PDA

View Full Version : Is The Government's Job To Create Jobs Or To Promote Job Growth?



NJCardFan
10-05-2010, 11:24 AM
We hear the "create jobs" rhetoric being thrown around by both parties but what I want to know is why is the GOP latching on to the "job creation" mantra instead of the "job promotion" mantra? The government's job isn't to create jobs. But by giving tax breaks the government can promote job growth. So I ask, why aren't any of the politicians promotion job growth?

Wei Wu Wei
10-05-2010, 11:31 AM
It is funny that Republicans swear that Government cannot create jobs, yet ask every day "WHERE ARE THE JOBS OBAMA?! YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO CREATE JOBS WHERE ARE THE JOBS!? WHY ISN'T OBAMA CREATING THE JOBS?!"

I can't see how that's a valid criticism if you don't even believe such a thing is possible.

Truth is, government can greate jobs AND promote job growth, which it should. There are plenty of infrastructure projects, new technologies, energy development that can be directly done by government employees.

Also, there are ways to boost job growth. One is tax cuts for the working and middle class. Because these people don't usually have millions set aside, they often live paycheck to paycheck, and as a result all or nearly all of their income is spent. Because they have to spend it to survive, tax cuts for middle class and working class people puts more money in the hands of the biggest spenders. They use that money, and the businesses they use the money on benefit from higher demand.

Also tax cuts for small businesses, small businesses can have special rules that don't apply to large businesses. Tax cuts, subsidization of some startup costs or hiring costs. These are all good things.

FlaGator
10-05-2010, 11:33 AM
It is funny that Republicans swear that Government cannot create jobs, yet ask every day "WHERE ARE THE JOBS OBAMA?! YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO CREATE JOBS WHERE ARE THE JOBS!? WHY ISN'T OBAMA CREATING THE JOBS?!"

I can't see how that's a valid criticism if you don't even believe such a thing is possible.

Truth is, government can greate jobs AND promote job growth, which it should. There are plenty of infrastructure projects, new technologies, energy development that can be directly done by government employees.

Also, there are ways to boost job growth. One is tax cuts for the working and middle class. Because these people don't usually have millions set aside, they often live paycheck to paycheck, and as a result all or nearly all of their income is spent. Because they have to spend it to survive, tax cuts for middle class and working class people puts more money in the hands of the biggest spenders. They use that money, and the businesses they use the money on benefit from higher demand.

Also tax cuts for small businesses, small businesses can have special rules that don't apply to large businesses. Tax cuts, subsidization of some startup costs or hiring costs. These are all good things.

Isn't it Obama who likes to point out how many jobs have been created by his stimulus package?

Wei Wu Wei
10-05-2010, 11:35 AM
Obama isn't claiming that it's impossible for Government to create jobs.

There are construction projects going on all around my city, many of them paid for by the stimulus package. Lots of hard working construction people are happy about their jobs.

FlaGator
10-05-2010, 11:44 AM
Obama isn't claiming that it's impossible for Government to create jobs.

There are construction projects going on all around my city, many of them paid for by the stimulus package. Lots of hard working construction people are happy about their jobs.

The only job the Government can create is a government job and that is counter productive to conservative views. In the private sector the Government can only encourage job growth through incentives and (as with road construction) create projects that need man power but these are temp jobs that last only as long as the project. Unless you live in Jacksonville, Florida there are no single projects that last long enough to make a career of. I say this because I live in Jacksonville and the interstates have been under some type of construction since before I was born.

Wei Wu Wei
10-05-2010, 11:49 AM
How is the existence of a goverment job counterproductive to conservative views? Aren't all of our soldiers government jobs?

There's plenty of roads that can be worked on here, America's infrastructure is falling apart. We could be working on building giant windmill farms or hydroelectric dams. Every step away from oil dependence is good for a laundry list of reasons and yes, this provides temporary work.

Temporary work keeps people on their feet, it gets money into the hands of consumers, and although they aren't permanent solutions, they help when we need it and if the projects are smart, they help out in the long run.

I don't see how this is in any way contrary to conservatism, it just seems like the smart thing to do.

What's wrong with government projects and temporary job growth to keep consumer demand going along?

FlaGator
10-05-2010, 12:06 PM
How is the existence of a goverment job counterproductive to conservative views? Aren't all of our soldiers government jobs?

