Rubio said that the government doen't create jobs

[boilermaker55]

Holy are you stupid making this statement.
Bye!

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.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

I don't give a shit about what Bill Gates has done for India.

 

[blackhawk]

Holy are you stupid making this statement.
Bye!

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.

Your response is what is stupid if that's the level of your intelligence you need to stay at the kiddies table.

 

[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.

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

No one is denying that the govt employs people. Govt doesn't create jobs. You should really try to nurture those two brain cells.

 

[easyt65]

I loved in an earlier debate how, when Rubio went after Trump, Trump correctly declared he was the only one on the stage who has ever created a job / jobs.

That was funny!

 

[Timmy]

Gov created the internet . Which lead to a new world of business and job creation .

 

[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.

No one is denying that the govt employs people. Govt doesn't create jobs. You should really try to nurture those two brain cells.

If you had two brain cells, you could rub them together and start a fire.
290.000 jobs created last month because of Obama's policies...53 straight months of job growth....unemployment cut in half since the republican policies were LOSING 300,000 jobs per month.

 

[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.

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

No one is denying that the govt employs people. Govt doesn't create jobs. You should really try to nurture those two brain cells.

If you had two brain cells, you could rub them together and start a fire.
290.000 jobs created last month because of Obama's policies...53 straight months of job growth....unemployment cut in half since the republican policies were LOSING 300,000 jobs per month.

93,000,000 plus unemployed, record numbers on welfare, real unemployment around 15 percent, 8trillion more in debt added to national debt, economy floundering. Thanks Obama.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

No one is denying that the govt employs people. Govt doesn't create jobs. You should really try to nurture those two brain cells.

If you had two brain cells, you could rub them together and start a fire.
290.000 jobs created last month because of Obama's policies...53 straight months of job growth....unemployment cut in half since the republican policies were LOSING 300,000 jobs per month.

93,000,000 plus unemployed, record numbers on welfare, real unemployment around 15 percent, 8trillion more in debt added to national debt, economy floundering. Thanks Obama.

Again with the 93 million unemployed lie

Rinse.....Repeat

 

[hangover]

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.

No one is denying that the govt employs people. Govt doesn't create jobs. You should really try to nurture those two brain cells.

If you had two brain cells, you could rub them together and start a fire.
290.000 jobs created last month because of Obama's policies...53 straight months of job growth....unemployment cut in half since the republican policies were LOSING 300,000 jobs per month.

93,000,000 plus unemployed, record numbers on welfare, real unemployment around 15 percent, 8trillion more in debt added to national debt, economy floundering. Thanks Obama.

Again with the 93 million unemployed lie

Rinse.....Repeat

Shows how dishonest he is, to count the 43 million elderly and 30 million disabled, that couldn't possibly get a job. His plan is to throw them out in the street so they have to commit crimes, in order to get thrown in prison, to get a warm bed and food to eat. And It only costs 50 times more than Social Security and disability. Such a moron.

 

[nat4900]

93,000,000 plus unemployed,

Let's see the "intelligence" of right wingers.......93 MILLION unemployed this idiot states....So, take away children and retirees and disabled people, that figure would mean that there's approximately 60 plus % unemployed......and these idiots actually vote. and breed

 

[Contumacious]

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

No one is denying that the govt employs people. Govt doesn't create jobs. You should really try to nurture those two brain cells.

If you had two brain cells, you could rub them together and start a fire.
290.000 jobs created last month because of Obama's policies...53 straight months of job growth....unemployment cut in half since the republican policies were LOSING 300,000 jobs per month.

93,000,000 plus unemployed, record numbers on welfare, real unemployment around 15 percent, 8trillion more in debt added to national debt, economy floundering. Thanks Obama.

Again with the 93 million unemployed lie

Rinse.....Repeat

Shows how dishonest he is, to count the 43 million elderly and 30 million disabled, that couldn't possibly get a job. His plan is to throw them out in the street so they have to commit crimes, in order to get thrown in prison, to get a warm bed and food to eat. And It only costs 50 times more than Social Security and disability. Such a moron.

In a FREE COUNTRY, can you LEGALLY force taxpayers and the producers to financially support 43 million elderly and 30 million disabled,?

How long will a nation survive with that financial burden?

.

 

[nat4900]

In a FREE COUNTRY, can you LEGALLY force taxpayers and the producers to financially support 43 million elderly and 30 million disabled,?

How long will a nation survive with that financial burden?

Gee, I don't know.....just ask the rest of the industrialized and civilized world how THEY do it....and get back to us.

 

[rightwinger]

No one is denying that the govt employs people. Govt doesn't create jobs. You should really try to nurture those two brain cells.

If you had two brain cells, you could rub them together and start a fire.
290.000 jobs created last month because of Obama's policies...53 straight months of job growth....unemployment cut in half since the republican policies were LOSING 300,000 jobs per month.

93,000,000 plus unemployed, record numbers on welfare, real unemployment around 15 percent, 8trillion more in debt added to national debt, economy floundering. Thanks Obama.

Again with the 93 million unemployed lie

Rinse.....Repeat

Shows how dishonest he is, to count the 43 million elderly and 30 million disabled, that couldn't possibly get a job. His plan is to throw them out in the street so they have to commit crimes, in order to get thrown in prison, to get a warm bed and food to eat. And It only costs 50 times more than Social Security and disability. Such a moron.

