• 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
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or it could mean that there really are that many people taking the opposition position and there isnt the occasional person stuffing the ballot box. Nah...you are right. People should have to properly identify themselves before they vote.

Polls are silly exercises in futility.
 
CompSciGuy said:
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:
Click to expand...

All I know is...I got paid regularly for 27 yrs as a police officer and it was the local govt that signed my check...
 
Catawba said:
You assume too much.
Click to expand...

you have advocated slashing the DOD budget by 2/3rds, yes?

last year, we paid out $257 Billion in retirees pension and health benefits.

IOW, it is virtually impossible to cut DOD spending by 2/3rds without deeply cutting pay, pension, healthcare, etc. to our active duty and retirees.
 
Catawba said:
Thankfully, the Constitution did not specify that its interpretation be left up to you,
Click to expand...

it wasn't me - it was James Madison. the father of the Constitution? the guy who wrote the passage in question?

but rather to the Supreme court.
Click to expand...

really? fascinating - where did it specify that?
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
All I know is...I got paid regularly for 27 yrs as a police officer and it was the local govt that signed my check...
Click to expand...
Since your police force didnt turn a profit you werent generating revenues. The citizens that worked private sector jobs were taxed for appropriate services. Without the private sector jobs, there would not have been enough money to pay for the local gov salaries.
 
cpwill said:
you have advocated slashing the DOD budget by 2/3rds, yes?

last year, we paid out $257 Billion in retirees pension and health benefits.

IOW, it is virtually impossible to cut DOD spending by 2/3rds without deeply cutting pay, pension, healthcare, etc. to our active duty and retirees.
Click to expand...

Your figure does not relate to just military spending, according to your link. Your point is not proven by this unrelated figure.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
it wasn't me - it was James Madison. the father of the Constitution? the guy who wrote the passage in question?
Click to expand...

The rule of law is that the Supreme Court interprets what is constituional. No where does it say that your interpretation of James Madison supercedes the SC's decisions.


really? fascinating - where did it specify that?
Click to expand...

Article 3 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
The rule of law is that the Supreme Court interprets what is constituional. No where does it say that your interpretation of James Madison supercedes the SC's decisions.
Click to expand...

1. it's not my interpretation. Madison was pretty clear on the matter. Even Alexander Hamilton (the most expansionist of that generation) argued that the Federal Government was held to its' enumerated powers.

2. no where does the Constitution say that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional. if I may cite another American president on the matter:
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution... I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

- Abraham Lincoln
Click to expand...

3. it should be noted that there was an individual who argued in favor of your interpretation of the General Welfare clause. That was the anti-Federalist, Brutus, who argued that with a provision so potentially open to abuse, the Federal government might one day expand to the point where it interfered in the relationship between employer and employee, interfered with our vehicles, and even interfer with our toilets. He, of course, unanimously derided and decried as an insane conspiracy theorist by the Constitutions' authors, who held his argument up in public as an example of our nutter the anti-federalists were.

Article 3 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Click to expand...

huh. that's odd. they appear to have forgotten to put the bit about Judicial Supremacy in there? :)
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Since your police force didnt turn a profit you werent generating revenues. The citizens that worked private sector jobs were taxed for appropriate services. Without the private sector jobs, there would not have been enough money to pay for the local gov salaries.
Click to expand...

Your right...I never said that I wasnt paid via taxs...but it doesnt matter how your paid...the question was does govt create jobs..and they answer is obviously yes.
 
lpast said:
Your right...I never said that I wasnt paid via taxs...but it doesnt matter how your paid...the question was does govt create jobs..and they answer is obviously yes.
Click to expand...

again, if you destroy three bridges, and use the materials to build two bridges, i'm not certain you can be said to have "created bridges"
 
Catawba said:
The rule of law is that the Supreme Court interprets what is constituional. No where does it say that your interpretation of James Madison supercedes the SC's decisions.
Click to expand...

