Rubio said that the government doen't create jobs

[hangover]

Last night at the debate Rube parroted that sentiment held by the GOP. That's how moronic the republicans are. Let's just start with the army, the navy, the air force and the marines. How many is that? Oh, what about all the military contractors? How about the CIA, FBI, DEA, secret service? What about all the congressional aids, not to mention congress and the senate? There's also all the embassies all over the world. Millions of civilians work in all the military bases.

Then there are hundreds of thousands hired to do contract work, like fixing roads and bridges. Should be thousands more.

Then there are millions that the cons don't like....like the department of education, the EPA, BLM, Forest Service, USGS, nuclear regulatory agency, and on and on and on.

If the cons were to get rid of all those jobs that they say the government doesn't create, unemployment would be HALF OF THIS COUNTRY!

THAT'S HOW CONS FIX THINGS.

 

[DGS49]

Ahem.

If I take a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers, then hire a bunch of people to, say, sweep the streets, have I created any jobs?

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

And the jobs created when I spent my own money DO NOT CREATE a permanent obligation on the part of the taxpayers to support those people hired by my tax dollars.

Morons like the person creating this thread forget some very basic principles of government, to wit, Government has certain Constitutionally-defined roles in our society (see Article I, Section 8 for the obligations of the Federal government), and Government has a legitimate right to tax the population in order to hire the people or the contractors to accomplish those legitimate functions. The fact that people are hired is a happy coincidence.

But Government is not authorized to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, and creating jobs is the role of the private sector.

People like the creator of this thread believe it's a good thing when government, for example, hires "more" teachers.

But it's not. That teacher, in the best possible case, will serve to reduce the class sizes in that school district by a microscopic amount, providing no tangible benefit to the taxpayers. But that teacher will be on the payroll for 35 years or so, and will also be supported to a large extent by the taxpayers for the remainder of her life. And that sucks MILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the private economy - for just that one teacher, and the creator of this thread forgets or ignores the economic benefit of those dollars, had they been spent in the private sector for the pleasure of the taxpayers from whose pockets they were extracted by force.

When the Democrats went on their splurge of spending in 2009 and subsequent years, we were assured that this infusion of "fiat money" would have a ripple effect and create millions of good, permanent jobs. And yet the labor participation rate is lower than it has been since women came into the job market in large numbers.

Government does not create jobs. It creates payment obligations that suck REAL jobs out of the economy. Bill Gates has done more for poor people than all the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the ill-fated and ridiculously-named War on Poverty.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ahem.

If I take a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers, then hire a bunch of people to, say, sweep the streets, have I created any jobs?

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

And the jobs created when I spent my own money DO NOT CREATE a permanent obligation on the part of the taxpayers to support those people hired by my tax dollars.

Morons like the person creating this thread forget some very basic principles of government, to wit, Government has certain Constitutionally-defined roles in our society (see Article I, Section 8 for the obligations of the Federal government), and Government has a legitimate right to tax the population in order to hire the people or the contractors to accomplish those legitimate functions. The fact that people are hired is a happy coincidence.

But Government is not authorized to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, and creating jobs is the role of the private sector.

People like the creator of this thread believe it's a good thing when government, for example, hires "more" teachers.

But it's not. That teacher, in the best possible case, will serve to reduce the class sizes in that school district by a microscopic amount, providing no tangible benefit to the taxpayers. But that teacher will be on the payroll for 35 years or so, and will also be supported to a large extent by the taxpayers for the remainder of her life. And that sucks MILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the private economy - for just that one teacher, and the creator of this thread forgets or ignores the economic benefit of those dollars, had they been spent in the private sector for the pleasure of the taxpayers from whose pockets they were extracted by force.

When the Democrats went on their splurge of spending in 2009 and subsequent years, we were assured that this infusion of "fiat money" would have a ripple effect and create millions of good, permanent jobs. And yet the labor participation rate is lower than it has been since women came into the job market in large numbers.

Government does not create jobs. It creates payment obligations that suck REAL jobs out of the economy. Bill Gates has done more for poor people than all the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the ill-fated and ridiculously-named War on Poverty.

They'll never get it. You could beat your head for decades. Theyre that stupid.

 

[Contumacious]

Last night at the debate Rube parroted that sentiment held by the GOP. That's how moronic the republicans are. Let's just start with the army, the navy, the air force and the marines. How many is that? Oh, what about all the military contractors? How about the CIA, FBI, DEA, secret service? What about all the congressional aids, not to mention congress and the senate? There's also all the embassies all over the world. Millions of civilians work in all the military bases.

