Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

[NYcarbineer]

It isn't that firefighters, teachers and police don't do a real job, it's that that job has to be paid for by private sector revenues. You don't create long term employment by taking money out of the private sector to keep public sector workers employed because when the money appropriated runs out (and it has), you then have to lay those public sector workers off or go further into debt to retain them (as President Obama is now wanting to do for the second time). What part of this concept don't you progressives "get"?

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?

His point is like the UAW the public sector employee is pricing themselves out of a job. Its legacy cost that is killing all of these union supported entities
how we ever got in a place in which I do a 401K and a teacher does 20-30 years service but donated 0 to there "pension" I will never know

They don't donate '0' to their pension. They earn their pension as part of the compensation they get for doing their job.

 

[JRK]

Money spent by the government on education, healthcare, infrastructure, and technology creates jobs.

Money given to the super rich does not.

....MUCH like Unemployment-check$.....that get spent LOCALLY.....while tax-cuts (for the 1%ers/high-roller$) go....

...OFF-SHORE!!!!

In theory UE is not a govt program as much, as they are the just the caretakers of the cash.
Those funds come from the consumer (you and I) and is collected by corporation and then put into a pool of monies that in good time needs no other assistance.
Simply put those funds are not provided by the govt.
Any creation of wealth from that program has little to do with the govt.

 

[JRK]

Tax cuts went for everyone in Ws program. Trying to convince people that "rich" people do not pay taxes is absurd
in addition if you make that wealth in this country, before it goes into an off shore account you will still pay taxes on it by law

 

[LOki]

There are a few dumb presumptions being asserted in this thread, and I'd like to see how the various presumtos in here would like to explain the validity of these presumptions.

1. Jobs = jobs, regardless of how they're being paid for.

It occurs to me that private sector jobs enjoy the benefit of creating wealth more efficiently and increasing government tax revenues. This is not to claim that infrastructure creation and improvements don't create wealth at all, I'm presenting an efficiency point. And as far as revenues are concerned, it occurs to me that claiming net revenue from government jobs is a lot like claiming net revenue when you transfer money from your savings account into your checking account--and then bouncing checks and calling those floated funds revenue.​

2. The rich don't really spend excess revenue; because in the big picture, the food, shelter, clothing, insurance, entertainment, etc. spending of the top 1% has really insignificant impact on the economy compared to that same spending by the remaining 99%.

It occurs to me that this notion discounts the economic impact of investment and saving (which ultimately is investment too) on the creation and improvement of capital (including human capital) as not being "spending." It certainly is an unfair discount as it ignores the economic benefits of the wealthy creating more value than they consume, when they do such spending.​

3. Cutting the taxes of the wealthy necessarily means greater investment and greater employment.

It occurs to me that if the tax rate on those who create more value than they consume is fluid, unpredictable, and arbitrary, then extraordinary measures will be taken to protect that wealth to accommodate the risks appurtenant to an arbitrary fiscal policy. I'd think that if you told ANYONE that they're getting a tax break, but that it will likely end in 10 years, there would be a great deal of protective maneuvering going on during the last 5 years to assure that the gains enjoyed earlier could cover the costs burdens laid on them later. This doesn't look like a policy that allows for long term, sustainable planning for anybody.
​

4. Raising the taxes of the wealthy kills the incentive to create more wealth.

I say this is only half true. I think that wealth creators can accommodate the burden of a progressive tax table; I think the truth of this is borne out by examining history. Once the costs appurtenant to a venture are fully identified, and future costs can be rationally and reliably predicted, the wealthy go about the business of successfully creating wealth.​