As cpwill said, it was not he who provided the interpretation, but the person who helped write it and who provided the ratifiers of Virginia with his observations of the document. There is much more evidence to back up what cpwill has said. And, a Chief Justice also had something to say about interpretation. This Chief Justice, John Marshall, said this in Marbury v. Madison:

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

cpwill provided you with the excellent example of Brutus and his wrong-headed view of the Constitution. Another one would be Patrick Henry during the debates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He too argued that certain clauses meant something different from what the authors and others argued. Patrick Henry lost the argument, as he was against ratifying the Constitution, but it was ratified over his objections and it was ratified because the supporters of the Constitution said exactly the opposite of Henry and what you are arguing. The Supreme Court is to decide per this decision, but it is to decide using the Constitution and its meaning and are not make things up.
 
LesGovt said:
As cpwill said, it was not he who provided the interpretation, but the person who helped write it and who provided the ratifiers of Virginia with his observations of the document. There is much more evidence to back up what cpwill has said. And, a Chief Justice also had something to say about interpretation. This Chief Justice, John Marshall, said this in Marbury v. Madison:

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

cpwill provided you with the excellent example of Brutus and his wrong-headed view of the Constitution. Another one would be Patrick Henry during the debates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He too argued that certain clauses meant something different from what the authors and others argued. Patrick Henry lost the argument, as he was against ratifying the Constitution, but it was ratified over his objections and it was ratified because the supporters of the Constitution said exactly the opposite of Henry and what you are arguing. The Supreme Court is to decide per this decision, but it is to decide using the Constitution and its meaning and are not make things up.
Click to expand...

on the upside, if the constitution is a living document, that means we can declare torturing al-qaeda members to be "within the new understanding" of the Constitution :D
 
VanceMack said:
Since your police force didnt turn a profit you werent generating revenues.
Click to expand...

Let's do some math.

Firm A generates $200 in sale revenue
Firm A incurs $500 in costs.
Firm A loses $300.

By your argument, firm A has no revenue. Profit =/= Revenue.

The citizens that worked private sector jobs were taxed for appropriate services.[/quote

Last I checked, public workers were subject to the same taxes. Where do you live?

Without the private sector jobs, there would not have been enough money to pay for the local gov salaries.
Click to expand...

To a degree yes, but you seem to be laboring under the notion that public workers pay no taxes.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
He's counting the number of registered users that voted and comparing that to the number of votes.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is you pointed this out and the immature prick who's doing this is still keeping it up. There are 13 (counting Ockam) votes for no yet 90 recorded. Do they realize that makes them look incredibly immature?
 
cpwill said:
again, if you destroy three bridges, and use the materials to build two bridges, i'm not certain you can be said to have "created bridges"
Click to expand...

That's "created bridges," not "net created bridges." Besides, don't old bridges sometimes have to be torn down?
 
Phys251 said:
Besides, don't old bridges sometimes have to be torn down?
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the social welfare nanny state, I agree that it should be torn down.
 
cpwill said:
1. it's not my interpretation. Madison was pretty clear on the matter. Even Alexander Hamilton (the most expansionist of that generation) argued that the Federal Government was held to its' enumerated powers.

2. no where does the Constitution say that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional. if I may cite another American president on the matter:


3. it should be noted that there was an individual who argued in favor of your interpretation of the General Welfare clause. That was the anti-Federalist, Brutus, who argued that with a provision so potentially open to abuse, the Federal government might one day expand to the point where it interfered in the relationship between employer and employee, interfered with our vehicles, and even interfer with our toilets. He, of course, unanimously derided and decried as an insane conspiracy theorist by the Constitutions' authors, who held his argument up in public as an example of our nutter the anti-federalists were.





huh. that's odd. they appear to have forgotten to put the bit about Judicial Supremacy in there? :)
Click to expand...



Under the rule of law, Article Three established the Supreme Court as the Judicial body:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
 
obvious Child said:
Let's do some math.

Firm A generates $200 in sale revenue
Firm A incurs $500 in costs.
Firm A loses $300.

By your argument, firm A has no revenue. Profit =/= Revenue.

The citizens that worked private sector jobs were taxed for appropriate services.[/quote

Last I checked, public workers were subject to the same taxes. Where do you live?