Then there are hundreds of thousands hired to do contract work, like fixing roads and bridges. Should be thousands more.

Then there are millions that the cons don't like....like the department of education, the EPA, BLM, Forest Service, USGS, nuclear regulatory agency, and on and on and on.

If the cons were to get rid of all those jobs that they say the government doesn't create, unemployment would be HALF OF THIS COUNTRY!

THAT'S HOW CONS FIX THINGS.

Jobs that are not CONSTITUTIONALLY (1787) authorized ought to be abolished.

Other criminal enterprises also create jobs , ie, the mafia yet the powers-that-be have no qualms about eliminating those jobs.


.Fedgov has the Constitutional authority to raise armies - Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 - but it has no authority to create the CIA, FBI, DEA, EPA, BLM, Forest Service, USGS, nuclear regulatory agency, and on and on and on.

.

 

[hangover]

Ahem.

If I take a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers, then hire a bunch of people to, say, sweep the streets, have I created any jobs?

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

And the jobs created when I spent my own money DO NOT CREATE a permanent obligation on the part of the taxpayers to support those people hired by my tax dollars.

Morons like the person creating this thread forget some very basic principles of government, to wit, Government has certain Constitutionally-defined roles in our society (see Article I, Section 8 for the obligations of the Federal government), and Government has a legitimate right to tax the population in order to hire the people or the contractors to accomplish those legitimate functions. The fact that people are hired is a happy coincidence.

But Government is not authorized to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, and creating jobs is the role of the private sector.

People like the creator of this thread believe it's a good thing when government, for example, hires "more" teachers.

But it's not. That teacher, in the best possible case, will serve to reduce the class sizes in that school district by a microscopic amount, providing no tangible benefit to the taxpayers. But that teacher will be on the payroll for 35 years or so, and will also be supported to a large extent by the taxpayers for the remainder of her life. And that sucks MILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the private economy - for just that one teacher, and the creator of this thread forgets or ignores the economic benefit of those dollars, had they been spent in the private sector for the pleasure of the taxpayers from whose pockets they were extracted by force.

When the Democrats went on their splurge of spending in 2009 and subsequent years, we were assured that this infusion of "fiat money" would have a ripple effect and create millions of good, permanent jobs. And yet the labor participation rate is lower than it has been since women came into the job market in large numbers.

Government does not create jobs. It creates payment obligations that suck REAL jobs out of the economy. Bill Gates has done more for poor people than all the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the ill-fated and ridiculously-named War on Poverty.

They'll never get it. You could beat your head for decades. Theyre that stupid.

Denying that the government employs half the jobs, directly and indirectly, is as stupid as it gets. But please, keep beating your head.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Denying that the government employs half the jobs, directly and indirectly, is as stupid as it gets. But please, keep beating your head.

Buddy of mine is a chemical engineer at the local AFB. Be interesting to tell him he doesn't have a "job" after he gets off work.

 

[Contumacious]

Ahem.

If I take a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers, then hire a bunch of people to, say, sweep the streets, have I created any jobs?

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

And the jobs created when I spent my own money DO NOT CREATE a permanent obligation on the part of the taxpayers to support those people hired by my tax dollars.

Morons like the person creating this thread forget some very basic principles of government, to wit, Government has certain Constitutionally-defined roles in our society (see Article I, Section 8 for the obligations of the Federal government), and Government has a legitimate right to tax the population in order to hire the people or the contractors to accomplish those legitimate functions. The fact that people are hired is a happy coincidence.

But Government is not authorized to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, and creating jobs is the role of the private sector.

People like the creator of this thread believe it's a good thing when government, for example, hires "more" teachers.

But it's not. That teacher, in the best possible case, will serve to reduce the class sizes in that school district by a microscopic amount, providing no tangible benefit to the taxpayers. But that teacher will be on the payroll for 35 years or so, and will also be supported to a large extent by the taxpayers for the remainder of her life. And that sucks MILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the private economy - for just that one teacher, and the creator of this thread forgets or ignores the economic benefit of those dollars, had they been spent in the private sector for the pleasure of the taxpayers from whose pockets they were extracted by force.