5. Raising the taxes of the wealthy is a justifiable means for making them pay their "fair share."

I think that what is often overlooked, in the calculus of who contributes what to society, are the benefits that the private sector wealth contributes in the way of useful employment for, and greater capacity to meet (and exceed) the consumption requirements of the less capable. I think that what is certainly not accounted for is that the natural economic state of humanity is just abject poverty--without the application of any merit or personal value, what you get is poverty ... and you deserve it. I think that many take for granted the benefits that individuals with vision and ability bequeathed upon them--they often do so particularly as they express an opinion using a device they could not have possibly created themselves. I really think that the wealthy can accommodate their "fair share" and generally have no problem (or no greater problem than anyone else) with the obligation of doing so. I think what cannot be accommodated is an arbitrarily whimsical tax code that simply excuses (via political fiat) those who consume greater value than they create, and simply demands (via political fiat) that those who are capable--those who are best at creating greater value than they consume--must pay those bills ... just because they're capable. It's simply perverse.​

6. Greater regulation of the market, and the wealthy in particular, is required to insure real economic and social justice.

I think this position simply denies the existence of regulatory capture, denies the patently obvious reasons it occurs, and flatly denies the very foundational mechanism by which it is accomplished when broader and deeper reaching regulation is demanded or enacted. I think many of the regulations in place are in response to (and are the manifestation of) the extraordinary measures taken to protect wealth from the risks appurtenant to an arbitrary fiscal policy.​

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The money that has been taken fro me and given to some-one else I will never see again. whats the difference?

You're asking what the benefit of government is?

I have no issue paying taxes, I have an issue with what is being done with some of it

Cry me a fucking river. We live in a representative democracy - we aren't all going to get what we want. There's plenty of things my tax dollars are spent on that I disagree with.

So are we, Perry or Cain will have the conditions we hope in our favor especially if congress goes GOP

No-one has said anything about not paying any taxes at all, dont act like that it makes you look stupid

If taxation were 1% you'd still bitch, don't lie.

The world knows we have went thru trillions more than we should have, why act that way?

Really? Is that why they continue to loan us money at record low interest rates?

2007 our budget was within 163 billion of breaking even with the Iraq war wide ope
That war is over today and we are going thru that much borrowed money close to every month
How better can I prove my point?

we had 4.6% UE in 07, we have 9.1 (really) today

Yeah. That explains the lower tax revenues and higher deficits. Duh.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Tax cuts went for everyone in Ws program. Trying to convince people that "rich" people do not pay taxes is absurd
in addition if you make that wealth in this country, before it goes into an off shore account you will still pay taxes on it by law

That's not what anyone is trying to convince anyone of. The argument is that many of the rich pay a lower rate of taxation than you or I do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

4. Raising the taxes of the wealthy kills the incentive to create more wealth.

This argument doesn't even make sense unless you're talking about the small sliver of society that has everything they need for the rest of their lives. If the government takes more of my money, I'll have to make MORE money to break even, not less.

 

[JRK]

The money that has been taken fro me and given to some-one else I will never see again. whats the difference?

You're asking what the benefit of government is?

I have no issue paying taxes, I have an issue with what is being done with some of it

Cry me a fucking river. We live in a representative democracy - we aren't all going to get what we want. There's plenty of things my tax dollars are spent on that I disagree with.
If taxation were 1% you'd still bitch, don't lie.

The world knows we have went thru trillions more than we should have, why act that way?

Really? Is that why they continue to loan us money at record low interest rates?

2007 our budget was within 163 billion of breaking even with the Iraq war wide ope
That war is over today and we are going thru that much borrowed money close to every month
How better can I prove my point?

we had 4.6% UE in 07, we have 9.1 (really) today

Yeah. That explains the lower tax revenues and higher deficits. Duh.

Cry you a river/ you obviously do not pay taxes.

Obama and the libs in congress states he is going to give the auto sector 80 billion.
That in his first 3 years he is going to add 4.5 trillion to the deficit
That he will have a stimulus that will give federal, state as well as local teachers, fire fighters and cops, as long as they are union 550 billion dollars from 09 thru 2010 so He can get some of that tax payer money back in donations to his re-election fund

You recall him telling us that in 08?
that's what I thought

That 4.7% UE vs 9.1% is a problem that could be fixed, you ever think of that? DUH? You find where I have bitched about paying taxes, you post it
It amazes you Libs think you can just go around and speaking what people really think. Your nothing but kids.
Every-one knows that we have some services by constitutional mandate out govt is suppose to provide, those services are not free, are you crazy?

