Jobs vs. Work

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
It is amazing to me how many highly educated and sophisticated liberals don't understand the difference between jobs and work. Specifically, the difference between jobs created by the private sector, capitalist enterprise growth and expansion, and tax payer funded government work provided to the masses.

You see... one is the result of real economic growth and prosperity, and results in stimulation to the economy through consumer spending and more taxes being paid. The other is manufactured and sustained by central government planning, and does not stimulate growth or prosperity. If it did, the former Soviet Union would still be around, because that is essentially all they did.

Now, it is true, either way, people get a pay check, but when the government provides jobs to meet the demand of some mandated program or project, the government has to sustain that expense, and "the government" is the tax payer, for all intents and purposes. When private enterprise creates real jobs, it is the result of expansion and growth, and the private enterprise is creating increased profits to pay for the new jobs. This frees the government to spend tax money on other things, instead of sustaining employment for the workers.

Job creation is a good thing, work creation by central planning, is a Soviet Communist thing. The liberals have obviously decided to follow the model of a failed socialist government, while pretending they have done something great.
 
You're really lost. I think you need to reflect upon what you're saying and when you realize how retarded it sounds, come back and edit your post. I won't quote it to save you from humiliation.
 
do you guys ever actually debate? or do you just solely throw out ad hominems?

debating with a little flava of insult is fun....but just to say....

you stupid head, nananananaanaana

:gives:
 
Dixie does have one point though and that is what happens to all these 'government' jobs once the stimulus money is spent? Where do these people then go for another job? If you're thinking that the economy is going to be recovered by that time and there won't be any problem, you're not listening to your politicians.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Dixie does have one point though and that is what happens to all these 'government' jobs once the stimulus money is spent? Where do these people then go for another job? If you're thinking that the economy is going to be recovered by that time and there won't be any problem, you're not listening to your politicians.
Click to expand...

It's not much of a point. The idea is "stimulus." No one is spending right now. Dixie talks about jobs being the result of economic growth & prosperity. We don't have that right now; we have the opposite. Businesses are panicking, laying people off, cutting spending. Consumers aren't spending, hurting businesses even worse. It can be a dangerous cycle if left unchecked.

The idea is to just turn the ship. I'm still amazed that more people don't get that. This plan is cheap; retirement funds alone lost more than this package costs in the past 2 months.
 
Onceler said:
It's not much of a point. The idea is "stimulus." No one is spending right now. Dixie talks about jobs being the result of economic growth & prosperity. We don't have that right now; we have the opposite. Businesses are panicking, laying people off, cutting spending. Consumers aren't spending, hurting businesses even worse. It can be a dangerous cycle if left unchecked.

The idea is to just turn the ship. I'm still amazed that more people don't get that. This plan is cheap; retirement funds alone lost more than this package costs in the past 2 months.
Click to expand...

It's called "stimulus" but nothing is being stimulated. All that is being done is, more money is being borrowed at high interest from China, to provide some temp work for people. As STY said, what happens when the "stimulus" money runs out?

Economic growth and prosperity can be encouraged by the government in the form of tax cuts and incentives to business. All you liberals are opposed to that, because you've demonized business and corporations, and have set us on a course to socialism and communism, where The Government provides for us all, not capitalist business.

You say that this "stimulus" package is less than retirement plans have lost in the past two months, which I don't know that I believe, but IF that is so... doesn't it tell you how ineffective and pointless it will be to the overall economy? There isn't some magical thing going to happen to the "stimulus" money when dispersed by the government, which will suddenly rectify the losses we've seen in retirement plans. The whole thing is a charade and a sham, and will do nothing but drive up the already bloated national debt.
 
Dixie, retirement plans have lost close to $3 trillion since October. If the stimulus starts to turn the ship, the market will respond. You talk as if nothing is inter-related.

And I have said about a hundred times on this site that tax cuts should be part of this plan, as have just about every liberal I have seen talk about it. In point of fact, tax cuts will end up at between 35-40% of the final bill that Obama signs. This is a pretty balanced package.

The idea is to create jobs, and keep others from losing theirs. Catepillar, which announced 20,000+ layoffs, said they would cut that # back if the thing just passes.

Honestly, you're on the wrong side of it. The dangers of inaction are pretty apparent.
 
Want to stimulate the economy? Institute the Fair Tax Act, and attract the businesses back to the US.

Or even better, cut the fat from the government, cut spending and let people KEEP the money that they earn. The idea that we are too stupid to spend it on our own is an insult.
 
Onceler said:
Hey....maybe they should just give every taxpayer $250K instead?

Same cost, right?
Click to expand...

And you can keep running around like a little smart ass, repeating this line like you have with "1/3" until people grow sick of it too. The truth is, when all is said and done, and you factor in the enormous amounts of interest we will have to eventually repay, we could have easily given every taxpayer... dare I say, every American, $250k or more, and come out better. Not only would it have cost less, it would have stimulated the economy more!
 
Solitary said:
Want to stimulate the economy? Institute the Fair Tax Act, and attract the businesses back to the US.

