be done or done well? Or, does does the association (government) get in the way and create unneeded hindrances to get the job done. Or both?

When a government "creates" a job out of thin air, it's not a real job ("Here, sit at this desk, and we'll give you money."). It's welfare.
 
The government doesn't create jobs. The government is a job. We pay people to do things for the community we have established. The real question is how do we decide how much the government should be involved with things that private sector folks can do.

If I live in a neighborhood, would I rather we all join a property owners' association and pay the association to have all of our yards landscaped? Or, would I rather take care of landscaping my own yard. What's more efficient? What brings about results in line with my interests?

The property owners' association doesn't create the job. The job is there. The question is, does creating a property owners' association make it more likely the job will be done or done well? Or, does does the association (government) get in the way and create unneeded hindrances to get the job done. Or both?

When a government "creates" a job out of thin air, it's not a real job ("Here, sit at this desk, and we'll give you money."). It's welfare.

That does not even make sense in the real world. Your use of the pejorative WELFARE to label what millions of people do every day to improve their communities is insulting.

Today is the tenth anniversary of 911. Take a moment and tell me about the people employed by the government who went into those buildings and saved thousands of lives who were not performing "a real job" and instead were on "welfare".

Better yet, send your answer to the families of the dead government workers and the living who they saved. And if they get royally pissed at you and attempt to clean your clock I guess you should point out to them thats its nothing personal - just right wind ideology causing you to insult them.
 
Wow. Read what I said without so much bias. People employed by the government went into those buildings and saved thousands of lives. But, the government didn't create the job. The job was created by a tragedy (an invasion/attack). As a community, we decided that responding to that type of tragedy would be the responsibility of the government. We could also have said it would be the responsibility of a private company of some kind -- or, by volunteer citizens (which also happened by the way) -- or, by citizens who would be paid by the collective later. The are pro's and con's to all of the options.

My use of "welfare" applied to made up jobs. "Sit here, do pretty much nothing, get paid." That's the only type of job the government "creates". Every other kind of "job" the government does is created by someone or something else (need, demand, capitalism, etc.). The government doesn't create the jobs.

The government might organize, encourage, or discourage jobs - hopefully in the best interest of the collective. But, that's the job of the government. That job (government), by the way, was created partly by need and partly by the desire of citizens - like the property owners' association I referenced earlier. But, it needs to be closely regulated otherwise the waste begins to outweigh the benefits. (Like a property owners' association who pays a manager $100,000 annually to save $10,000 in annual landscaping).
 
government creates lots of jobs: Military, bureaucracy, etc

whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is subject to much debate.
Of course it is a good thing...But, both the private and public sectors can become bloated and inefficient...I do not / cannot know if this is the case...in government, but have seen many examples in the private sector.....
 
Come on everyone, look at who started this thread. Clearly he's up to his old tricks and wants to trap everyone. You're all falling for his fake-out. The answer is that government can't create jobs because governments are organizational structures and they don't have sentience. The correct answer is that people create jobs. People in government, people in private enterprise, and people as individuals. People have to decide to create a job, or to craft an administrative rule which permits other people to create a job. It's like Soylent Green. It always comes down to people.

Horse pucky! The gov't can create jobs. Scenario. The gov't passes legistlation that proactively fights global warming. Alternative and renewable energy are the logical weapons. Heavy tax credits to become off the grid, renewable energy households cause families to purchase products from emerging renewable energy suppliers. Generators, solar PV, solar thermal, insulation, windows, windmills, and all manner of products start being introduced at the "local" level. Making jobs for manufacturers, retailers, laborers, and all at end user "local" levels. After installing their products and starting to make their own energy, they now have monies that would have been paid outside their community for energy and will now be spent in their "local" communities and thus creating jobs to satisfy this new demand. That is how the gov't can create jobs and just one example. Now the status quo of big energy would lose money in this deal so there might be some backlash from the politicians they own. Global Warming, species endangerment, job creation and a proactive agenda. Let's get started.
 
from Greenville

Read what I said without so much bias. People employed by the government went into those buildings and saved thousands of lives. But, the government didn't create the job. The job was created by a tragedy (an invasion/attack). As a community, we decided that responding to that type of tragedy would be the responsibility of the government. We could also have said it would be the responsibility of a private company of some kind -- or, by volunteer citizens (which also happened by the way) -- or, by citizens who would be paid by the collective later. The are pro's and con's to all of the options.

