Grover,Do you really think that the widow, the fatherless, and the
orphan, should pay the wages of the government worker? That's what's
happening. Everyone who works in the private sector pays the wages of the
public sector worker.When the government can "create" jobs
without first fleecing the private sector first, then, you may have a valid
argument, but when the public sector cannot exist without the private sector
FIRST being taxed, then the government has not created jobs, it has
redistributed wealth from those who paid with the sweat of their brow to those
who sat at their government supplied desks to receive that money.The
government takes money from the private sector. It does not generate revenue.
Only a government worker would tell us that the government created his job and
that his job is more important than the job of the private sector worker who
made his government job possible.
JT: Since when does the term "create jobs" tie to the source of the
money that creates the jobs. Mobsters can steal the money to set up a legitimate
business and it is still counted as a "job" in the listing in the
monthly jobs report. If you are seeking to have us delve deeper into the meaning
of the term "create" then it would seem you are dangerously close to the
pariah (in your eyes) who brought the term "It depends on what the word
"is" is". To the rest of the world other than Tea Parties and Utah
valley partisans, the government does create jobs no matter where the money
comes from and even if it is just in the ordinary business of running the
country and not as part of a stimulus package.
Grover (2:38 p.m.),Do you really think that the "government"
has some large pool of money to pay its employees with? Just who pays the wages
of every government worker? It's not the government. Think a little. As
you implied, millions of people feed off the public sector when they are paid
from revenues that were paid into the government by those of us in the private
sector. Sure, government workers pay taxes, just like the rest of us, but,
unless they are taxed at 100%, they can't pay the costs of even their own
job.You and I might pay 25% of our income in income taxes. We might
pay 25% of each purchase to cover the taxes paid to cover the company's tax
burden. (You don't actually think that business pay taxes do you? Every
business passes along all expenses as part of the price it charges. Taxes are
part of those expenses.)Whatever you do for a living, you might want
to start a business, even a lemonade stand. Hire a few people. Pay for
everything mandated by government. Then, tell us that government creates jobs.
Re: "Government cannot create jobs"...The government can
create jobs. But Government can't create jobs out of thin air... meaning
they can't create jobs and pay employees without first taking that money
from someone else (taxes/fees).Don't be offended... businesses
are in the same boat. They can't pay their employees a dollar they
don't first get from a customer. Difference is... the customer is
completely free to decide if they want to purchase the product or service or not
(Taxes aren't as voluntary). And if the business doesn't provide a
service that people want bad enough to pay for... they can't pay their
employees... they go out of business. Government never goes out of business...
taxes are compulsory (whether you want or even GET that product or service).Every job government creates takes more dollars out of the economy
(taxes). Government employees put $$$ back into the economy, but they
can't put more $$$ back than they earn. It's impossible for
government to put more $$ back into the economy than they take OUT (in taxes).
So those jobs don't really HELP the economy any more than they burden it.
"Government cannot create jobs" is a patently false statement on its
face. Think about that for a moment. The Bureau of labor statistics has a
separate category for "government workers" and says that the federal
government is the largest employer in the Country. That numbers is completely
dwarfed by the numbers of people employed by State and local governments
nationwide. Besides the people directly employed by the government, untold
millions more are employed in support services contracted by the government
(does Halliburton in Iraq ring a bell?). Finally there is another huge chunk of
jobs generated by the need to feed and attend to the needs of those
employees.That statement is just one of at least ten assertions in
M. Richards post above. I believe they all are worthy of as much credence and
the one stated above i.e. none at all.
Fact is... Most Congressmen have almost no interest in making TOUGH decisions
(especially if they could be seen as controversial or painful to any voter).
They only like to make SAFE decisions and put off anything tough ones for
another Congress to stick their neck out on and decide.Today's
Congress is 100% about re-election and maintaining numbers and control for their
party (not just in election years but all the time). There's no time they
would dare make a tough decision (because it may come back to bite them on TV
that night and in the next election).It's sad... but true.
