Rubio said that the government doen't create jobs

[rightwinger]

Neither Little Marco or Lying Ted has ever held a job the Government didn't create

Stumpy Fingers never has a job that wasn't set up by his daddy

 

[nat4900]

Do right wingers EVER wonder why....if their contention is that its democrats who destroy private sector jobs....the richest families are..........

 

[blackhawk]

Government has certain functions it is required to perform and it hires people to do those jobs that does not however make it job creator nor was it ever intended to be one.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

OK Dingle berry

Let me explain

As I previously stated the Congress does have the Constitutional authority to raise armies. So in that respect it creates jobs. But in so doing it is using Capital from taxes. Diverting funds from the private sector - The Founders believe that IN EMERGENCIES government officials had no choice.But there hasn't been an emergency in over 100 years. Warmongers enjoy deploying our military all over creation for the hell of it.

The same principle applies to monies used for infrastructure Jobs are created . But monies are removed from the private sector.

 

[flacaltenn]

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".....

Their deductions are largely the same as everyone else's.. And they're doing a better job of returning services to the public. Not like a wind/solar company that EXISTS only BECAUSE of their tax write-offs now -- is it??

 

[The Rabbi]

Neither Little Marco or Lying Ted ahs ever held a job the Government didn't create

Stumpy Fingers never has a job that wasn't set up by his daddy

What job did Bernie National-Socialist ever hold?

 

[nat4900]

The same principle applies to monies used for infrastructure Jobs are created . But monies are removed from the private sector.

Government actually CONTRACTS with "private sectors" to perform functions that benefit all citizens...something that the private sector will NOT do of its own volition.

 

[nat4900]

A short example for you right wingers to ponder (or not).....

When government passed a law to have seat belts installed on ALL manufactured cars, those auto manufacturers had to hire extra workers and buy) additional materials to implement the law.....
Does that mean that government has created jobs (not to mention the safety factors)???

 

[nat4900]

Their deductions are largely the same as everyone else's..

Ahhhhhh, not quite.....When ultra wealthy Romney released his tax statements, they showed that he paid a "whopping" 14 %.....while little ol' me and my wife paid 25.3% during that same year. So, are deductions "largely the same as everyone else's" ???

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

If investors put up a trillion dollars for a company that sweeps streets, have jobs been created?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government created Rubio's job(s).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

The government does not create jobs. It merely transfers money out of the private sector, which has a better track record at job creation.

 

[Contumacious]

The same principle applies to monies used for infrastructure Jobs are created . But monies are removed from the private sector.

Government actually CONTRACTS with "private sectors" to perform functions that benefit all citizens...something that the private sector will NOT do of its own volition.

HUH?

How can the private sector hire the private sector?

 

[g5000]

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.

All right, let's carry this absurd idiocy to the max to show you the flaw in your thinking.

Let's say there are two citizens in your country.

Both citizens work for the government. You pay each of them $1000 a year, for a total income of $2000.

You tax them at, say, 30 percent. Which means you receive revenues of $600.

How are you going to pay your two citizens $2000 a year with only $600 in revenues?

See the problem?

Our government employees are paid with government revenues. It is literally impossible to have economic growth by increasing the number of government employees.

 

[g5000]

What Rubio was saying is the government is responsible for providing a business environment which promotes economic growth.

If the government bans yogurt, say, then it is creating an environment which will create less jobs. This is what bad regulation does.

 

[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.

All right, let's carry this absurd idiocy to the max to show you the flaw in your thinking.

Let's say there are two citizens in your country.

Both citizens work for the government. You pay each of them $1000 a year, for a total income of $2000.

You tax them at, say, 30 percent. Which means you receive revenues of $600.

How are you going to pay your two citizens $2000 a year with only $600 in revenues?

See the problem?

Our government employees are paid with government revenues. It is literally impossible to have economic growth by increasing the number of government employees.

Excellent analogy.

But remember , the majority of posters are graduates of government schools so your concept will not be understood.


.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

LOL, you shifted to "employs". Obviously we have government employees but all of their jobs are funded by the private sector. So you take money from people and give some of it to someone to perform a government task and you created the job?

 

[nat4900]

The government does not create jobs. It merely transfers money out of the private sector, which has a better track record at job creation.

Lets look at it this way........How many government jobs are being shipped overseas, versus the private sector doing such ?????

I am anxiously waiting for a response.

 

[nat4900]

How can the private sector hire the private sector?

Surely there's a grown-up around your basement to explain it to you.

 

[boilermaker55]

Hey Sperm burper, you have no idea what the hell you are trying to convey.
Keep chumming on the sausages.

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.

OK Dingle berry

Let me explain

As I previously stated the Congress does have the Constitutional authority to raise armies. So in that respect it creates jobs. But in so doing it is using Capital from taxes. Diverting funds from the private sector - The Founders believe that IN EMERGENCIES government officials had no choice.But there hasn't been an emergency in over 100 years. Warmongers enjoy deploying our military all over creation for the hell of it.

The same principle applies to monies used for infrastructure Jobs are created . But monies are removed from the private sector.