GOP Gets Their Wish - Unemployment is Up

[shintao]

The money comes from the rich who hire people. You're the one talking socialism not me. The government doesn't have any money. They have the paper that makes the money. The rich have the value that supports that paper.

Semantics. The rich corporations use your tax dollars to hire. Their Trillion is wadded in the ass and will remain there.

You are confusing investment with taxes. It doesn't work that way.

You are confusing investment with cash.

 

[cloudy]

How do government jobs produce revenue?

Any job, government or private sector generates revenue, you oaf.
What do you think people do with the money they earn? save all of it?
They spend it, groceries, fuels, cars, MOTORCYLES, diapers, and guess what? They pay sales tax on all of everything, which in turn, GENERATES TAX REVENUE.
But, you probably already knew that, you were just trying to stump a member/user.
so shuddup

Gov't jobs create little or no real economic wealth. They do cause transfer of money; they do create distortions in the market, etc. The gov't only takes away from or crowds out the private sector. The services/goods it provides are always with less efficient means.

If that was not true then we would need no private sector jobs at all and places like Cuba would be the richest countries in the world.

Well ok, if that's your take on things, but maybe you have an answer for this:
There has been no new job creation (or very modest) during the period of time of the Bush era tax cuts, why not? Is it because of FEAR? of the unknown?
Isn't it a fact that these tax cuts were to induce hiring, as put forth by Republicans? or, is this just more smoke and mirrors trickle down bullshit?
It's my opinion that Republican rhetoric is just a bunch of BS, nothing more, nothing less.
Please remember, corporate taxes are the lowest they have been in at least 50 years.
And I will add again, Government jobs do contribute to the economy and to tax revenues.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Semantics. The rich corporations use your tax dollars to hire. Their Trillion is wadded in the ass and will remain there.

You are confusing investment with taxes. It doesn't work that way.

You are confusing investment with cash.

investments is cash. Revenue is taxes. which one does not meet the criteria of the private sector?

 

[Neotrotsky]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8]YouTube - ‪Child's Pay 2‬‏[/ame]

 

[KissMy]

Are you for setting government limits on executive pay???

Yes I am. Just like shareholders say on pay that I also support. I have a voting & tax paying share in government & I say they are paid way to much.

If government employees were underpaid then there would not be such a huge demand for cushy government jobs.

WSJ: We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?...

Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. "Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government"...

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

 

[bripat9643]

Government doesn't invest. It flushes money down the toilet. In fact, we would be better off if government flushed all the revenue it receives down the toilet.

Such a convincing argument...and with so many facts and figures to back it up too...(You CAN detect the sarcasm, right?)

Name one government program than can legitimately classified as an "investment." The highway trust fund is about the only one you can name, and I would even argue that isn't an investment either.

 

[bripat9643]

investments is cash. Revenue is taxes. which one does not meet the criteria of the private sector?

Wrong. Cash can be an investment, but the reverse doesn't follow. Not all cash is an investment. In fact, very little of it is. The money you pay for rent or a doctor bill is not an investment. Neither is money you spend on alcohol or crack. Most government money is spent on stuff like crack.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

investments is cash. Revenue is taxes. which one does not meet the criteria of the private sector?

Wrong. Cash can be an investment, but the reverse doesn't follow. Not all cash is an investment. In fact, very little of it is. The money you pay for rent or a doctor bill is not an investment. Neither is money you spend on alcohol or crack. Most government money is spent on stuff like crack.

What do you get when your investments pay off? What happens when your investments don't pay off you lose cash. It takes cash to invest.

Therefore investments are cash.

 

[edthecynic]

Are you for setting government limits on executive pay???

Yes I am. ...

Socialist!

 

[kaz]

Are you for setting government limits on executive pay???

Yes I am. ...

Socialist!

No kidding

 

[Seawytch]

Government doesn't invest. It flushes money down the toilet. In fact, we would be better off if government flushed all the revenue it receives down the toilet.

Such a convincing argument...and with so many facts and figures to back it up too...(You CAN detect the sarcasm, right?)

Name one government program than can legitimately classified as an "investment." The highway trust fund is about the only one you can name, and I would even argue that isn't an investment either.

Government investment in R & D

 

[bripat9643]

What do you get when your investments pay off? What happens when your investments don't pay off you lose cash. It takes cash to invest.

Therefore investments are cash.

Even if that were true, that investments are cash, the reverse doesn't fallow, that all cash is an investment. Investments can also be something other than cash. For instance, a company could provide a building or personnel as part of a startup operation.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make.

 

[bripat9643]

Name one government program than can legitimately classified as an "investment." The highway trust fund is about the only one you can name, and I would even argue that isn't an investment either.

Government investment in R & D

In some cases. I lot of government R & D is just a big suck hole for money. It certainly has no economic payoff. Take government spending on stealth technology.