When the Democrats went on their splurge of spending in 2009 and subsequent years, we were assured that this infusion of "fiat money" would have a ripple effect and create millions of good, permanent jobs. And yet the labor participation rate is lower than it has been since women came into the job market in large numbers.

Government does not create jobs. It creates payment obligations that suck REAL jobs out of the economy. Bill Gates has done more for poor people than all the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the ill-fated and ridiculously-named War on Poverty.

They'll never get it. You could beat your head for decades. Theyre that stupid.

Denying that the government employs half the jobs, directly and indirectly, is as stupid as it gets. But please, keep beating your head.

"Despite the understandable human tendency to help others, government spending cannot be a net creator of jobs. Indeed many efforts currently under consideration by the Administration and Congress will actively destroy jobs. These initiatives must stop. While it is easy to see how a deficit-financed government program can lead to the creation of a specific job, it is much harder to see how other jobs are destroyed by the diversion of capital and resources. It is also difficult to see how the bigger budget deficits sap the economy of vitality, destroying jobs in the process.

Creating jobs is easy for government, but all jobs are not equal. Paying people to dig ditches and fill them up does society no good. On balance these “jobs” diminish the economy by wasting scarce land, labor and capital. We do not want jobs for the sake of work, but for the goods and services they produce. As it has a printing press, the government could mandate employment for all, as did the Soviet Union. But if these jobs are not productive, and government jobs rarely are, society is no better for it.

 

[nat4900]

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

Really???? When was the last time the Koch brothers built an airport...or a bridge....or an interstate?

 

[Contumacious]

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

Really???? When was the last time the Koch brothers built an airport...or a bridge....or an interstate?

The question is relevant because_________________________________________________________.

 

[Timmy]

Ok. So the gov passes alas creating the Hoover dam. That dam causes a domino effect that leades to a population explosion in the southwest .

Did that not create jobs ?

 

[BlueGin]

Government destroys private sector jobs to create more gov jobs. That's not "creating" jobs. It's moving them around.

 

[nat4900]

Government destroys private sector jobs to create more gov jobs. That's not "creating" jobs. It's moving them around.

True, I heard of the U.S. Department of Private Sector Job Destruction and that Trump and Cruz are campaigning on its abolition......(what a nitwit....LOL)

 

[Contumacious]

Government destroys private sector jobs to create more gov jobs. That's not "creating" jobs. It's moving them around.

Exactly.

But destroying private jobs in order to "create" government jobs impresses the fuck out of the dingleberries.

.

 

[BlueGin]

Government destroys private sector jobs to create more gov jobs. That's not "creating" jobs. It's moving them around.

Exactly.

But destroying private jobs in order to "create" government jobs impresses the fuck out of the dingleberries.

.

Low information voters are easily impressed apparently.

 

[flacaltenn]

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

Really???? When was the last time the Koch brothers built an airport...or a bridge....or an interstate?

They've built a wing onto the Lincoln Center for Arts. They've built about 5 hospital research centers. AND the dinosaur wing at the NY History Museum.. Not to mention countless other charitable contributions that create jobs including being a chief sponsor of the NOVA science series at PBS..

AND _------- That doesn't count the jobs they created in their MULTITUDE of businesses that they manage.
You don't KNOW THIS??

 

[rightwinger]

Last night at the debate Rube parroted that sentiment held by the GOP. That's how moronic the republicans are. Let's just start with the army, the navy, the air force and the marines. How many is that? Oh, what about all the military contractors? How about the CIA, FBI, DEA, secret service? What about all the congressional aids, not to mention congress and the senate? There's also all the embassies all over the world. Millions of civilians work in all the military bases.

Then there are hundreds of thousands hired to do contract work, like fixing roads and bridges. Should be thousands more.

Then there are millions that the cons don't like....like the department of education, the EPA, BLM, Forest Service, USGS, nuclear regulatory agency, and on and on and on.

If the cons were to get rid of all those jobs that they say the government doesn't create, unemployment would be HALF OF THIS COUNTRY!

THAT'S HOW CONS FIX THINGS.

Government created Little Marco's job

 

[boilermaker55]

If someone takes billions of dollars from the taxpayers and make military items....do they create jobs, or does the government create jobs.
If someone takes billions of dollars from the taxpayers and makes bridges....do they create jobs, or does the government.
The trouble with you teabaggers. You never think past your own smelly ass.

DUH!!!

Ahem.

If I take a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers, then hire a bunch of people to, say, sweep the streets, have I created any jobs?