To "ProSteve" how about we return to the original method for choosing
Senators and the VP? Senators used to represent the interests of the State
Governments. It balanced things out more. It also put in a VP that would most
likely oppose the president in most matters. That is also good because it
forces the President to justify his position, not just get the approval of his
yes-men.To "Grover" the reason why the deficit and debt are
so important is the simple fact that there is so much money going to pay people
to not work. Remember the 99 weeks of unemployment that people are able to get?
People have found that it is easier to do nothing than to work. If you want to
get employment number up, let more people go hungry. It will motivate them to
take jobs they feel are "below them" and will humble them and eliminate
"jobs that Americans won't do."
Grover,Do you believe that Obama has put people back to work with
all of the money that he demanded from us for his "stimulus"? He spent
almost $1,000,000,000,000 to "stimulate" job growth. What did it
"buy"? It bought over 1,000,000 lost jobs! He spent that money on his
union friends and on projects in other countries. $2,000,000,000 went to
Brazil. Canada got 12% of G.M. Mexico got contracts to develop "efficient
engines" for the government owned auto plants. $500,000,000 went to a
bankrupt solar company. $600,000,000 when to a Canadian company for his failed
ObamaCare website.Government cannot generate jobs. The private
sector generates jobs. The private sector cannot and will not risk its money
when the government is demanding that all of the profits be handed over in
higher taxes and penalties. Government has caused many of us to
have our hours reduced by 25% or more because governemnt treatened those who
hire people full time that they would be taxed (penalized) out of existence with
ObamaCare.The economy will grow when government stops threatening
those who provide jobs.
Can anyone on the right please explain why the national debt and the current
deficit are a more important focus than the 11 million people still out of work?
If there is one thing that ALL politicians agree about: growth of the economy
and full employment lifts all ships and takes care of the deficit and whittles
on the debt without causing pain to anyone. Why is not full employment more
important that a balanced budget?
Public financing of all electionsRedraw congressional districts by
nonpartisan committeeOne term limitEliminate all corporate and
private money Result: Better government
When the government and the people pretend that there are no rules; that they
can do whatever they want, as long as it is popular; that the Constitution,
instead of being the Supreme Law of the Land, is just something that dead and
forgotten people once believed in; then we will continue to have the nonsense
that is going on.The Constitution clearly divided the
responsibilities among three branches of government. Each branch had specific
LIMITED duties. All duties not authorized to the Federal Government were to be
left to other levels of government.The people, in their whining,
have demanded that the Federal Government wipe their noses. Corrupt
politicians, eager for votes, have complied. They know that if the only
"revenue" to the people is from government "handouts", that they
will eventually control the people - the people who once valued freedom and
liberty.If we return to the basics and require that the people be
responsible for their own personal welfare and that all levels of government
limit themselves to their authorized duties, we will have prosperity again.
Until then, we will continue to have chaos.
When one party starts out with the statement and a commitment to doing
everything in their power to make the president fail, even if it causes America
to suffer or fail, is probably the most arrogant useless political maneuvering ,
I've ever heard publicly voiced.
"Instead of facing down our national debt and finding a solution, Congress
meets, argues, points fingers and no one takes responsibility." Sounds just
like Barrack Obama who is more culpable than anyone in congress! The most
unaccountable, irresponsible "leader" in the history of America! He
won't lead, he won't compromise he won't negotiate! He just
blames others or claims he "didn't know".
The House Republicans know how to legislate. Shutdown the government and damage
the economy. It this the approach to Immigration too?
You are exactly right. But, we the people, must accept the blame.We are
no different. It is always about blame. Always.Look at the recent
recession. Shared blame? Nope. We want to (make that "NEED TO") put
the blame 100% on the other side. As if there is not enough blame to go
around.Not exactly conducive to finding the real causes to prevent a
repeat.Any and every idea proposed by Congress is blasted by the
other side. Without fail. With no attempt to honestly evaluate it.We do it. Why should Congress be any different?Until WE put
America ahead of Party, Congress wont.
In a time of intense political and social tension, it's not at all
reasonable to expect politicians to step up to the plate for America.
That's asking for the kind of leadership that will not get one re elected.
The kind of leadership we need is thoughtful, compromising, and not at all self
interested. Certainly one term. The moneyed interests in our political system do
not want this leadership, and we will not get it in the current context.