Cons say the government doesn't create jobs....

[rightwinger]

Nonsense

The job should be done at the level that is most efficient and makes the most sense

Some infrastructure projects are too important and require too much funding to be handled at the state level. Providing some federal funding makes sense

No. This is why the state has something called a BUDGET, it's not my fault another state has mismanaged their revenue and neglected their responsibility to upkeep their roads and bridges. If the state misappropriates their funds, that's the states fault, my federal tax dollars should not pay for what is clearly the responsibility of the state to do - period! This is NOT a role that's allocated to our Federal Government, let them manage their OWN funds and be responsibe for their own decisions
(wow! A state that actually has some accountability and responsibility to its taxpayers, now there's a novel concept)

Some states are wealthier than other states

States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?

A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.
you lose.

Who pays?

If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge

Rightwinger, what part of tolls, a state collecting revenue through an added gas tax, and having a state budget did you not quite understand? Who do you think pays tolls and taxes? As far as your "state" reference in your response: have you ever traveled through Pennsylvania to see how that state manages to maintain a lot of their roads? Now would you care to tell us what color the state of Pennsylvania is?

What part of red state do you not understand?

The population and wealth will not support the needed infrastructure. That is why they benefit from being part of the UNITED STATES

 

[rightwinger]

The majority of government jobs are unnecessary and in many cases overlap with other jobs in other agencies. In most cases, government does not create real jobs, i.e., jobs that consumers would support if given the choice. In most government jobs, there is little if any consequence for failure or poor performance. In most cases, government is an expense, not an investment.

If government truly created real jobs, Greece, Spain, Italy, England, etc., would be economic powerhouses and would be enjoying robust growth.

Exactly! It's not that government CAN'T create jobs... Our problem is they CAN! Every one of them costs us money and make absolutely nothing... (other than bureaucratic problems for others.) Government can't create jobs and stimulate the economy by doing it because the jobs they create are not private sector capitalist free enterprise jobs. We should actually call "government jobs" by a different name... like maybe "anti-jobs!"

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

 

[Redfish]

No. This is why the state has something called a BUDGET, it's not my fault another state has mismanaged their revenue and neglected their responsibility to upkeep their roads and bridges. If the state misappropriates their funds, that's the states fault, my federal tax dollars should not pay for what is clearly the responsibility of the state to do - period! This is NOT a role that's allocated to our Federal Government, let them manage their OWN funds and be responsibe for their own decisions
(wow! A state that actually has some accountability and responsibility to its taxpayers, now there's a novel concept)

Some states are wealthier than other states

States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?

A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.
you lose.

Who pays?

If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge

Rightwinger, what part of tolls, a state collecting revenue through an added gas tax, and having a state budget did you not quite understand? Who do you think pays tolls and taxes? As far as your "state" reference in your response: have you ever traveled through Pennsylvania to see how that state manages to maintain a lot of their roads? Now would you care to tell us what color the state of Pennsylvania is?

What part of red state do you not understand?

The population and wealth will not support the needed infrastructure. That is why they benefit from being part of the UNITED STATES

Which state gets more federal money, California or Alabama? Now, how about if we switch, could Cal survive?

 

[Redfish]

The majority of government jobs are unnecessary and in many cases overlap with other jobs in other agencies. In most cases, government does not create real jobs, i.e., jobs that consumers would support if given the choice. In most government jobs, there is little if any consequence for failure or poor performance. In most cases, government is an expense, not an investment.

If government truly created real jobs, Greece, Spain, Italy, England, etc., would be economic powerhouses and would be enjoying robust growth.

Exactly! It's not that government CAN'T create jobs... Our problem is they CAN! Every one of them costs us money and make absolutely nothing... (other than bureaucratic problems for others.) Government can't create jobs and stimulate the economy by doing it because the jobs they create are not private sector capitalist free enterprise jobs. We should actually call "government jobs" by a different name... like maybe "anti-jobs!"