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

And the jobs created when I spent my own money DO NOT CREATE a permanent obligation on the part of the taxpayers to support those people hired by my tax dollars.

Morons like the person creating this thread forget some very basic principles of government, to wit, Government has certain Constitutionally-defined roles in our society (see Article I, Section 8 for the obligations of the Federal government), and Government has a legitimate right to tax the population in order to hire the people or the contractors to accomplish those legitimate functions. The fact that people are hired is a happy coincidence.

But Government is not authorized to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, and creating jobs is the role of the private sector.

People like the creator of this thread believe it's a good thing when government, for example, hires "more" teachers.

But it's not. That teacher, in the best possible case, will serve to reduce the class sizes in that school district by a microscopic amount, providing no tangible benefit to the taxpayers. But that teacher will be on the payroll for 35 years or so, and will also be supported to a large extent by the taxpayers for the remainder of her life. And that sucks MILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the private economy - for just that one teacher, and the creator of this thread forgets or ignores the economic benefit of those dollars, had they been spent in the private sector for the pleasure of the taxpayers from whose pockets they were extracted by force.

When the Democrats went on their splurge of spending in 2009 and subsequent years, we were assured that this infusion of "fiat money" would have a ripple effect and create millions of good, permanent jobs. And yet the labor participation rate is lower than it has been since women came into the job market in large numbers.

Government does not create jobs. It creates payment obligations that suck REAL jobs out of the economy. Bill Gates has done more for poor people than all the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the ill-fated and ridiculously-named War on Poverty.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ahem.

If I take a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers, then hire a bunch of people to, say, sweep the streets, have I created any jobs?

The answer is decidedly, "No." The reason is that if I hadn't taken the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, those taxpayers would have spent the money on things and services that they wanted, thus creating more jobs (at least theoretically) than the jobs created by Gub'mint.

And the jobs created when I spent my own money DO NOT CREATE a permanent obligation on the part of the taxpayers to support those people hired by my tax dollars.

Morons like the person creating this thread forget some very basic principles of government, to wit, Government has certain Constitutionally-defined roles in our society (see Article I, Section 8 for the obligations of the Federal government), and Government has a legitimate right to tax the population in order to hire the people or the contractors to accomplish those legitimate functions. The fact that people are hired is a happy coincidence.

But Government is not authorized to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, and creating jobs is the role of the private sector.

People like the creator of this thread believe it's a good thing when government, for example, hires "more" teachers.

But it's not. That teacher, in the best possible case, will serve to reduce the class sizes in that school district by a microscopic amount, providing no tangible benefit to the taxpayers. But that teacher will be on the payroll for 35 years or so, and will also be supported to a large extent by the taxpayers for the remainder of her life. And that sucks MILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the private economy - for just that one teacher, and the creator of this thread forgets or ignores the economic benefit of those dollars, had they been spent in the private sector for the pleasure of the taxpayers from whose pockets they were extracted by force.

When the Democrats went on their splurge of spending in 2009 and subsequent years, we were assured that this infusion of "fiat money" would have a ripple effect and create millions of good, permanent jobs. And yet the labor participation rate is lower than it has been since women came into the job market in large numbers.

Government does not create jobs. It creates payment obligations that suck REAL jobs out of the economy. Bill Gates has done more for poor people than all the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the ill-fated and ridiculously-named War on Poverty.

They'll never get it. You could beat your head for decades. Theyre that stupid.

Denying that the government employs half the jobs, directly and indirectly, is as stupid as it gets. But please, keep beating your head.

Governments don't employ jobs. I dont even know what language you're speaking.

 

[nat4900]

They've built a wing onto the Lincoln Center for Arts. They've built about 5 hospital research centers. AND the dinosaur wing at the NY History Museum.. Not to mention countless other charitable contributions that create jobs including being a chief sponsor of the NOVA science series at PBS..

AND _------- That doesn't count the jobs they created in their MULTITUDE of businesses that they manage.
You don't KNOW THIS??

Absolutely I know this......All thanks to the tax right-offs that the Koch wrote and handed off to their congressional whores to "legislate".....

 

[The Rabbi]

Government can do 3 things with respect to jobs:
It ca steal jobs, taking money from productive compnies and spending it on their own staff, or giving it to companies as crony capitalism.
It can destroy jobs by enacting taxes and regulations tht do just that
It can do neither of the above two things and allow an environment where job growth flourishes because businesses prosper.