However, that still leaves 98% of the budget classified as "non-investment."

 

[kaz]

Such a convincing argument...and with so many facts and figures to back it up too...(You CAN detect the sarcasm, right?)

Name one government program than can legitimately classified as an "investment." The highway trust fund is about the only one you can name, and I would even argue that isn't an investment either.

Government investment in R & D

By definition R&D is only done by the government when companies won't do it because it's a...wait for it...bad investment. So politicians step in with plundered money.

 

[bripat9643]

by definition r&d is only done by the government when companies won't do it because it's a...wait for it...bad investment. So politicians step in with plundered money.

bingo!

"Global warming" research is a classic example.

 

[edthecynic]

Name one government program than can legitimately classified as an "investment." The highway trust fund is about the only one you can name, and I would even argue that isn't an investment either.

Government investment in R & D

By definition R&D is only done by the government when companies won't do it because it's a...wait for it...bad investment. So politicians step in with plundered money.

How can anyone argue with the CON$ who write the dictionary!

So the R&D for space exploration "by definition" was a bad investment.
BRILLIANT

 

[kaz]

Government investment in R & D

By definition R&D is only done by the government when companies won't do it because it's a...wait for it...bad investment. So politicians step in with plundered money.

How can anyone argue with the CON$ who write the dictionary!

So the R&D for space exploration "by definition" was a bad investment.
BRILLIANT

Wow, you are cynical of not trusting the government, aren't you? Actually most space money is spent for military. Also, there is a lot of private space money spent, good investment. As for non-military government money, you got it, bad investment. I realize it hurts you when people question government, but as cynical as you are of us who don't trust government, unfortunately for you all the facts are on our side...

 

[edthecynic]

By definition R&D is only done by the government when companies won't do it because it's a...wait for it...bad investment. So politicians step in with plundered money.

How can anyone argue with the CON$ who write the dictionary!

So the R&D for space exploration "by definition" was a bad investment.
BRILLIANT

Wow, you are cynical of not trusting the government, aren't you? Actually most space money is spent for military. Also, there is a lot of private space money spent, good investment. As for non-military government money, you got it, bad investment. I realize it hurts you when people question government, but as cynical as you are of us who don't trust government, unfortunately for you all the facts are on our side...

So government military R&D is by definition a bad investment.

 

[MarcATL]

If the government can create more value than the private sector with capital, why haven't you turned over all of your financial assets to the government so they can create even more value?

I never said the government creates more value than the private sector. I'm really beginning to wonder if you read my posts at all.

You define net value in purely monetary terms, and that's fine. As I pointed out though, if we hold the government to that standard, then we never would have entered WW2 because there was no profit in it. However, I think we all can agree (hopefully) that there was value in us entering WW2. And that's my point. The government creates value in ways that aren't measured strictly by profit and loss, net value, etc.

For example, our military does not make a profit. What they do do though is make a bunch of stuff and then pay people to blow that stuff up. If this were a private company, it would be the worst idea for a company in the history of companies. But of course, the military provides value to the country in protecting and defending our borders. No one would say there is no value to the military, so clearly there is another standard to use here, and that standard should be applied to all levels of government. Not just to the ones you like or dislike.

If we then apply that standard to my example of the company being taxed so we can build a road, then clearly we would say the government created value because now the community has access to a business and that's good for everyone.

Again, I have never said the government is always better or that the private sector is always wrong. But to claim the government is always wrong and never creates value ever is just not true. Both public and private sectors serve a purpose and both produce value for the country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I never said the government creates more value than the private sector. I'm really beginning to wonder if you read my posts at all.

You define net value in purely monetary terms, and that's fine. As I pointed out though, if we hold the government to that standard, then we never would have entered WW2 because there was no profit in it. However, I think we all can agree (hopefully) that there was value in us entering WW2. And that's my point. The government creates value in ways that aren't measured strictly by profit and loss, net value, etc.

For example, our military does not make a profit. What they do do though is make a bunch of stuff and then pay people to blow that stuff up. If this were a private company, it would be the worst idea for a company in the history of companies. But of course, the military provides value to the country in protecting and defending our borders. No one would say there is no value to the military, so clearly there is another standard to use here, and that standard should be applied to all levels of government. Not just to the ones you like or dislike.

If we then apply that standard to my example of the company being taxed so we can build a road, then clearly we would say the government created value because now the community has access to a business and that's good for everyone.

Again, I have never said the government is always better or that the private sector is always wrong. But to claim the government is always wrong and never creates value ever is just not true. Both public and private sectors serve a purpose and both produce value for the country.

Well said.

Blind adherence to any dogma is pointless.

We should follow a pragmatic plan of allowing the public sector to do what it does best and the same for he private.