Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

[JRK]

The troops fighting the war 8537 have nothing to do with the 80 billion spent on the auto recovery act
The troops fighting the war have nothing to do with the billions the teachers unions got

As usual your spinning the information, and every-one really has had enough of it, from all of you. I wish there was a marine sitting next to you every time you chose to use his choice in life to promote your agenda

 

[Oldstyle]

Someone should go tell all the troops fighting in Afghanistan that they don't have a real job.

Tell firefighters and police who put their ass on the line that they aren't "really" working.

Tell the people who teach your kids to go and get a real job.

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?

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. 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. Moves like THAT and the Justice Department arbitrarily going after companies like Gibson Guitars are going to have companies thinking long and hard about where they want to base their operations going forward.

 

[Full-Auto]

Someone should go tell all the troops fighting in Afghanistan that they don't have a real job.

Tell firefighters and police who put their ass on the line that they aren't "really" working.

Tell the people who teach your kids to go and get a real job.

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. .

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

Why do you insist on confusing federal and local issues?

 

[Oldstyle]

Someone should go tell all the troops fighting in Afghanistan that they don't have a real job.

Tell firefighters and police who put their ass on the line that they aren't "really" working.

Tell the people who teach your kids to go and get a real job.

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. .

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

Wealth destruction is it. I have a real example of wealth destruction. It occurs when an unregulated financial services industry abuses the trust of the American people and in the blink of an eye makes their savings disappear. My example is not fantasy as is yours, JRK, it happened in October 2008 and many times before.

The form of political rhetoric you use is fully dishonest. If you had the ability to offer a substantive argument to prove your opinions you would not need to lie.

Boy you libs have all joined in on this character assassination
Liar
Now what exactly have I lied about?

Now watch this no response from a child sitting behind a key board calling a grown man a liar

I'm not a "lib". Not being a bigot does not make someone a "lib". You're a liar because you continue to repeat the Big Lie (or else your stupid, which I have not ruled out).

Government can and does create jobs, unless the ability to create jobs is restricted by radicals elected to the Congress.

I agree the Federal Government has become too large and too intrusive. I understand why from an historical perspective, individual states have not held to the higher standard expressed in the Bill of Rights or the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Even today some states are working hard to restrict voting.

The arguments you parrot and those first promulgated by the propagandist on the far right are based solely on ideology, an ideology which is focused on the few and not the many. It is incongruent with any of the basic principles outlined in the seminal documents written during the formation of the United States.

btw, I'm no child and your pitful manner of including an ad hominem within your response is further evidence of your inability to offer substantive arguments. Well, along with the fact that the arguments you offer are not your own. As noted, I have not ruled out the fact that you're stupid - the more I read from you, the more evidence you provide to establish a congenital disability.

 

[JRK]

Nope. Didn't work.



No Evidence of 'Trickle Down' Job Creation - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

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.

You know the US govt just went thru 3 trillion dollars of borrowed money and we have 6 million fewer jobs than we had in 2008 and what are trying to convince me of?
you want to talk about who had control of congress when all of those jobs were created?

 

[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. .

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

Why do you insist on confusing federal and local issues?

Because some of us are intelligent enough to know that there is such a thing as LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

 

[Full-Auto]

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

Why do you insist on confusing federal and local issues?

Because some of us are intelligent enough to know that there is such a thing as LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Yet you continue to confuse the two..........

Why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You know the US govt just went thru 3 trillion dollars of borrowed money and we have 6 million fewer jobs than we had in 2008 and what are trying to convince me of?
you want to talk about who had control of congress when all of those jobs were created?

We've had at least, if not more than 1 and a half trillion dollars worth of tax cuts and tax cut extensions since 2008.

Are you admitting that tax cuts don't create jobs either?

 

[8537]

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?

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.

 

[JRK]

Nope. Didn't work.



No Evidence of 'Trickle Down' Job Creation - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

Wealth destruction is it. I have a real example of wealth destruction. It occurs when an unregulated financial services industry abuses the trust of the American people and in the blink of an eye makes their savings disappear. My example is not fantasy as is yours, JRK, it happened in October 2008 and many times before.

The form of political rhetoric you use is fully dishonest. If you had the ability to offer a substantive argument to prove your opinions you would not need to lie.

Unregulated? LOL!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You know the US govt just went thru 3 trillion dollars of borrowed money and we have 6 million fewer jobs than we had in 2008 and what are trying to convince me of?
you want to talk about who had control of congress when all of those jobs were created?

Do you think we would have more jobs if the government had balanced the budget in 2008?

How would that have worked?

 

[8537]

The troops fighting the war 8537 have nothing to do with the 80 billion spent on the auto recovery act
The troops fighting the war have nothing to do with the billions the teachers unions got

As usual your spinning the information, and every-one really has had enough of it, from all of you. I wish there was a marine sitting next to you every time you chose to use his choice in life to promote your agenda

So, do the troops have real jobs JRK?

and hey, just a few posts ago you were bitching about my use of hypothetical scenarios. Now, you start a thread hypothesizing about what would have happened if we had used stimulus dollars differently.

Can you please try to keep your bullshit logically consistent? Either hypotheticals are unknowable or they're not.

 

[8537]

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?

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?

 

[8537]

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

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

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

 

[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.

 

[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?

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? In doing THAT the Obama Administration took a giant step towards making us more like Somalia. Businesses and foreign investors have chosen to put their money into ventures here in the United States because our rule of law protected their capital. When progressives decide that "they" have the right to change those rules to help their friends, then investors are going to look long and hard at the wisdom of keeping their capital invested in OUR economy.

Make a note of that!

 

[JRK]

The troops fighting the war 8537 have nothing to do with the 80 billion spent on the auto recovery act
The troops fighting the war have nothing to do with the billions the teachers unions got

As usual your spinning the information, and every-one really has had enough of it, from all of you. I wish there was a marine sitting next to you every time you chose to use his choice in life to promote your agenda

So, do the troops have real jobs JRK?

and hey, just a few posts ago you were bitching about my use of hypothetical scenarios. Now, you start a thread hypothesizing about what would have happened if we had used stimulus dollars differently.

Can you please try to keep your bullshit logically consistent? Either hypotheticals are unknowable or they're not.

The defense of this nation is a constitutional mandate and is in the oath our president takes as part of his responsibility as our president.
It is a mandate. being a creator of employment is second in nature with that tax payer funded, constitutional mandated event
giving tax payers wealth to the UAW or a group of teacher is not
your trying to state the 2 are the same.
We have no idea why

 

[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. .

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.