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

 

[rightwinger]

Some states are wealthier than other states

States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?

A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.
you lose.

Who pays?

If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge

Rightwinger, what part of tolls, a state collecting revenue through an added gas tax, and having a state budget did you not quite understand? Who do you think pays tolls and taxes? As far as your "state" reference in your response: have you ever traveled through Pennsylvania to see how that state manages to maintain a lot of their roads? Now would you care to tell us what color the state of Pennsylvania is?

What part of red state do you not understand?

The population and wealth will not support the needed infrastructure. That is why they benefit from being part of the UNITED STATES

Which state gets more federal money, California or Alabama? Now, how about if we switch, could Cal survive?

Per capita?

Alabama by a long shot

 

[rightwinger]

The majority of government jobs are unnecessary and in many cases overlap with other jobs in other agencies. In most cases, government does not create real jobs, i.e., jobs that consumers would support if given the choice. In most government jobs, there is little if any consequence for failure or poor performance. In most cases, government is an expense, not an investment.

If government truly created real jobs, Greece, Spain, Italy, England, etc., would be economic powerhouses and would be enjoying robust growth.

Exactly! It's not that government CAN'T create jobs... Our problem is they CAN! Every one of them costs us money and make absolutely nothing... (other than bureaucratic problems for others.) Government can't create jobs and stimulate the economy by doing it because the jobs they create are not private sector capitalist free enterprise jobs. We should actually call "government jobs" by a different name... like maybe "anti-jobs!"

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

 

[Redfish]

A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.
you lose.

Who pays?

If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge

Rightwinger, what part of tolls, a state collecting revenue through an added gas tax, and having a state budget did you not quite understand? Who do you think pays tolls and taxes? As far as your "state" reference in your response: have you ever traveled through Pennsylvania to see how that state manages to maintain a lot of their roads? Now would you care to tell us what color the state of Pennsylvania is?

What part of red state do you not understand?

The population and wealth will not support the needed infrastructure. That is why they benefit from being part of the UNITED STATES

Which state gets more federal money, California or Alabama? Now, how about if we switch, could Cal survive?

Per capita?

Alabama by a long shot

no, total dollars. now, the rest of the question, could Cal survive without the federal money it gets? The fricken state is already billions in debt due to liberal policies, what would happen if the feds cut off their money? Same question for Alabama, it would survive without federal dollars.

 

[Redfish]

The majority of government jobs are unnecessary and in many cases overlap with other jobs in other agencies. In most cases, government does not create real jobs, i.e., jobs that consumers would support if given the choice. In most government jobs, there is little if any consequence for failure or poor performance. In most cases, government is an expense, not an investment.

If government truly created real jobs, Greece, Spain, Italy, England, etc., would be economic powerhouses and would be enjoying robust growth.

Exactly! It's not that government CAN'T create jobs... Our problem is they CAN! Every one of them costs us money and make absolutely nothing... (other than bureaucratic problems for others.) Government can't create jobs and stimulate the economy by doing it because the jobs they create are not private sector capitalist free enterprise jobs. We should actually call "government jobs" by a different name... like maybe "anti-jobs!"

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

 

[Camp]

Who pays?

If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge

Rightwinger, what part of tolls, a state collecting revenue through an added gas tax, and having a state budget did you not quite understand? Who do you think pays tolls and taxes? As far as your "state" reference in your response: have you ever traveled through Pennsylvania to see how that state manages to maintain a lot of their roads? Now would you care to tell us what color the state of Pennsylvania is?

What part of red state do you not understand?

The population and wealth will not support the needed infrastructure. That is why they benefit from being part of the UNITED STATES

Which state gets more federal money, California or Alabama? Now, how about if we switch, could Cal survive?

Per capita?

Alabama by a long shot

no, total dollars. now, the rest of the question, could Cal survive without the federal money it gets? The fricken state is already billions in debt due to liberal policies, what would happen if the feds cut off their money? Same question for Alabama, it would survive without federal dollars.