Paying for people my age that are healthy and that refuse to work (re-distribution of wealth( or have priced them selves out of a job (union legacy cost) are 2 very good examples of what I am talking about
Why in Gods name do you think its our place in life to pay the legacy cost of a UAW employee with our money because he/she demanded more than the market could bear?
Where is your free money? Mine?
why didn't we do that for the Enron employees?

 

[toxicmedia]

The left?.......I've heard nothing but conservative media attacking Obama for not creating jobs?....I'm confused

 

[JRK]

Tax cuts went for everyone in Ws program. Trying to convince people that "rich" people do not pay taxes is absurd
in addition if you make that wealth in this country, before it goes into an off shore account you will still pay taxes on it by law

That's not what anyone is trying to convince anyone of. The argument is that many of the rich pay a lower rate of taxation than you or I do.

That is Bull Shit. You make wealth in this country you are going to pay taxes on it. If there are un fair breaks for those who use them, them why din't BHO get rid of them from 09-10 when he had close to a super majority?
I think 9-9-9 that Cain is talking about hits the spot
Everyone pays
every-one who has money pays more
every-one who is rich pays the most

 

[Jackson]

Obama has had three years to produce the jobs. He failed. It's time for someone else to give it a try. Is that so hard to figure out?

 

[LOki]

4. Raising the taxes of the wealthy kills the incentive to create more wealth.

This argument doesn't even make sense unless you're talking about the small sliver of society that has everything they need for the rest of their lives. If the government takes more of my money, I'll have to make MORE money to break even, not less.

Well, I did start with the assertion that I thought these presumptions were pretty dumb--but it is still one of the presumptions upon which some arguments against (progressively) taxing the rich is rooted.

I'd like to hear a defense from those who embrace this presumption.

 

[toxicmedia]

Obama has had three years to produce the jobs. He failed. It's time for someone else to give it a try. Is that so hard to figure out?

What is the most important goal for anyone who gets elected President?.......getting re-elected, right?

What is the most important election issue during presidential elections?.......the economy, right?

If the president had the power to create jobs and a prosperous economy.....the economy would never be bad.

The things that caused the economy to be good during the last twenty years have been bubbles. The high tech bubble. The Dot com bubble. The housing bubble. And the man who presided over America during those times did not cause them. Conversly...when the economies were bad....those presidents didn't cause that. Things were crappy under Carter because the country was still shaking off the shame of vietnam and watergate, and the 70's was one recession. Times got better under Reagan because he exploded the deficit with a military related stimulus. Things got bad again for Bush 1 because what goes up, must come down. Things got really good for Clinton because of people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, not anything congress or he did. Things went south for Bush 2 because the housing bubble burst.

What I don't get....is why Americans don't understand this. Who do they believe the electioneering efforts of the party out of power? Obama inherited 2 unfinished and very expensive wars. Obama also inherited an unprecidented crappy economy that no reputable economist said would get better before 2016.

The idea that Obama's policies inhibit job growth is absolutely pure electioneering propaganda created to use the formidable weapon against him the GOP and conservative media possesses.....the ridiculous assertion that Obama could have done what the GOP wanted done about the economy, and that would have worked. It is especially ridiculous because the GOP plan was to keep the Bush tax cuts and all would work itself out. That apparently didn't happen.

 

[JRK]

4. Raising the taxes of the wealthy kills the incentive to create more wealth.

This argument doesn't even make sense unless you're talking about the small sliver of society that has everything they need for the rest of their lives. If the government takes more of my money, I'll have to make MORE money to break even, not less.

Well, I did start with the assertion that I thought these presumptions were pretty dumb--but it is still one of the presumptions upon which some arguments against (progressively) taxing the rich is rooted.

I'd like to hear a defense from those who embrace this presumption.