Those government jobs existed before that tragedy ever happened on 911. The people who performed them provided valuable public service every day of their careers. The people have decided through their elected representatives that we want the people who serve the public interest to work for the public.
My use of "welfare" applied to made up jobs. "Sit here, do pretty much nothing, get paid." That's the only type of job the government "creates". Every other kind of "job" the government does is created by someone or something else (need, demand, capitalism, etc.). The government doesn't create the jobs.

BS stacked a mile high. Be specific for heavens sake. Quit attacking public servants behind a cloak of vagueness. Tell us what government jobs are welfare. The public needs creates jobs and the government represents the public. It is a perfect symbiosis.
 
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Tennessee Valley Authority Act (ch. 32, 48 Stat. 58, codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 831, et seq.), creating TVA on May 18, 1933.

As a supplier of electric power, the agency was given authority to enter into long-term (20 years) contracts for the sale of power to government agencies and private entities, to construct electric power transmission lines to areas not otherwise supplied and to establish rules and regulations for electricity retailing and distribution. TVA is thus both a power supplier and a regulatory agency.

Today, TVA is the nation's largest public power company, providing electric power to over nine million customers in the Tennessee Valley. It acts primarily as an electric power wholesaler, selling to 156 retail power distributors and 56 directly served industrial or government customers. Power comes from dams providing hydroelectric power, fossil fuel plants, nuclear power plants, combustion turbines, wind turbines and solar panels.

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Tennessee Valley Authority Act (ch. 32, 48 Stat. 58, codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 831, et seq.), creating TVA on May 18, 1933.

As a supplier of electric power, the agency was given authority to enter into long-term (20 years) contracts for the sale of power to government agencies and private entities, to construct electric power transmission lines to areas not otherwise supplied and to establish rules and regulations for electricity retailing and distribution. TVA is thus both a power supplier and a regulatory agency.

Today, TVA is the nation's largest public power company, providing electric power to over nine million customers in the Tennessee Valley. It acts primarily as an electric power wholesaler, selling to 156 retail power distributors and 56 directly served industrial or government customers. Power comes from dams providing hydroelectric power, fossil fuel plants, nuclear power plants, combustion turbines, wind turbines and solar panels.

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And now wait for somebody to tell y0u that the TVA never created one job.
 
from Greenville

Those government jobs existed before that tragedy ever happened on 911. The people who performed them provided valuable public service every day of their careers. The people have decided through their elected representatives that we want the people who serve the public interest to work for the public.

BS stacked a mile high. Be specific for heavens sake. Quit attacking public servants behind a cloak of vagueness. Tell us what government jobs are welfare. The public needs creates jobs and the government represents the public. It is a perfect symbiosis.

The point being that government doesn't "create" a job. I was allowing that it could, in some case, provide an income stream and call it a job. I am not saying that people who work for the government are not actually doing jobs.

Again, if you want to say that "need" creates jobs (which I said from the first quote you blasted) and you prefer to have government, in its position, fill the job. Fine. But to say that government created the job itself is wrong. The public (or sometimes the government bureaucracy despite the public) decides which jobs the government will do or which jobs private citizens will be allowed to do.

And yes, TVA is an example of the government doing something on behalf of the public. But, there are other regulated non-government owned utility companies that can do the job just as well. If a job is needed, the government might be the right choice to fill that job. It might not. Public/private partnerships work very well when financing or private only investment is difficult to obtain. But, simply pointing to a task and saying "the government will do it" isn't the same as creating a job. Jobs are created by need and capitalism. A job can be done by the government (at a net benefit or net loss to the public) but not created.
 
The government can certainly create jobs, the question is whether what they can create is worth the cost.
 
Back
Top Bottom