California would be in a much better position than Alabama. Potential sources of revenue are much greater in California than Alabama. In California the problem would be complaints from the available tax revenue sources who would have to make up the loss. Alabama would quickly hit the point of trying to get blood out of a stone.

 

[rightwinger]

Who pays?

If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge

Rightwinger, what part of tolls, a state collecting revenue through an added gas tax, and having a state budget did you not quite understand? Who do you think pays tolls and taxes? As far as your "state" reference in your response: have you ever traveled through Pennsylvania to see how that state manages to maintain a lot of their roads? Now would you care to tell us what color the state of Pennsylvania is?

What part of red state do you not understand?

The population and wealth will not support the needed infrastructure. That is why they benefit from being part of the UNITED STATES

Which state gets more federal money, California or Alabama? Now, how about if we switch, could Cal survive?

Per capita?

Alabama by a long shot

no, total dollars. now, the rest of the question, could Cal survive without the federal money it gets? The fricken state is already billions in debt due to liberal policies, what would happen if the feds cut off their money? Same question for Alabama, it would survive without federal dollars.

California is the wealthiest state in the country. They pay more in federal taxes than they receive back

Alabama is a welfare state. Getting much more federal revenue than they put in

 

[rightwinger]

The majority of government jobs are unnecessary and in many cases overlap with other jobs in other agencies. In most cases, government does not create real jobs, i.e., jobs that consumers would support if given the choice. In most government jobs, there is little if any consequence for failure or poor performance. In most cases, government is an expense, not an investment.

If government truly created real jobs, Greece, Spain, Italy, England, etc., would be economic powerhouses and would be enjoying robust growth.

Exactly! It's not that government CAN'T create jobs... Our problem is they CAN! Every one of them costs us money and make absolutely nothing... (other than bureaucratic problems for others.) Government can't create jobs and stimulate the economy by doing it because the jobs they create are not private sector capitalist free enterprise jobs. We should actually call "government jobs" by a different name... like maybe "anti-jobs!"

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

 

[Redfish]

Exactly! It's not that government CAN'T create jobs... Our problem is they CAN! Every one of them costs us money and make absolutely nothing... (other than bureaucratic problems for others.) Government can't create jobs and stimulate the economy by doing it because the jobs they create are not private sector capitalist free enterprise jobs. We should actually call "government jobs" by a different name... like maybe "anti-jobs!"

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

 

[zeke]

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

You live in lala land, don't cha? Or do you call it "fantasy nation"?

 

[Redfish]

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

You live in lala land, don't cha? Or do you call it "fantasy nation"?

Uh, no, Its called the United States of America. What is your country called?

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

 

[zeke]

Uh, no, Its called the United States of America.

Do you live in the 1776 version of the United States of America or do you live in the 2015 version of the United States of America?

Your version of reality would make me think you want to live in the past. Good luck with that.

 

[Redfish]

Uh, no, Its called the United States of America.

Do you live in the 1776 version of the United States of America or do you live in the 2015 version of the United States of America?

Your version of reality would make me think you want to live in the past. Good luck with that.

there is only one "version" of the USA. Its the one defined by the constitution. Yes, I would like to go back to constitutional government, If thats living in the past, then so be it.

what we have today is a bastardized application of the constitution that has resulted in 18 trillion in national debt, borrowing 40% of federal expenditures, and half of our population dependent on some form of govt welfare. That is a recipe for disaster and we will be experiencing it in a very few years if we don't make some pretty significant changes very soon.

 

[Redfish]

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

 

[rightwinger]

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

 

[Redfish]

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

you are right, not many support the original intent and wording of the constitution. Thats why we are in the mess we are in today.

Views of freedom and democracy are not limited to any century. They are universal and timeless.

It amazes me that so many americans don't give a shit about what this country is all about. You are a case in point. I don't know why I waste my time with an idiot like you. I may not do it in the future.