Or even better, cut the fat from the government, cut spending and let people KEEP the money that they earn. The idea that we are too stupid to spend it on our own is an insult.
Click to expand...

Careful... you're starting to sound Conservative! :cool:
 
The tax cuts should've been gotten rid of.

The fair tax would be the biggest nuclear explosion to ever happen to our economy. Within a decade there wouldn't be a middle class. It would be by far the largest middle class tax raise any government has ever perpetuated on its people.
 
Solitary said:
Want to stimulate the economy? Institute the Fair Tax Act, and attract the businesses back to the US.

Or even better, cut the fat from the government, cut spending and let people KEEP the money that they earn. The idea that we are too stupid to spend it on our own is an insult.
Click to expand...

Even if we taxed corporations ZERO %, we could not compete labor cost wise with the labor costs in 2nd and 3rd world countries.
 
Dixie said:
And you can keep running around like a little smart ass, repeating this line like you have with "1/3" until people grow sick of it too. The truth is, when all is said and done, and you factor in the enormous amounts of interest we will have to eventually repay, we could have easily given every taxpayer... dare I say, every American, $250k or more, and come out better. Not only would it have cost less, it would have stimulated the economy more!
Click to expand...

That would cost 75 trillion dollars dixie.
 
Solitary said:
Or even better, cut the fat from the government, cut spending and let people KEEP the money that they earn. The idea that we are too stupid to spend it on our own is an insult.
Click to expand...

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

ZOMZ I'M AN INDEPENTS EVERYTHINGS SO EASY AND COMMON SENSEICAL ZOMZ I HAVE TEH ANSWER TO EVERYTHING

There's no fat let, you evil conservatives want to cut into the arteries and kill our society. If we just give money away it'll just be saved, contributing to the cycle. It would be more efficient to just have no stimulus plan than to have all the stimulus plan be tax cuts. It's not that YOU that are stupid, it would be the collective actions of all of us acting in a mutually destructive fashion that would be retarded.

It will be harder for our society to get out of debt if we all start saving and cause a bust than if we spend our way out of the bust and start saving at the appropriate time - the boom.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
Dixie, retirement plans have lost close to $3 trillion since October. If the stimulus starts to turn the ship, the market will respond. You talk as if nothing is inter-related.

And I have said about a hundred times on this site that tax cuts should be part of this plan, as have just about every liberal I have seen talk about it. In point of fact, tax cuts will end up at between 35-40% of the final bill that Obama signs. This is a pretty balanced package.

The idea is to create jobs, and keep others from losing theirs. Catepillar, which announced 20,000+ layoffs, said they would cut that # back if the thing just passes.

Honestly, you're on the wrong side of it. The dangers of inaction are pretty apparent.
Click to expand...

The "stimulus" isn't going to turn the ship... the ship is on a one way course to the United Socialist Republic of America! When you GIVE people money, who have NOT PAID TAX, that IS NOT a "tax cut" moron! That is a Government Entitlement Program!

If the idea is to "create jobs", then why is nothing being done to actually create jobs? All I see is an effort to create work, paid for by government, with tax dollars we don't have and can't afford. There is no job creation! There is work creation! That was the whole point of this thread, to point out the difference in the two. You think, because the government is going to provide work for a few people, that is going to "stimulate" the economy.. but it's like taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool, to the shallow end, in an attempt to increase the water level. The government is paying for these created new jobs, with money the government is having to borrow from China at high interest. Do you not grasp that detail? In order to actually STIMULATE the economy, you have to do something to create private sector incentive to create actual new jobs through growth... then you are putting the hose pipe in the pool to increase the water level.
 
Dixie said:
The "stimulus" isn't going to turn the ship... the ship is on a one way course to the United Socialist Republic of America! When you GIVE people money, who have NOT PAID TAX, that IS NOT a "tax cut" moron! That is a Government Entitlement Program!

If the idea is to "create jobs", then why is nothing being done to actually create jobs? All I see is an effort to create work, paid for by government, with tax dollars we don't have and can't afford. There is no job creation! There is work creation! That was the whole point of this thread, to point out the difference in the two. You think, because the government is going to provide work for a few people, that is going to "stimulate" the economy.. but it's like taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool, to the shallow end, in an attempt to increase the water level. The government is paying for these created new jobs, with money the government is having to borrow from China at high interest. Do you not grasp that detail? In order to actually STIMULATE the economy, you have to do something to create private sector incentive to create actual new jobs through growth... then you are putting the hose pipe in the pool to increase the water level.
Click to expand...

Do you really have any idea whether the jobs the stimulus creates are useful or not or are you just saying so because it's useful to your argument and you really have no fucking idea?



Not really necessary to ask the question.
 
Is Dixie this obtuse?

Yes, if you borrow money and spend it on programs, you are stimulating the economy. It is helping the private sector by making sure it has the spending needed to survive.
 
Just a point of interest. I think the bonds that paid for the S&L bailout are becoming due about now.

And all I have heard out of those like Dixie since the S&L debacle on bad mortgages and such are deregulate. Industry will regulate itself., etc..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top