To a degree yes, but you seem to be laboring under the notion that public workers pay no taxes.
Click to expand...
Of course they pay taxes...nowhere near enough to pay salaries...not even close. You know better. 10x 65,000.00 employees equals 650,000.00 plus facility and costs...they are going to pay after deductions and returns MAYBE 100 in state and local taxes apiece. Without the taxpayers there is an awful big hole there.
Click to expand...
 
VanceMack said:
Of course they pay taxes
Click to expand...

Then you just called your earlier position wrong.

nowhere near enough to pay salaries...not even close.
Click to expand...

Depends where they are. A combination of sales and property taxes can provide a substantial portion.

[quite]You know better. 10x 65,000.00 employees equals 650,000.00 plus facility and costs...they are going to pay after deductions and returns MAYBE 100 in state and local taxes apiece. Without the taxpayers there is an awful big hole there.[/QUOTE]

No one said there wasn't, but your argument to exclude public workers is rather idiotic.
 
Sure it can.

OCTOBER 5, 2011, 1:58 P.M. ET
Senate Democrats Propose 5% Surtax on Millionaires
By COREY BOLES
Senate Democrats Propose 5% Surtax on Millionaires - WSJ.com
WASHINGTON—Senate Democrats proposed a 5% surtax on people earning more than $1 million a year to pay for the $447 billion cost of President Barack Obama's job-creation bill, in a move designed to shore up Democratic support for the measure.

The proposal would replace the range of tax deductions for wealthy people, oil companies and other businesses that the president had proposed to end to offset the cost of the job-creation initiatives in his plan.
[.....]
Click to expand...
Out of .1% T-bills and into Needed, real-infrastructure Jobs. (if correctly spent/executed)
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Then you just called your earlier position wrong.



Depends where they are. A combination of sales and property taxes can provide a substantial portion.

[quite]You know better. 10x 65,000.00 employees equals 650,000.00 plus facility and costs...they are going to pay after deductions and returns MAYBE 100 in state and local taxes apiece. Without the taxpayers there is an awful big hole there.
Click to expand...

No one said there wasn't, but your argument to exclude public workers is rather idiotic.[/QUOTE]Trying to have a discussion with a pathetic idiot that clings to semantics as the core of his arguments is the only idiotic thing about my exchanges with you...ever. I stated they dont turn a profit. The police force does NOT generate revenue. A city state and federal government will tax ALL workers...but the government collects taxes (revenues)...not the police force. Any private business has to collect enough revenue to sustain its operations and generate enough profit to make it viable. Government jobs do not turn a profit...ever. They require private sector employees to sustain them. Their services are even necessary, valid, valuable and worthwhile. But without private sector income there has never been nor will ever be enough money collected by government workers to sustain government workers.
Like I said...attempting a discussion with people like you truly is idiotic. My bad.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
No one said there wasn't, but your argument to exclude public workers is rather idiotic.
Click to expand...
Trying to have a discussion with a pathetic idiot that clings to semantics as the core of his arguments is the only idiotic thing about my exchanges with you...ever. I stated they dont turn a profit. The police force does NOT generate revenue. A city state and federal government will tax ALL workers...but the government collects taxes (revenues)...not the police force. Any private business has to collect enough revenue to sustain its operations and generate enough profit to make it viable. Government jobs do not turn a profit...ever. They require private sector employees to sustain them. Their services are even necessary, valid, valuable and worthwhile. But without private sector income there has never been nor will ever be enough money collected by government workers to sustain government workers.
Like I said...attempting a discussion with people like you truly is idiotic. My bad.[/QUOTE]

The police provide a service....all govt jobs provide service ...private sector jobs profit is job one..and if less service provides more profit than you get less service for the more cost...smaller candy bar syndrome...could you even imagine if police and fire were profit driven...how would you offer competition to keep costs down...you cant compare public and private sector jobs....
 
cpwill said:
again, if you destroy three bridges, and use the materials to build two bridges, i'm not certain you can be said to have "created bridges"
Click to expand...

I think your point here is being mostly missed.

Perhaps those who don't get it will get it if it is rephrased to question whether government taking wealth out of the economy that would have created three jobs in the private sector, and spending it a manner that creates two government-funded jobs, can really be said to be “creating jobs”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom