Do Federal/State/Local Governments Create Jobs?

[Fugazi]

Jobs are never "created" by the government because the money used to pay for the work is taken out of the productive economy if it is tax revenue or taken out of the future economy (plus interest) if it is debt.

To say the government create jobs is the same as saying you create money by taking it of one pocket and putting it in another.

The government doesn't earn any money. All it does it take the money that has already been earned and spends it on what the bureaucrats thinks is important.

One of the reasons our economy is doing so poorly is because the cost of combined government (fed, state, local) is over 40% of the GNP.

I have to disagree with you on the premise that the government doesn't earn any money.

They build a highway, we pay for it.
They build water lines, we pay for it.
They plow the roads, we pay for it.
Etc..

 

[Iceweasel]

Governments are addicted to the most powerful substance on Earth. Other People's Money (OPM - pronounced opium). Once you get a taste you want more. And more. The various ways to spend it is endless and only limited by one's own imagination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jobs are never "created" by the government because the money used to pay for the work is taken out of the productive economy if it is tax revenue or taken out of the future economy (plus interest) if it is debt.

To say the government create jobs is the same as saying you create money by taking it of one pocket and putting it in another.

The government doesn't earn any money. All it does it take the money that has already been earned and spends it on what the bureaucrats thinks is important.

One of the reasons our economy is doing so poorly is because the cost of combined government (fed, state, local) is over 40% of the GNP.

I have to disagree with you on the premise that the government doesn't earn any money.

They build a highway, we pay for it.
They build water lines, we pay for it.
They plow the roads, we pay for it.
Etc..

The taxpayers hire the government to provide goods or services. The government employs people to provide those goods and services, in other words,

the government creates the jobs needed to provide the goods and services, therefore,

the government does create jobs.

 

[TooTall]

If a public school adds a teacher, and a private school adds a teacher, you're trying to tell us that the private school created a job but the public school didn't.

That is fucking daft.

You are being a dumbass again.

In order for the public school to pay the teacher they must take money from someone that already earned the money, depriving that taxpayer of spending the money how he chooses. Nothing is created, only exchanged.

If a person decides to start a private school then he is creating a business and the people have the choice of using it or not. They will only use it if they want to. It will be their choice, hence the creation.

Do you understand the difference?

It is the Broken Window Fallacy, which I referenced to earlier. it is comparing the seen to the unseen. Go back and look at the video again if you have the intelligence to understand.

You are like the idiots in the video that says the town would have all kinds of employment opportunities if all the window in the town were broken. Prosperity for all, correct? How about the people that weren't in the window repair business? How are they going to get work when everybody's money has to go window repair?

We are not talking about actual employment but what is really created. That difference seems to escape you.

To carry it to the extreme then why have private jobs at all? Why not full blown communism where everybody works for the state? That worked out really well in the Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba, didn't it?

I am through trying to explain basic economics to a stupid Moon Bat that has absolutely no understanding of economics principles.

You're just digging yourself in deeper.

There you have it people. A public school teaching job isn't a job. A private school teaching job is.

Can you get any more retarded?

Oh, PS, idiot. The only reason we have public schools is because the People CHOOSE to have them.

People that send their kids to private school pay the school and also pay the property taxes that pay for their kids to go to a public school that they don't go to. Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[rightwinger]

The government funds R&D in multiple fields.........Medicine, communications, genetics research, environment, energy, almost any scientific endeavor

Government grants is what keeps R&D alive in this country

Creates alot of jobs

Yea, like shrimp treadmill studies and researching how monkeys gamble.

You have a very convoluted idea of what this filthy ass government spends money on.

However, I will educate you:

#1 The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

#2 The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.

#3 If you can believe it, the U.S. government has spent $175,587 “to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior”.

#4 The U.S. government spent $200,000 on “a tattoo removal program” in Mission Hills, California.

#5 The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn’t we all love to have a “research job” like that?

#6 The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that “can’t sit still” in a kindergarten classroom.

#7 Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it.

#8 The federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.

#9 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

#10 According to USA Today, 13 different government agencies “fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs — and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program.”

#11 A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.

#12 China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn’t stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China.

#13 The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.

#14 One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.

#15 The U.S. Postal Service spent $13,500 on a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.

#16 The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions”.

#17 A total of $1.8 million was spent on a “museum of neon signs” in Las Vegas, Nevada.

#18 The federal government spends 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.

#19 U.S. farmers are given a total of $2 billion each year for not farming their land.

#20 The U.S. government handed one Tennessee library $5,000 for the purpose of hosting a series of video game parties.

#21 A few years ago the government spent $123,050 on a Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.

#22 One professor at Dartmouth University was given $137,530 to create a “recession-themed” video game entitled “Layoff”.

#23 According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. military spent “$998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida”.

#24 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once shelled out $30,000 to a group of farmers to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight “haycations”.

#25 The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.

#26 The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.

#27 The National Institutes of Health loves to spend our tax money on really bizarre things. The NIH once spent $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.

#28 According to the Washington Post, 1,271 different government organizations work on government programs related to counterterrorism and homeland security.

#29 The U.S. government spent $100,000 on a “Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia”.

#30 The feds once gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 “to paint a Chinook salmon” on the side of a Boeing 737.

Typical bullshit of trashing research that conservatives never bother to read

Shrimp on a treadmill got alot of press from the right. Stupid government funds a study about shrimp on treadmills. Turns out the study was about the affect of different pollutants on shrimp. Just putting shrimp in a tank and looking to see where they die does not establish the point where shrimp start to be affected. The treadmill was a low cost way to find out the point they start to become physically affected by pollutants

But to conservatives....it is "Stupid government pays to watch shrimp on treadmills"

 

[Flash]

I have to disagree with you on the premise that the government doesn't earn any money.

They build a highway, we pay for it.
They build water lines, we pay for it.
They plow the roads, we pay for it.
Etc..

Collecting fees for government services is not earning money.

The only way the government can really earn money is selling off government land and even that concept is a stretch.

The government gets it money by tax revenue and debt. Both methods takes money that has been earned or will be earned.

 

[rightwinger]

If a public school adds a teacher, and a private school adds a teacher, you're trying to tell us that the private school created a job but the public school didn't.

That is fucking daft.

You are being a dumbass again.

In order for the public school to pay the teacher they must take money from someone that already earned the money, depriving that taxpayer of spending the money how he chooses. Nothing is created, only exchanged.

If a person decides to start a private school then he is creating a business and the people have the choice of using it or not. They will only use it if they want to. It will be their choice, hence the creation.

Do you understand the difference?

It is the Broken Window Fallacy, which I referenced to earlier. it is comparing the seen to the unseen. Go back and look at the video again if you have the intelligence to understand.

You are like the idiots in the video that says the town would have all kinds of employment opportunities if all the window in the town were broken. Prosperity for all, correct? How about the people that weren't in the window repair business? How are they going to get work when everybody's money has to go window repair?

We are not talking about actual employment but what is really created. That difference seems to escape you.

To carry it to the extreme then why have private jobs at all? Why not full blown communism where everybody works for the state? That worked out really well in the Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba, didn't it?

I am through trying to explain basic economics to a stupid Moon Bat that has absolutely no understanding of economics principles.

You're just digging yourself in deeper.

There you have it people. A public school teaching job isn't a job. A private school teaching job is.

Can you get any more retarded?

Oh, PS, idiot. The only reason we have public schools is because the People CHOOSE to have them.

People that send their kids to private school pay the school and also pay the property taxes that pay for their kids to go to a public school that they don't go to. Something is wrong with this picture.

There are many government services you pay for but may not use. Most people never need police but it is good to have them around. They pay for roads they never drive on. Parks they never go to

But they are there if you want them

 

[Flash]

Typical bullshit of trashing research that conservatives never bother to read

Shrimp on a treadmill got alot of press from the right. Stupid government funds a study about shrimp on treadmills. Turns out the study was about the affect of different pollutants on shrimp. Just putting shrimp in a tank and looking to see where they die does not establish the point where shrimp start to be affected. The treadmill was a low cost way to find out the point they start to become physically affected by pollutants

But to conservatives....it is "Stupid government pays to watch shrimp on treadmills"

You want to justify spending taxpayer's money watching shrimp on treadmill then that is fine but don't complain when we call you a Moon Bat.

Would you like for me to post more lists of wasteful government spending and ridiculous "research" grants? There are plenty of the list available on the net and if you need further education I will post more of them for you.

 

[rightwinger]

Typical bullshit of trashing research that conservatives never bother to read

Shrimp on a treadmill got alot of press from the right. Stupid government funds a study about shrimp on treadmills. Turns out the study was about the affect of different pollutants on shrimp. Just putting shrimp in a tank and looking to see where they die does not establish the point where shrimp start to be affected. The treadmill was a low cost way to find out the point they start to become physically affected by pollutants

But to conservatives....it is "Stupid government pays to watch shrimp on treadmills"

You want to justify spending taxpayer's money watching shrimp on treadmill then that is fine but don't complain when we call you a Moon Bat.

Would you like for me to post more lists of wasteful government spending and ridiculous "research" grants? There are plenty of the list available on the net and if you need further education I will post more of them for you.

Shrimp are an important industry in much of the United States. Understanding the impact of pollutants on the shrimp poulation is important information

Conservatives only see a shrimp on a treadmill

Please refrain from posting rightwing lists which misrepresent research and their intent. You are welcome to post specific studies, their purpose and what the findings are. Then we can discuss whether the funding was warranted or not

 

[Flash]

Shrimp are an important industry in much of the United States. Understanding the impact of pollutants on the shrimp poulation is important information

Conservatives only see a shrimp on a treadmill

Please refrain from posting rightwing lists which misrepresent research and their intent. You are welcome to post specific studies, their purpose and what the findings are. Then we can discuss whether the funding was warranted or not

The research isn't misrepresented.

I am an Environmental Engineer by trade and I know a little bit about pollution and the effects on the Biosphere.

There are many better ways of determining the effects of pollution on marine species than wasting taxpayer's money on treadmills for shrimp. That is a great example of a bloated research grant that spent a lot of hard earned taxpayer's money but produced little or no useful information that could have been achieved for a fraction of the money, if it was ever needed in the first place.

You didn't answer my question. Do you want me to post more list of government wasteful spending and examples of their ridiculous research projects? I will be happy to do it for you since you seemed to be confused about the subject.

 

[boilermaker55]

Damn glad they did!

Money in the private sector that is invested in one business takes money away from any other business that might have wanted/needed that investment. What's the difference?

Get it?

You obviously have never taken a course in economics. You are very ignorant on the subject.

Government expenditures are very inefficient uses of earned money due to the political nature of determining how the money is being spent. Private businesses have to spend the money in an efficient manner or they go out of business.

A great example of that is General Motors. That company wasn't worth shit and turned out a product that very few people wanted. In steps that turdbrain Obama who gives them billions of taxpayer's dollars in order to pay back the filthy ass inefficient UAW for the campaign contributions he got from them. The billions of dollars that was given away could have been used to buy good and services that the taxpayers wanted. Instead it went to inefficient shitheads that couldn't make a profit on their own. Jobs were "saved" but at a great cost that exceed what the the more efficient private industry would have produced with the same amount of money.

U.S. government says it lost 11.2 billion on GM bailout Reuters

U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout


When the government spends money on a tank or M-16 it doesn't produce a commodity that is useful to the people that had to give up money in order to fund the commodity. It is necessary because of the nature of defense but it takes money out of the productive economy.

When a shithead bureaucrat uses taxpayer's money to fund a bridge to nowhere or give money to a foreign country or subsidize bloated union wages, gives welfare or gives money to Solundra they have taken money out of the productive economy and introduced a significant loss.

You really need to take a course in economics so you don't look like a fool when you post on an internet discussion forum. It is embarrassing to have to educate you on some very basic economic principles.

So what? The so-called $11.2 billion lost is chump change compared to how the survival of the American auto industry has benefited the American economy. Just imagine if the government had allowed GM to die - which would have had a far-reaching negative economic impact beyond just GM. Don't you people ever think outside your partisan bubble?

Think about "Opportunity Costs"...

GM would have died, but the industry would have bought the assets and retooled. The only thing that happened was the UAW got billions in GM stock and donated millions to the Democrats and Obama.

 

[Flash]

The federal government provides DEFENSE to protect the private sector - which ALL taxpayers help pay for.

Defense is a legitimate function of government.

So are courts, police and few other things.

That doesn't mean that this filthy ass government should be taking money from people that earn it and giving to people that didn't earn it in the form of welfare, subsidies, grants, entitlements and bailouts.

 

[boilermaker55]

Also, Since 2006, the Post Office has been legally required to pre-fund health benefits for future retirees at a cost of around $5.5 billion a year.
When Congress imposed those mandates in 2006, the Post Office was doing just fine. Digital communication had yet to take such a huge bite out of the amount of mail the USPS processed and delivered. First-class mail volume was about 97 billion pieces in 2006. So there wasn’t much of a backlash when Congress decided that the Post Office was healthy enough to lock in health benefits for future retirees — for the next 75 years, mind you, something no other public or private agency do

Go to a post office.

and?......

And observe. Forms are all filled out by hand, 15 boxes to Guam means you filling out all 15 to the same place. By hand. Long lines because they are on mandated breaks. All the time in the world to complete transactions. But that's just an example, most government agencies work that way, including the VA.

the PO i worked at didnt operate that way.....but maybe the wealthier areas are different than the lower class places....

Sorry but ALL post offices work that way. There is no provision to use computers to print out shipping labels, like UPS or FedEx. It's all done in the antiquated way. and I've been in line at post offices in many places.

sure they are.....like i said the one i worked out of kept up with the Jones....but then they had wealthy customers and generated a lot of money....and if your PO doesnt have the new stuff....blame Congress for not letting them modernize....

 

[rightwinger]

The federal government provides DEFENSE to protect the private sector - which ALL taxpayers help pay for.

Defense is a legitimate function of government.

So are courts, police and few other things.

That doesn't mean that this filthy ass government should be taking money from people that earn it and giving to people that didn't earn it in the form of welfare, subsidies, grants, entitlements and bailouts.

Government does what needs to be done. There is no magic list

We the People get to decide if government is doing too much or too little

 

[rightwinger]

Shrimp are an important industry in much of the United States. Understanding the impact of pollutants on the shrimp poulation is important information

Conservatives only see a shrimp on a treadmill

Please refrain from posting rightwing lists which misrepresent research and their intent. You are welcome to post specific studies, their purpose and what the findings are. Then we can discuss whether the funding was warranted or not

The research isn't misrepresented.

I am an Environmental Engineer by trade and I know a little bit about pollution and the effects on the Biosphere.

There are many better ways of determining the effects of pollution on marine species than wasting taxpayer's money on treadmills for shrimp. That is a great example of a bloated research grant that spent a lot of hard earned taxpayer's money but produced little or no useful information that could have been achieved for a fraction of the money, if it was ever needed in the first place.

You didn't answer my question. Do you want me to post more list of government wasteful spending and examples of their ridiculous research projects? I will be happy to do it for you since you seemed to be confused about the subject.