There's plenty of roads that can be worked on here, America's infrastructure is falling apart. We could be working on building giant windmill farms or hydroelectric dams. Every step away from oil dependence is good for a laundry list of reasons and yes, this provides temporary work.

Temporary work keeps people on their feet, it gets money into the hands of consumers, and although they aren't permanent solutions, they help when we need it and if the projects are smart, they help out in the long run.

I don't see how this is in any way contrary to conservatism, it just seems like the smart thing to do.

What's wrong with government projects and temporary job growth to keep consumer demand going along?

With the exclusion of the military, new government jobs implies growth of government and conservatives do have issues with uninhibited growth of government. A temp job is just that, something to prop up numbers now without looking forward to the future. Remember the old saying:

Give a man fire and he is warm for the night. Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. :D

Sonnabend
10-05-2010, 12:12 PM
Aren't all of our soldiers government jobs?

A soldier is not a "government employee", asshole.

FeebMaster
10-05-2010, 12:19 PM
A soldier is not a "government employee", asshole.

Uh, yeah they kind of are.

FeebMaster
10-05-2010, 12:23 PM
We hear the "create jobs" rhetoric being thrown around by both parties but what I want to know is why is the GOP latching on to the "job creation" mantra instead of the "job promotion" mantra? The government's job isn't to create jobs. But by giving tax breaks the government can promote job growth. So I ask, why aren't any of the politicians promotion job growth?

The GOP is latching onto the job creation mantra because at some point the entire country went full retard and actually believes it is the responsibility of the government to create jobs, and conduct research, and provide education and healthcare, and a million other things.

It's really just the end result of a century of nanny state building.

FlaGator
10-05-2010, 12:30 PM
A soldier is not a "government employee", asshole.

In the U.S. a soldier is an employee of the government. He or she answers to the Commander and Chief of the United States and receives a U.S. Government paycheck.

Wei Wu Wei
10-05-2010, 12:33 PM
Not to mention that super sweet socialist health care.

Wei Wu Wei
10-05-2010, 12:34 PM
The GOP is latching onto the job creation mantra because at some point the entire country went full retard and actually believes it is the responsibility of the government to create jobs, and conduct research, and provide education and healthcare, and a million other things.

It's really just the end result of a century of nanny state building.

It's just because it's election year and all sense goes out the window for pointless smear attacks such as "obama failed at creating jobs. government can't create jobs."

it's just absurd, silly, foolishness but the saddest part is that it works, and gets nearly half of the people to actually get out and vote

Nubs
10-05-2010, 12:42 PM
The purpose of the government is to provide the macro environment that is conductive to economic growth. It is the purpose of the private sector to create jobs in the micro environment.

The current administration is running ignorant of the macro economic environment, pushing the private sector aside, and trying to create jobs in the micro environment.

The government can create jobs by providing an economically conducive environment and allowing the private sector to operate the microenvironment. Government creates jobs by getting the f*ck out of the way in the micro environment..

m00
10-05-2010, 11:19 PM
The GOP is latching onto the job creation mantra because at some point the entire country went full retard and actually believes it is the responsibility of the government to create jobs, and conduct research, and provide education and healthcare, and a million other things.

One day they'll realize that taxes are "other people's money" and that they themselves are the other people.

MountainMan
10-06-2010, 12:08 AM
Not to mention that super sweet socialist health care.

Talk to the majority of veterans and they will tell you that the military health care is just above substandard. It isn't for lack of want or need it is just the way government operates.

Though you would never experience that since you have never served so once again, stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

FeebMaster
10-06-2010, 12:50 AM
One day they'll realize that taxes are "other people's money" and that they themselves are the other people.

Nah. That's what deficit spending is for.

m00
10-06-2010, 12:51 AM
Nah. That's what deficit spending is for.

I guess that's just to get the idiots on board that aren't the complete retards who fall for higher taxes. People who don't understand that "my dollar is worth less" means "I have less money"

lacarnut
10-06-2010, 03:35 AM
It's just because it's election year and all sense goes out the window for pointless smear attacks such as "obama failed at creating jobs. government can't create jobs."

it's just absurd, silly, foolishness but the saddest part is that it works, and gets nearly half of the people to actually get out and vote

Job creation is pretty simple; even an idiot like you should understand. The government job is to create certainty with tax policies, regulations, spending, etc. Obama and the Democraps have done everything to undermine this concept. Corporation taxes in the US are higher than they are in the EU. No one knows how taxes will shake out on Jan 1st. Business do not know how much health care costs will rise. Obama is killing jobs faster than they are being created. His economic team of Harvard dunces has never ran a business so none of them have a f.....g clue.

Odysseus
10-06-2010, 09:50 AM
It is funny that Republicans swear that Government cannot create jobs, yet ask every day "WHERE ARE THE JOBS OBAMA?! YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO CREATE JOBS WHERE ARE THE JOBS!? WHY ISN'T OBAMA CREATING THE JOBS?!"

I can't see how that's a valid criticism if you don't even believe such a thing is possible.

If King Canute had believed that he could order the tides, announced that he would do so, and then failed, would it not be valid to sarcastically ask him why the tides didn't obey him? In fact, Canute knew that he couldn't order the tides, and his attempt to do so was meant as an object lesson to his courtiers, whose flattery had gotten so absurd that he felt that they needed to be chastened. Unfortunately, Obama believes his courtiers, and their sycophancy feeds his narcissism. He genuinely believes that he can lower the seas, clean the air and command the economy, and he can't. Asking him why he has not created the jobs that he promised is a reminder that the promise was, in itself, absurd.

Obama cannot create jobs because government cannot produce goods and services until it has taken the money to create them from the private sector. In order to create a job, government must tax someone who is already employed to get the means to do it. This is not to say that government jobs are not necessary, only that they are a last resort. This is why government should be restricted to those functions that only government can fulfill, functions such as resolution of domestic conflict and protection from foreign conflict, which the private sector cannot perform.

Arroyo_Doble
10-06-2010, 09:55 AM
This is not to say that government jobs are not necessary, only that they are a last resort. This is why government should be restricted to those functions that only government can fulfill, functions such as resolution of domestic conflict and protection from foreign conflict, which the private sector cannot perform.

Why these? If the private sector is infallible, why can't it cover these two issues as well?

Nubs
10-06-2010, 10:26 AM
Jobs are created by the expectation of profit. The price of the finished product is greater than the total of the components. This differential is profit or "added value". Government jobs do not create added value, in fact, government jobs create subtracted value as there is not profit but there is a cost associated with the operation of government.

Government jobs are a drain on the economy.

NJCardFan
10-06-2010, 11:13 AM
Why these? If the private sector is infallible, why can't it cover these two issues as well?

Who said the private sector is infallible? Nothing is infallible. However, while the private sector is often made to pay for their trespasses, government can openly lie, cheat, and steal worse than any Enron could ever dream of and yet get away with it. But I ask you this; name me one thing government does that isn't an incredible boondoggle, clusterfuck, or just a plain mess. I've seen government workers sit around for entire shifts doing NOTHING. And getting paid damned well for doing NOTHING. And when these people are told to do their jobs, they complain about it and worse yet, file complaints against supervisors. Do that in the private sector and tell me how you make out.

Molon Labe
10-06-2010, 11:20 AM
With the exclusion of the military, new government jobs implies growth of government and conservatives do have issues with uninhibited growth of government.

That's a good observation FG

But, can anyone see the discrepancy as to why some conservatives are missing the point and principles of smaller government?





A soldier is not a "government employee", asshole.


Uh, yeah they kind of are.


There it is.

Odysseus
10-06-2010, 12:15 PM
Why these? If the private sector is infallible, why can't it cover these two issues as well?

Private industry isn't infallible. The advantages of private industry are compartmentalization, decentralization of power, accountability and individual initiative. I will 'splain.