I like Cains 9-9-9 idea. It would capture the more of the wealthy and be kind to the lower income wage earners, yet every-one would contribute
The top earners are for the most part are small business owners. you would hit them with 27% in most cases
income
sales
corporate

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Obama has had three years to produce the jobs. He failed. It's time for someone else to give it a try. Is that so hard to figure out?

Or at least don't double down on the same policies (IE the lastest jobs bill is the same as what we already tried that hasn't worked) that have failed to make any new jobs, overall, in the last 3 years.

 

[JRK]

Obama has had three years to produce the jobs. He failed. It's time for someone else to give it a try. Is that so hard to figure out?

What is the most important goal for anyone who gets elected President?.......getting re-elected, right?

What is the most important election issue during presidential elections?.......the economy, right?

If the president had the power to create jobs and a prosperous economy.....the economy would never be bad.

The things that caused the economy to be good during the last twenty years have been bubbles. The high tech bubble. The Dot com bubble. The housing bubble. And the man who presided over America during those times did not cause them. Conversly...when the economies were bad....those presidents didn't cause that. Things were crappy under Carter because the country was still shaking off the shame of vietnam and watergate, and the 70's was one recession. Times got better under Reagan because he exploded the deficit with a military related stimulus. Things got bad again for Bush 1 because what goes up, must come down. Things got really good for Clinton because of people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, not anything congress or he did. Things went south for Bush 2 because the housing bubble burst.

What I don't get....is why Americans don't understand this. Who do they believe the electioneering efforts of the party out of power? Obama inherited 2 unfinished and very expensive wars. Obama also inherited an unprecidented crappy economy that no reputable economist said would get better before 2016.

The idea that Obama's policies inhibit job growth is absolutely pure electioneering propaganda created to use the formidable weapon against him the GOP and conservative media possesses.....the ridiculous assertion that Obama could have done what the GOP wanted done about the economy, and that would have worked. It is especially ridiculous because the GOP plan was to keep the Bush tax cuts and all would work itself out. That apparently didn't happen.

I do agree with you to a point. Your comment on RR had some truth in it, but it is also left out as much of the truth as it gave. That his tax policy had much to do with the job creation then and long after also as his stimulus did.

The last comment on GWB tax cuts you left out:
the shut down of some coal production after the consumer spent 100s of billion to use it,
some off shore drilling was shut down,
expansion of oil shale exploration as well as
the extraction of the same
and
you forgot to mention the addition of trillions to the deficit that I am not sure any-one really knows were it all went

In 2007 the last GOP budget was 163 billion over
GWB tax cuts are a very small part of this mess, remove all of that and they can again become a big part

 

[Inthemiddle]

Obama has had three years to produce the jobs. He failed. It's time for someone else to give it a try. Is that so hard to figure out?

Why does the right think the government can create jobs?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

It doesn’t.

It believes in a comprehensive, pragmatic approach blending the best of the private and public sectors to address the issue of job growth.

The right, unfortunately, adheres blindly to sanctioned conservative dogma, dismissing out of hand solutions which are likely to have a positive impact on unemployment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax cuts went for everyone in Ws program. Trying to convince people that "rich" people do not pay taxes is absurd
in addition if you make that wealth in this country, before it goes into an off shore account you will still pay taxes on it by law

That's not what anyone is trying to convince anyone of. The argument is that many of the rich pay a lower rate of taxation than you or I do.

That's not true.

You're not repeating Buffet's lie about his $60,000/yr secretary paying 30%, are you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

4. Raising the taxes of the wealthy kills the incentive to create more wealth.

This argument doesn't even make sense unless you're talking about the small sliver of society that has everything they need for the rest of their lives. If the government takes more of my money, I'll have to make MORE money to break even, not less.

If you tax a rich person at 60% instead of 40%, do you think they might have less incentive to work long hours?

Maybe they'd have more incentive to cut their hours?

Less incentive to expand their business? Less incentive to hire more workers?