I would be happy to discuss any research grant you consider ridiculous as long as you post the full purpose and results of the study

If you just post more rightwing misrepresentations, I will not bother to look at it

 

[Iceweasel]

Also, Since 2006, the Post Office has been legally required to pre-fund health benefits for future retirees at a cost of around $5.5 billion a year.
When Congress imposed those mandates in 2006, the Post Office was doing just fine. Digital communication had yet to take such a huge bite out of the amount of mail the USPS processed and delivered. First-class mail volume was about 97 billion pieces in 2006. So there wasn’t much of a backlash when Congress decided that the Post Office was healthy enough to lock in health benefits for future retirees — for the next 75 years, mind you, something no other public or private agency do

Yeah, because it's not possible. The PO was "doing fine" by running in the red, unable to afford the pay out for retirees. 15 billion in debt is what you call success?

 

[boilermaker55]

Seems you didn't read the article fully. Faux has such a wonderful way about it to give "information."

Also, Since 2006, the Post Office has been legally required to pre-fund health benefits for future retirees at a cost of around $5.5 billion a year.
When Congress imposed those mandates in 2006, the Post Office was doing just fine. Digital communication had yet to take such a huge bite out of the amount of mail the USPS processed and delivered. First-class mail volume was about 97 billion pieces in 2006. So there wasn’t much of a backlash when Congress decided that the Post Office was healthy enough to lock in health benefits for future retirees — for the next 75 years, mind you, something no other public or private agency do

Yeah, because it's not possible. The PO was "doing fine" by running in the red, unable to afford the pay out for retirees. 15 billion in debt is what you call success?

 

[Iceweasel]

Seems you didn't read the article fully. Faux has such a wonderful way about it to give "information."

I think you need to ease off the Boilermakers this morning. What article? I responded to your words.

But since you aren't sober enough to get it yet I'll post this up for later. It isn't how a private company can operate. Unless you are a GM and can get public money you didn't earn.

Postal Service Faces 100B in Debts and Unfunded Benefits CNS News
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) currently owes $99.8 billion in benefit payments to its current and retired workers but does not have the money, and if Congress does not act to fix the problem, the Postal Service may have to “implement contingency plans to ensure that mail delivery continues,” according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

“At the end of fiscal year 2013,” said the GAO, “USPS had about $100 billion in unfunded liabilities: $85 billion in unfunded liabilities for benefits, including retiree-health, pension, and workers’ compensation liabilities, and $15 billion in outstanding debt to the U.S. Treasury—the statutory limit.”

“USPS continues to be in a serious financial crisis, with insufficient revenue to cover its expenses and financial obligations, a continuing decline in profitable First-Class Mail volume, increasing unfunded benefit liabilities, and borrowing limitations due to having reached its $15 billion statutory debt [borrowing] limit,” said Frank Todisco, a GAO chief actuary, in prepared testimony before the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census on Mar. 13. (See USPS Action Needed.pdf)

 

[candycorn]

Deflection is also not a river in Egypt.

Your living in a fantasy world is not a defense

Government is essential to any society, the private sector benefits from government and in many ways controls it, the government creates jobs both within and from the government

No. Government is not essential. Government is at best useful and at worst a detriment to all life on earth.

The private sector only benefits from government on occasion, usually government is a waste of our hard earned money.

The government employees who manage people who provide services to the taxpayers are merely middle men. These government employees work for taxpayers and take the part of the middle man in the spending of taxpayer funds.

No society can function without a government from the most simple to the most complex
The private sector cannot function without a government providing essential economic, support and protection

No government can exist without taxpayer support, both in funding and supplying manpower. We are the owners of our government, government employees work for us not the other way around.

Seriously, you aren't really that fucking stupid - are you? It's just an act - right?

Sadly, it isn't.

 

[Flash]

[


Government does what needs to be done. There is no magic list

We the People get to decide if government is doing too much or too little

No it doesn't. That is a commie lie. The same lie that has been making economies fail for the last 100 years.