compartmentalization: In an industry, failure is compartmentalized, and therefore limited. If a company fails, others will have sufficent funds to buy up the productive assets or expand to fill the niches that the failing company will no longer supply. When a government program fails, it fails everyone who is invested in it. A private pension fund failure is tragic. In the case of Social Security, it will be catastrophic.
decentralization of power: Similar to compartmentalization, except in its benefits. If company decides not to go after a specific market, others are free to risk investment and make a profit, and reap the rewards. Competition is a function of decentralized power. Government intervention in a market picks winners and losers, and centralizes decision-making in the regulator. Government takeover of an industry centralizes all decisions related to that industry within a bureaucracy. Knowledge of the company, the market or the process by which products are produced and sold becomes less important than political power. Decisions that should be made based on the bottom line become politically driven, to the detriment of the maker and the customer.
accountability: Failure has consequences. The consequences to a business are expressed in lost revenues, lost jobs and, eventually, lost businesses. The consequences of failure to a government bureaucracy are more revenues (tax hikes), more power and more failure.
individual initiative: A governing process is a political process. Actions must be based on consensus when public money is applied. Private processes are based on the ideas, experience or convictions of the individuals. How often have you seen a good idea destroyed by a committee? A CEO who decides that the time is right for a particular product doesn't have to convince congress, the regulators or the executive branch that his vision is viable, he just has to act. If he is constrained by a board of directors, he is still acting within their guidance.


Government, OTOH, has it's own legitimate spheres of action, but it must be based on the unique nature of American government. Our government governs only with our consent. It's powers are those powers delegated to it by we, the people. If government protects us from violence, it is not doing so because we are not allowed to protect ourselves, but because we have delegated that right to it. If government resolves disputes between citizens, it is because we recognize that it is an honest, disinterested broker (which, BTW, is another problem with government intrusion into markets, which is that it creates conflicts of interest). The things that we task government to do for us are not things that we cannot do ourselves, but things which we delegate, because we want those things done through the force of law, not through individual initiative.

Wei Wu Wei
10-06-2010, 12:26 PM
the Manhattan Project provided LOTS Of jobs.

too bad government can't do anything right. oh wait...no that worked...

Arroyo_Doble
10-06-2010, 12:44 PM
Government ... has it's own legitimate spheres of action, but it must be based on the unique nature of American government. Our government governs only with our consent. It's powers are those powers delegated to it by we, the people. If government protects us from violence, it is not doing so because we are not allowed to protect ourselves, but because we have delegated that right to it. If government resolves disputes between citizens, it is because we recognize that it is an honest, disinterested broker (which, BTW, is another problem with government intrusion into markets, which is that it creates conflicts of interest). The things that we task government to do for us are not things that we cannot do ourselves, but things which we delegate, because we want those things done through the force of law, not through individual initiative.

So it is like the old joke with the punchline, "We've established what you are; we are now negotiating price"?

If you are willing to concede there are legitimate areas worthy of collective action through governing institutions, and necessarily by force, deciding what those are make up the political debate in a democratic society. Abstract concepts such as "rights" or "sovereignty" are wholly created by the governed.

Saying that collective defense and the adjudication of disputes are best left to governing institutions is no more or less valid than claiming vital processes such as healthcare distribution or educating the next generation need to be dealt with through public means. Picking and choosing which will be left to the private sector should be done soley on whether or not it is effective for the whole. Dogma and ideologogy should have no bearing on the decision made by the vox populi through their representatives (even though it is almost exclusively how representatives are chosen).

noonwitch
10-06-2010, 01:03 PM
Talk to the majority of veterans and they will tell you that the military health care is just above substandard. It isn't for lack of want or need it is just the way government operates.

Though you would never experience that since you have never served so once again, stop talking about shit you know nothing about.



My dad thinks very highly of the Bay Pines VA facility in Tampa/St. Pete, but perhaps that is the Potemkin village of VA facilities. He has to go there occasionally for his post-polio syndrome (the military is sort of on the cutting edge of treatment for that, because so many Korea-War era vets now have it even though they had recovered from polio that they had as kids prior to enlisting). I haven't been in the newer VA hospital here (The John Dingell center, LOL), but it is a pretty cool piece of 90s architecture. It was built to replace a crumbling, WWII era facility in Dearborn. A shopping center now stands at that site.

Wei Wu Wei
10-06-2010, 01:07 PM
So it is like the old joke with the punchline, "We've established what you are; we are now negotiating price"?

If you are willing to concede there are legitimate areas worthy of collective action through governing institutions, and necessarily by force, deciding what those are make up the political debate in a democratic society. Abstract concepts such as "rights" or "sovereignty" are wholly created by the governed.