In a FREE COUNTRY, can you LEGALLY force taxpayers and the producers to financially support 43 million elderly and 30 million disabled,?

How long will a nation survive with that financial burden?

.

You forgot those freeloading 16 year olds

 

[flacaltenn]

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" ???

There's seems to be issues with leftists not understanding business, or accounting or tax law..
But most of all -- most of you don't understand putting your money AT RISK -- to make money.

You are not comparable to Romney in your personal economics. But Romney and Kochs play by the same rules.
So if you NET 200M a year -- but LOSE 25M in the same year (actually over the capital gains period) -- you should NOT be taxed on the losses. So when the Berniac morons compare "marginal rates" by taking net INCOME as the denominator -- it's phony. Because Romney paid mostly "capital gains" tax -- NOT income tax. And on capital gains -- you FIRST deduct the LOSSES that you incurred before you apply the tax. And at that time -- the Cap Gains tax had been reduced to 15%... So any losses would have decreased the taxable amount.

Don't expect leftists to understand how stuff works -- because they don't. So unless you put a large fraction of your personal wealth AT RISK every year -- don't sweat it. But it's the folks that TAKE that risk that create the new businesses and economic growth and jobs . And that's WHY when the economy SLOWS -- a very effective tool is to lower the Cap Gains taxes. Berniac morons have no IDEA how that works.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

That's because of the class warfare that is PROPAGATED by the left.. Mostly consisting of lies and stuff about economics that they do not understand. Why belong to a party that VILLIFIES you for nothing. And uses you as a scapegoat for their FAILURE to lead and administer the Federal Government..

Like for instance, not understanding the difference between living on INCOME and living on INVESTMENTS.
What's the difference there? One is little personal risk. The other is TOTAL personal risk. Dems (leftists) are RISK adverse and seek to mold a RISK - FREE society.

Trust me -- you would not want a RISK -- FREE American economic system..

 

[rightwinger]

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

That's because of the class warfare that is PROPAGATED by the left.. Mostly consisting of lies and stuff about economics that they do not understand. Why belong to a party that VILLIFIES you for nothing. And uses you as a scapegoat for their FAILURE to lead and administer the Federal Government..

Like for instance, not understanding the difference between living on INCOME and living on INVESTMENTS.
What's the difference there? One is little personal risk. The other is TOTAL personal risk. Dems (leftists) are RISK adverse and seek to mold a RISK - FREE society.

Trust me -- you would not want a RISK -- FREE American economic system..

More bullshit

Investment income should be taxed the same or more as the income from labor

Labor actually creates wealth

 

[flacaltenn]

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

That's because of the class warfare that is PROPAGATED by the left.. Mostly consisting of lies and stuff about economics that they do not understand. Why belong to a party that VILLIFIES you for nothing. And uses you as a scapegoat for their FAILURE to lead and administer the Federal Government..

Like for instance, not understanding the difference between living on INCOME and living on INVESTMENTS.
What's the difference there? One is little personal risk. The other is TOTAL personal risk. Dems (leftists) are RISK adverse and seek to mold a RISK - FREE society.

Trust me -- you would not want a RISK -- FREE American economic system..

More bullshit

Investment income should be taxed the same or more as the income from labor

Labor actually creates wealth

U amst had that right

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

That's because of the class warfare that is PROPAGATED by the left.. Mostly consisting of lies and stuff about economics that they do not understand. Why belong to a party that VILLIFIES you for nothing. And uses you as a scapegoat for their FAILURE to lead and administer the Federal Government..

Like for instance, not understanding the difference between living on INCOME and living on INVESTMENTS.
What's the difference there? One is little personal risk. The other is TOTAL personal risk. Dems (leftists) are RISK adverse and seek to mold a RISK - FREE society.

Trust me -- you would not want a RISK -- FREE American economic system..

More bullshit

Investment income should be taxed the same or more as the income from labor

Labor actually creates wealth

You ALMOST got that right. Both labor and investment create wealth. BOTH are required for economic health and growth. But labor income has little risk -- while investment income is almost total risk. And leftists don't like risk. Their policies are DESIGNED to create a ZERO RISK society.

And I explained the Romney phony marginal rate absolutely correctly. No Bullshit required. Leftists ought to be kissing the asses of the risk-takers, because that's where the jobs come from. Don't believe me -- watch Shark Tank --- or do as I did and work in Silicon Valley for 18 years. We wouldn't HAVE a Silicon Valley without investment risk takers living on Capital Gains. And the Fed Govt that you all worship is WAAAAY too stupid and incompetent to substitute for the process of investment capital and entrenprenuership.. Shouldn't even BE in that business. They SUCK at it..

 

[boilermaker55]

You are the one at the little boys table. WIth your canned comments

Holy are you stupid making this statement.
Bye!

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.

Your response is what is stupid if that's the level of your intelligence you need to stay at the kiddies table.

 

[boilermaker55]

Well, when you say something that is intelligent and has some substance you will get a remark that will retort what you say, but when you say things what you said, you belong at the little boys table.

Holy are you stupid making this statement.
Bye!

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.

Your response is what is stupid if that's the level of your intelligence you need to stay at the kiddies table.