Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

[Oldstyle]

Oh, I think I "Get it" just fine thanks.

Ask Apple how many people they would employ if no one protected their intellectual and physical property.

Ya ever wonder why no companies move their headquarters to third world hellholes with no taxes?

As for why companies have traditionally kept their businesses based in the United States instead of some Third World "hellhole"? In my opinion it's because in the United States businesses could rely on the rule of law to protect their interests.

hmmm...yes.... I agree!

Tell me, is it the private sector or the public sector that enforces laws, contracts and property rights?

You make my point for me.

That rule of law however is no longer sacrosanct as the Obama Administration demonstrated quite graphically when they changed the order that creditors would be paid off in the GM and Chrysler restructuring deals...moving unions ahead of private investors.

Hold on a second - which investors? Equity or debt holders? common equity holders were wiped out exactly as they are meant to when a company declares bankruptcy. Why should any attempt be made to make equity holders whole?

Are you really not aware that the order in which creditors would be paid off was changed by the Obama Administration so that labor unions were moved up to a position where they would be paid before private investors?

 

[8537]

It's the "job" of the government to protect the citizens of the United States...that in no way changes the economic reality that spending billions of dollars to keep public sector workers employed doesn't create long term job growth. I don't think you do "Get it".

Public-sector employees protect intellectual and physical property rights. Please make a note of it.

Without protection of said property, our economy would be more akin to Somalia.

In that case why did this Administration not protect the rights of GM and Chrysler creditors arbitrarily moving them to a position behind labor unions in the order people would be paid?

you might want to make sure you know what you're talking about. GM's debt holders were paid relative to the status of their debt. Those that held debt with no collateral lost larger amounts than those holding collateralized debt. This canard that the rule of law was not followed is just that, a canard. You can the evidence for that in the line of GM debt holders waiting to sue for damages (a line with zero people in it).


Make a note of that, please.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course that happened over night. RR had nothing to do with that, neither did the .com bubble
You got 40 million jobs staring you right in the face in the private sector form 1980 and your trying to convince people that a small tax increase in the 90s is the reason why?


You have that right

It was the small tax increase, coupled with infrastructure rebuilding (roads and bridges), coupled with investment in new technology (internet), coupled with a smart opening up of new emerging markets (NAFTA), coupled with money given to states to train workers for the new high tech jobs. That's why Clinton was a success. Ronald Reagan's economy needed bailout after bailout.

Seems that went down the memory hole.

The US govt has borrowed +- 3 trillion dollars in 30 months in the name of job creation
we have +- 6 million fewer jobs today than we did in 2008

During BC admin you can see the year the GOP took over congress in the job data sheet herein

1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

do you really want to keep doing this?
its not that complicated

Thanks for more evidence. "There are liars, damn liars and statistics" and, with apologies to Mark Twain, fools.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
"bubbles" are a creation of greed. When we had the repel of Glass-Steagall, throw-in 0% from the fed after 9-11 and add a dose of bad loans, you create the environment for greed (bubble)
Trickle down works. The reason people are not spending there money now is the same reason I am not. The leadership running this country has no understanding of what it is there suppose to be doing

So you admit that DE-regulation of the banking system was wrong.

DE-regulation? When?
Which regulations would have prevented the crisis if they had been kept?
Be as specific as you can.

 

[kwc57]

The older I get the more convinced I am that liberal viewpoints stem from the ignorance and false understanding of where the money comes from to pay for all the nice programs that they want.

Liberalism is a big problem in this country, half of the people with liberal mindset thinks the government has unlimited funds, its this mentality that has caused our debt.

Well im here to tell the libbs that government doesnt have unlimited funds, and who pays for those programs is the middle class, along with everything else. And we are sick and tired of forking over our lives so you can be a bunch of lazy do nothings with your hands out.

Look you silly person, pretending that the opposition believes something they do not just so you can easily defend your failed ideas is infantile nonsense.

quit making a fool of yourself

OMG! How rich is it that you of all people would give this advice to someone else?!

 

[JRK]

It was the small tax increase, coupled with infrastructure rebuilding (roads and bridges), coupled with investment in new technology (internet), coupled with a smart opening up of new emerging markets (NAFTA), coupled with money given to states to train workers for the new high tech jobs. That's why Clinton was a success. Ronald Reagan's economy needed bailout after bailout.

Seems that went down the memory hole.

The US govt has borrowed +- 3 trillion dollars in 30 months in the name of job creation
we have +- 6 million fewer jobs today than we did in 2008

During BC admin you can see the year the GOP took over congress in the job data sheet herein

1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

do you really want to keep doing this?
its not that complicated

Where do you "see" the GOP taking congress in that jobs data?

