So Much for the Idea of Scott Brown Being for Limited Government

Thanks for the clarification.

 

If I could just spell it correctly

Republicrat - there.

 

Hmmm, so all those people who believe they have jobs in the Department of Defense, the Agriculture Department, the National Institutes of Health, the Census Bureau, etc., etc., etc. do not really have jobs. And, all those people working for government contractors do not have jobs either.

I bet that would be a surprise to them. :laugh:


Ck4 wrote:

There were Dixiecrats when I was a kid .... are they cousins of the Republicrats? Just curious.

 

If they are necessary jobs then the government didn't create them - neccessity and demand did.

If they are make work jobs that are not serving an unmet need then they are merely means of wealth redistribution.

I can tell that you have never employed anyone.

My neighbor could use of job. If you pay him minimum wage for 40 hours a week for at least a year I will send you $2,000.

Based on the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 per hour it will only cost you $15,080 plus Federal and State Unemployment taxes, Workers' Compensation Insurance, and Social Security taxes.

What's that? You say that you don't need to hire anyone? That you have no job for him to do?

Why should that matter? Hire him to get the $2,000 anyway. :laugh::laugh:

 

No to everything Marxist you mean. No to theft (the redistribution of wealth). No to murder (abortion). No to sodomy. No to the erosion of liberty.

No to you.

 

ummm..didn't you vote for Obama?

 

Bumped for Crabby because my neighbor is really excited about that job that Crabby is going to give him. :smilewinkgrin:

 

No, I just got tired of your waffling. According to your logic companies do not create jobs, the government does not create jobs only necessity creates jobs. If that were totally true we would still be in the dark ages. There is no necessity to do research, but we do and have progressed because of research. The government under FDR created thousands of jobs, i.e. the CCC for example ... also the painters and author programs from the Library of Congress as well as the oral history projects. None of those were necessary but we have benefited from them.

Oh and your snide comments are simply cute but juvenile.

 

So how does any of that change the fact that companies do not hire employees that they do not need in order to get a tax credit?

And the CCC, painters and author programs are great examples of jobs that are merely redistribution of wealth.

If the painters and authors are creating products of value they would be demanded by the consuming public. We don't need the government spending our tax dollars on "art" that nobody else is willing to buy just for the sake of giving some artist a job.

 

Ok - this is just weird.

Have you been following your own posts?

You have been arguing that tax credits will cause employers to hire.

Employers hire because they need the labor - not to get a tax credit.

Think about my offer to pay you $2,000 to hire my neighbor.

Are you going to take it up?

No - because the $2,000 isn't an incentive to you to hire someone that you don't need.

No - a real job is an exchange of labor for compensation.

Government make work jobs are an exchange of busy work in exchange for tax dollars.

Perhaps you think that people on welfare are working for the government by holding down the couch while they watch TV.

Now there is an admission on your part - sometimes government make work jobs create something - by accident. :laugh:

Of course most times they create nothing more than busy work and higher taxes.

What questions?

Now coming from you that is truly funny. :laugh:

 

He put "create" in quotes. While the government does allocate jobs, the government implicitly destroys other jobs in the process.

The government cannot create actual wealth; the government can only redistribute wealth.

Jobs in the DoD, DoA, NIH, CB, etc. are non-productive, administrative jobs. They are in essence a liability on the national balance sheet. They do not produce anything; they only consume tax dollars. People working at these cushy jobs consuming tax dollars would have otherwise been available in the labor pool for private jobs that would actually contribute to the available supply of goods and services.

When the government "creates" jobs, it inversely destroys other jobs. In doing so, the government retracts the supply of real production.

Methinks you should read this book:

 

I personally would welcome any tax cuts, but only if they were matched by equal or more spending cuts. Simply cutting taxes without cutting spending causes a greater budget deficit, meaning more inflation plus more interest on debt due.

Supply-side economics on its face is only half true. Cutting taxes does provide more incentive for investment, but this is only reliable if spending is matched and cut. Too many Republicans support the Keynesian style supply-side (cut taxes but spend more). This is worse than tax increases because at least we would not incur more debt with interest.

 

Would you say the growth of the Internet has created jobs? Remember it began when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) started by connecting 4 computers to see if they could get them to talk to one another. From that, look at what we have today.

Also DARPA was responsible for the beginning of GPS. Any jobs been created because of GPS?

At first GPS was restricted to the Department of Defense and gradually allowed to others. Do you use GPS?

 

Bush did what was not expected concerning spending but Obama has attempted to do just what he said he would so how can you now regret it. You knew exactly who he was.

 

It was the companies that found commercial applications for the technology that created the jobs.

 

Would never have happened if DARPA had not developed the technologies. Corporations would never have developed them as it was too risky in the beginning. So much work had to be done on packet switching before the Internet could be considered outside the government.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/geek_glossary/packet_switching_flash.html

Packet switching was not easy to develop. The company I worked for conducted a lot of research on this technology for the government. There were jobs created by the government on this one and I saw electrical engineers, communications engineers, progammers, systems engineers, secretaries, etc. hired strictly for this program.

There is a lot of pure research that is done by the government which ends up being used by industry which creates thousands of jobs that would never be created if left to industrial development of the technology. Commercial enterprises and industry are not fond of risking funds on pure research.

So, like it or not, the government does develop technology that in turn creates thousdands of jobs. You can weasel on this, but there it is.

Enough said on your silly smoke blowing.

 

Even if I were to grant merit to your arguement - such a proposition does not fit the current environment that we are in.

1. We need jobs now - not ten or twenty years from now. Research takes time - lots of it. And then additional time is still required to find and develop a practical application.

2. A great deal of research leads only to a dead end. That represents a lot of money spent - money which we do not have. It is roll of the dice as to whether such an expenditure would ever pay off.

3. We are already deep in debt. It is foolish to continue spending money that we don't have on some wing and a prayer scheme.