• 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
Sure it can.

OCTOBER 5, 2011, 1:58 P.M. ET
Senate Democrats Propose 5% Surtax on Millionaires
By COREY BOLES
Out of .1% T-bills and into Needed, real-infrastructure Jobs. (if correctly spent/executed)

let's instead base income and capital gains taxes on a person's total wealth, not just income.

:)
 
let's instead base income and capital gains taxes on a person's total wealth, not just income.

:)
It's difficult to Tax and assess wealth yearly.
I don't think wealth should be taxed that way.
That's why we have the one-time/last-time wealth tax, the Estate Tax.
Put the money back in play.

We can, thru the use of Income tax however, abate the Billion dollar Bubbles from being accumulated in the first place.
ergo we had 70%-90% top rates for Half a century
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html#post1059220592
before Reagan cut it from 70% in 1980 to 28% by 1986.
 
Last edited:
For the life of me I don't understand why people would want to tax 'wealth'. As if they were completey unaware of the slippery slope. As if the government tends to deliver a great a job, doesn't waste money like no tomorrow.

Before you know it you'll be paying 90% as well, on your wealth, so you can sell your 'assets', like your home.

As for the OP. Yeah, the government can create jobs you'll always have to pay for. In that aspect, you need a lot of jobs before the government can start to 'create' any.
 
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”.

That isn't what the OP asks. It clearly asks if the government can create jobs. I'm still waiting for a reasoned justification as to why it can't.
 
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....
Nor have I compared the two AND I stated they have value. Not the point. Government jobs are not self sustaining. That is all. A police force is not self sustaining. A private security force is.
 
Last edited:
Nor have I compared the two AND I stated they have value. Not the point. Government jobs are not self sustaining. That is all. A police force is not self sustaining. A private security force is.

A private security force costs more money than the US military. So, if it takes more taxpayers money to hire private security forces, how is this not less sustainable than the US military.
 
A private security force costs more money than the US military. So, if it takes more taxpayers money to hire private security forces, how is this not less sustainable than the US military.

I actually know some guys (loosely) who own one of those private security forces. Holy ****. They made so much money off of the Iraq war it is embarrassing.
 
Nor have I compared the two AND I stated they have value. Not the point. Government jobs are not self sustaining. That is all. A police force is not self sustaining. A private security force is.

The Hoover dam is self sustaining.
 
government creates lots of jobs: Military, bureaucracy, etc

whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is subject to much debate.
It creates no product and therefore no money........with out taking money from workers who produce a necessary and useable product needed to sustain life these government service jobs could not exist.
 
government creates lots of jobs: Military, bureaucracy, etc

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

****. I can't argue with that.
 
It creates no product and therefore no money........with out taking money from workers who produce a necessary and useable product needed to sustain life these government service jobs could not exist.

:shock:
Wait, did you actually did say that?
Ever heard of education, the military, prosecutors, judges, or all those things?
 
That isn't what the OP asks. It clearly asks if the government can create jobs. I'm still waiting for a reasoned justification as to why it can't.

You still are missing the point.

Sure, government can “create” jobs. But if, in order to do so, it is taking wealth out of the economy that, left in the private sector, would create more jobs than government would use that wealth to create, then, in effect, government is destroying more jobs than it is creating. The net effect is that no, government is not actually creating jobs; there are fewer people working than if government left that wealth in the private sector, where it would do more good.
 
Last edited:
You still are missing the point.

Sure, government can “create” jobs. But if, in order to do so, it is taking wealth out of the economy that, left in the private sector, would create more jobs than government would use that wealth to create, then, in effect, government is destroying more jobs than it is creating. The net effect is that no, government is not actually creating jobs; there are fewer people working than if government left that wealth in the private sector, where it would do more good.

Where are the private market jobs from the last 5 years of tax cuts provided to the "job creators?" As we have learned, the hard way, providing tax cuts to someone for the sole reason that they make over a certain amount of money, regardless of whether they create jobs or not, or even invest it in this country, isn't working for the middle class, it is just increasing our federal debt.
 
That isn't what the OP asks. It clearly asks if the government can create jobs. I'm still waiting for a reasoned justification as to why it can't.
The government can't create a job that produces anything that create wealth for the economy. Government jobs redestribute private money into the public sector.......but no new product of value is made......these are all service jobs......non-creative.
 
The government can't create a job that produces anything that create wealth for the economy. Government jobs redestribute private money into the public sector.......but no new product of value is made......these are all service jobs......non-creative.

I would strongly suggest you research the TVA and what is has done for the people of that region.
 
You still are missing the point.

Sure, government can “create” jobs. But if, in order to do so, it is taking wealth out of the economy that, left in the private sector, would create more jobs than government would use that wealth to create, then, in effect, government is destroying more jobs than it is creating. The net effect is that no, government is not actually creating jobs; there are fewer people working than if government left that wealth in the private sector, where it would do more good.

I would love to see the verifiable proof of those asserions and claims. Please do present it.
 