And which laws did they pass to create such job growth?

The Congressional Accountability act
Repeal of glass stegall
here are some very good examples
The Republican revolution 10 years ... - Chris R. Edwards, John Curtis Samples - Google Books

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Trickle down works. The reason people are not spending there money now is the same reason I am not. The leadership running this country has no understanding of what it is there suppose to be doing

That's bullshit.

THIS is the reason people aren't spending money:

They don't HAVE money to spend. That has nothing to do with the 'leadership'.

 

[8537]

As for why companies have traditionally kept their businesses based in the United States instead of some Third World "hellhole"? In my opinion it's because in the United States businesses could rely on the rule of law to protect their interests.

hmmm...yes.... I agree!

Tell me, is it the private sector or the public sector that enforces laws, contracts and property rights?

You make my point for me.

That rule of law however is no longer sacrosanct as the Obama Administration demonstrated quite graphically when they changed the order that creditors would be paid off in the GM and Chrysler restructuring deals...moving unions ahead of private investors.

Hold on a second - which investors? Equity or debt holders? common equity holders were wiped out exactly as they are meant to when a company declares bankruptcy. Why should any attempt be made to make equity holders whole?

Are you really not aware that the order in which creditors would be paid off was changed by the Obama Administration so that labor unions were moved up to a position where they would be paid before private investors?

Tell me, Oldstyle - what payment did labor unions receive, specifically?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Trickle down really works, really! Just need another 30 years to prove it

 

[8537]

The US govt has borrowed +- 3 trillion dollars in 30 months in the name of job creation
we have +- 6 million fewer jobs today than we did in 2008

During BC admin you can see the year the GOP took over congress in the job data sheet herein

1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

do you really want to keep doing this?
its not that complicated

Where do you "see" the GOP taking congress in that jobs data?

And which laws did they pass to create such job growth?

The Congressional Accountability act
Repeal of glass stegall
here are some very good examples
The Republican revolution 10 years ... - Chris R. Edwards, John Curtis Samples - Google Books

Oh boy...can you please explain how requiring congress to follow the same employment law as the private sector created jobs in the private sector? I'll wait patiently for that, thanks.

And Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed in 1999, a bit late to "credit" it with job creation that ended about a year later.

 

[Oldstyle]

But if the fire department were a private company, the money would still have to come from the private sector.

That isn't the point. We collect taxes from the private sector to PAY for services like the Fire Department, Police and teachers. Those public sector jobs wouldn't exist without the revenue that jobs in the private sector generate. I"m sorry that none of you progressives seem to be able to grasp this simple economic concept.

Everyone here grasps that concept. Don't forget that people who have government jobs, whether directly or indirectly...

...they also pay taxes, they also consume, they also invest. Their money as it relates to the economy is just as good as anyone elses.

No one is disputing that fact. What you still refuse to admit however is that without revenues from the private sector supporting those government jobs...public sector employees would not have the money to pay taxes, consume or invest. Revenues have been way down because instead of spending stimulus money in the private sector the majority of it was spent keeping public sector people employed. Now that money has run out and Obama is back asking for another half a trillion dollars to keep those government jobs from being lost. And if he gets that money we'll be that much further in debt and when that money runs out we'll STILL have to lay off those people because we haven't created jobs that produce revenue.

 

[Dragon]

When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it

This argument is dependent on the premise that all capital left with the private sector will be invested in something productive that creates jobs. This is counter-factual. The government can create net jobs when it is taxing away idle capital, or capital that would otherwise be invested in unproductive financial shell-games.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
"bubbles" are a creation of greed. When we had the repel of Glass-Steagall, throw-in 0% from the fed after 9-11 and add a dose of bad loans, you create the environment for greed (bubble)
Trickle down works. The reason people are not spending there money now is the same reason I am not. The leadership running this country has no understanding of what it is there suppose to be doing

So you admit that DE-regulation of the banking system was wrong.

DE-regulation? When?
Which regulations would have prevented the crisis if they had been kept?
Be as specific as you can.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall for starters.

 

[WillowTree]

[Trickle down works. The reason people are not spending there money now is the same reason I am not. The leadership running this country has no understanding of what it is there suppose to be doing

That's bullshit.

THIS is the reason people aren't spending money:

They don't HAVE money to spend. That has nothing to do with the 'leadership'.

I think you are wrong. I think most Americans are getting themselves out of debt. They are paying off their credit cards and not spending to put new charges on them.. The feds outta follow that lead.

 

[Jarhead]

I know......a long read. And yes I know....could be a bunch of crap...and yes, I know....some will say what it says is GOP rhetoric....

But regardless, it is not only how I feel, but it is how many of my clients feel...and yes, I know....if I cant prove my clients feel this way, then it is nothing but GOP rhetoric.

But nontheless....it makes a point and as I said...it is exactly how I feel...

Apparently, it is from a real employer/business owner:

To All My Valued Employees,
There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job.
What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, Race, creed, religion, etc.
Please vote who you think will serve your Interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story.
This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last year's Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story.
I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.
My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.
Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's.
My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9 am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5 pm, I don't. There is no "off" button For me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to me like a 1 day old baby.
You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... You never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't.
The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep And not without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:
I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes.
Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.
The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?
Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ...
to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.
When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington prefer to cater to the unproductive segment of America rather than to the essential driver of the American economic engine.
Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple.
I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future... Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire.
You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy Stupid" I'm telling you it isn't.
If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the Constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever.
If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about.
Signed, Your boss,
Michael A. Crowley, PE
Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc.
Professional Engineers
1906 South Main Street, Suite 122
Wake Forest, NC 27587

 

[JRK]

hmmm...yes.... I agree!

Tell me, is it the private sector or the public sector that enforces laws, contracts and property rights?

You make my point for me.



Hold on a second - which investors? Equity or debt holders? common equity holders were wiped out exactly as they are meant to when a company declares bankruptcy. Why should any attempt be made to make equity holders whole?

Are you really not aware that the order in which creditors would be paid off was changed by the Obama Administration so that labor unions were moved up to a position where they would be paid before private investors?

Tell me, Oldstyle - what payment did labor unions receive, specifically?

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg
Top 10 Labor Union Outrages - HUMAN EVENTS
hen U.S. taxpayers bailed out the automakers, the United Auto Workers got a major stake in the car companies even though it was union-negotiated Cadillac health care plans that put automakers at a competitive disadvantage in the first place. While the government bailout money has yet to be paid back, union auto workers are getting record bonuses this year.
The Auto Industry / UAW Bailout

not old style, but I will do

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you admit that DE-regulation of the banking system was wrong.

DE-regulation? When?
Which regulations would have prevented the crisis if they had been kept?
Be as specific as you can.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall for starters.

What would Glass-Steagall have done to prevent the crisis?
Be as specific as you can.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That isn't the point. We collect taxes from the private sector to PAY for services like the Fire Department, Police and teachers. Those public sector jobs wouldn't exist without the revenue that jobs in the private sector generate. I"m sorry that none of you progressives seem to be able to grasp this simple economic concept.

Everyone here grasps that concept. Don't forget that people who have government jobs, whether directly or indirectly...

...they also pay taxes, they also consume, they also invest. Their money as it relates to the economy is just as good as anyone elses.

No one is disputing that fact. What you still refuse to admit however is that without revenues from the private sector supporting those government jobs...public sector employees would not have the money to pay taxes, consume or invest. Revenues have been way down because instead of spending stimulus money in the private sector the majority of it was spent keeping public sector people employed. Now that money has run out and Obama is back asking for another half a trillion dollars to keep those government jobs from being lost. And if he gets that money we'll be that much further in debt and when that money runs out we'll STILL have to lay off those people because we haven't created jobs that produce revenue.

Solyndra was in the private sector.

 

[8537]

DE-regulation? When?
Which regulations would have prevented the crisis if they had been kept?
Be as specific as you can.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall for starters.

What would Glass-Steagall have done to prevent the crisis?
Be as specific as you can.

Financial institutions had already found ways around GS, but with GS in effect the major depository institutions wouldn't have faced such steep declines in capital when the financial markets collapsed. They would have been hurting for certain, but the scope of the problem in standard banks would have been smaller.

of course, the investment banks would have still been fried.

 

[Oldstyle]

hmmm...yes.... I agree!

Tell me, is it the private sector or the public sector that enforces laws, contracts and property rights?

You make my point for me.



Hold on a second - which investors? Equity or debt holders? common equity holders were wiped out exactly as they are meant to when a company declares bankruptcy. Why should any attempt be made to make equity holders whole?

Are you really not aware that the order in which creditors would be paid off was changed by the Obama Administration so that labor unions were moved up to a position where they would be paid before private investors?

Tell me, Oldstyle - what payment did labor unions receive, specifically?

The GM bondholders owned $27 billion and they got 10 percent of the common stock in the exchange. The UAW owned $10 billion of the bonds and they got 40 percent of the stock. That wasn't done by a bankruptcy judge following the rule of law...that was done arbitrarily by the Obama Administration. That was the "payment" the UAW received.