Where are the private market jobs from the last 5 years of tax cuts provided to the "job creators?" As we have learned, the hard way, providing tax cuts to someone for the sole reason that they make over a certain amount of money, regardless of whether they create jobs or not, or even invest it in this country, isn't working for the middle class, it is just increasing our federal debt.

Your argument would get a lot more traction ( at least with me) if you called for getting rid of ALL the bush tax cuts. I just have a problem picking on one group in the name of "shared sacrifice". Never before did we lower taxes while heading into war. Correct the entire mistake.
 
Your argument would get a lot more traction ( at least with me) if you called for getting rid of ALL the bush tax cuts. I just have a problem picking on one group in the name of "shared sacrifice". Never before did we lower taxes while heading into war. Correct the entire mistake.

I agree with that. We should repeal the entire thing lock stock and barrell.
 
Your argument would get a lot more traction ( at least with me) if you called for getting rid of ALL the bush tax cuts. I just have a problem picking on one group in the name of "shared sacrifice". Never before did we lower taxes while heading into war. Correct the entire mistake.

If equal tax cuts had been given, what you say would make sense. But, as the rich received bigger tax cuts through cuts in investment returns and estate taxes, it does not now make sense when the middle class is already hurting, to continue the unequal situation.
 
You still are missing the point.

Sure, government can “create” jobs. But if, in order to do so, it is taking wealth out of the economy that, left in the private sector, would create more jobs than government would use that wealth to create, then, in effect, government is destroying more jobs than it is creating. The net effect is that no, government is not actually creating jobs; there are fewer people working than if government left that wealth in the private sector, where it would do more good.

The government can't create a job that produces anything that create wealth for the economy. Government jobs redestribute private money into the public sector.......but no new product of value is made......these are all service jobs......non-creative.

...

I would love to see the verifiable proof of those asserions and claims. Please do present it.

Beat me to it.
 
The government can't create a job that produces anything that create wealth for the economy.

So drugs the NIH found aren't wealth?
So manufacturing processes for extremely high strength materials produced at NASA research facilities isn't wealth?
All of the applied materials NASA created aren't wealth?
So the medical breakthroughs that Army doctors are making for wounded soldiers aren't wealth?
So crops that are drug and pest resistant due to government researchers aren't wealth?

EDIT: Thought of a doozy.

By your argument, nuclear power is not a form of wealth.

I see you have no problem siding with the know nothing crowd. That's starting from a serious disadvantage here.
 
Last edited:
According to Petaluna, nothing in the linked Wikipedia list is wealth.

NASA spin-off - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's amazing how far some people will carry that idiotic meme that "government can't create jobs" or "government can't create wealth."

Government can act like a giant Venture Capitalist, pouring large amounts of money into projects that may produce tangible products. Case in point: the Manhattan project, which without we would not have nuclear power By idiotic argument Petaluna has given, nuclear power is not wealth because it came from the government.

You people have taken the fairly reasonable position that government wastes money and turned it into something that does not resemble that original stance.

It's a real sad sign of how just how weak you believers in those idiotic memes are when you constantly run away from people who provide solid examples of you being wrong. I've already provided several in this thread alone, to which the meme believers have totally avoided. You say it, we challenge you, you run away. That is not a sign of a strong position.
 
Last edited:
I both disagree and agree, any that says the government doesn't create jobs is seriously lacking somewhere. The problem is with the jobs that the government creates, I would say that (this is a guess) that 95% of government job produce nothing, (in the way of product) and these jobs must be paid by the taxpayers of this country. Part of the problem with our budget, is government payroll. That is and has been increasing faster then the private sector jobs that are source of the money needed to pay there salaries.


Now can government help produce private sector jobs, yeah I suppose they can, but the question there remains is how much bang for the buck do we get when they try. One in here said that “Government can act like a giant Venture Capitalist, pouring large amounts of money into projects that may produce tangible products. “ The problem with that is, well their successes are touted loudly, just as often, or probably more often they fail. Mostly we don't hear about the failures .. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Solyndra[/FONT] is in the news because of questions surrounding how stable it was when they were given 500 million dollars. Now how many more loans will have to be made, paid back with interest, to make up for a 500million dollar loss ?


I don't believe our government creates any wealth, they create ideas, and innovation that the private sector can then use to create wealth, but to say the government creates wealth, is a stretch. If they were so good at creating wealth as one here is saying, then how in the hell did we get 15 trillion dollars in debt, and how could they be running at a 1.5 trillion deficit per year??.....By anyone's standard that I know, they would never anything that is 15 trillion dollars, and growing yearly, in debt something that was any good at creating wealth.


The government is basically a service industry, that produces very little in the over all scheme of things in the way of product. Their job is to spend the money they take in. But that single standard they are now, and have been failing for a long time. Much of the services they provide are needed and wanted by most people, but they have become like pigs that think they have a never ending supply of feed, and have grown bloated, under worked and over paid.
 
Back
Top Bottom