Saying that collective defense and the adjudication of disputes are best left to governing institutions is no more or less valid than claiming vital processes such as healthcare distribution or educating the next generation need to be dealt with through public means. Picking and choosing which will be left to the private sector should be done soley on whether or not it is effective for the whole. Dogma and ideologogy should have no bearing on the decision made by the vox populi through their representatives (even though it is almost exclusively how representatives are chosen).

yeah

Arroyo_Doble
10-06-2010, 01:09 PM
Ah, fuck.

Odysseus
10-06-2010, 04:03 PM
So it is like the old joke with the punchline, "We've established what you are; we are now negotiating price"?
Lady Astor never recovered from Churchill's comments.


If you are willing to concede there are legitimate areas worthy of collective action through governing institutions, and necessarily by force, deciding what those are make up the political debate in a democratic society. Abstract concepts such as "rights" or "sovereignty" are wholly created by the governed.
If you don't believe that there is a creator who endows such rights, as the founders believed, and many today do. If, OTOH, you accept that there are universal values which, regardless of their origin, may be discerned through reason, truths which are "self-evident", then you don't see this as an arbitrary debate on government power, but rathe, a discussion on what the proper role of government is to maximize individual liberty and collective security.


Saying that collective defense and the adjudication of disputes are best left to governing institutions is no more or less valid than claiming vital processes such as healthcare distribution or educating the next generation need to be dealt with through public means. Picking and choosing which will be left to the private sector should be done soley on whether or not it is effective for the whole. Dogma and ideologogy should have no bearing on the decision made by the vox populi through their representatives (even though it is almost exclusively how representatives are chosen).
No, because you are assuming that government is whatever you say it is or ought to be, and that the tasks assigned to it are therefore arbitrary. That is not the case. Let's go back to first principles:

What is the basic purpose of government?

The answer to this is that people who are not connected by family, clan or tribal ties cannot interact without certain agreed-upon principles which provide for the security of themselves and their property. Thus, governments exist to facilitate the interaction of individuals outside of their tribes, clans, religions or races. In order to do this, government must treat all individuals equally. This is where we get the concept of rights.

In order for government to treat all citizens equally, your rights and mine must be the same under the law. I may be better positioned to exercise a right than you, but that doesn't change that we both have the same rights. So, a right is therefore a freedom to act which may be exercised by all people, and the exercise of which does not deny others the same right. The most basic of these rights is the right to live. You and I may both exist, and my right to do so is not exclusive of your right to do so. The only time that one of us abrogates that right is if they choose to attempt to violate the other's right to live. Thus, I can only deprive you of life if it is to protect my own, or the life of a third party, or to the property which I have created by which I sustain my life and the lives of those who depend upon me. My right to live therefore includes a right to self defense, and that right extends to others under my protection and to my property. If the threat is not directly to my life, but to the property by which I sustain it, the same applies. Thus, a thief who seeks to steal the money from my wallet is, in principle, seeking to steal the food from my table, or the means of sustaining my life. A thief is therefore not far removed from a murderer, since his actions will have the same effect in the long run, the death of myself or my family.

Now, we have established a basis for individual rights. But what if you cannot protect your rights by yourself? Can you ask for help, or hire it? Can you delegate that right? Since we can dispose of our property as we see fit, obviously, we can do so. This delegation is the first step in the creation of government, and the first governments among people in permanent settlements were created for the purpose of mutual protection of themselves and their property, and the most basic codes of law addressed crimes against persons and property.

If you and I have a conflict over a piece of property, how can that be resolved without resorting to violence? Go back to first principles. We accept that we both have the right to live, and to create and own property, so if we are in conflict over the ownership of a piece of property, then we are still agreed on the basic principles. So, in the event of a conflict, the competing claims must be weighed in the context of the mutually agreed upon principles by which we define our rights. However, since you and I both have conflcting interests, a third party, one without an interest in the case, will be chosen by both of us to judge the merits of our claims. We have now established a second function of government, which is the need to provide impartial interpretation of laws. The judges do not make the laws, but simply apply them to cases.

As the community grows, the conflicts will become more common. If this happens often enough, then there is a need to maintain courts, and a need arises to pay for these courts. Thus, we get to taxes and fees, which are imposed solely to pay for the efforts of those who run the functions of the government that we have established. How we set those fees and taxes has been the subject of the most contentious debates in human history, but at the most basic point, they are there to pay for government, not to make us better people, or to encourage us to eat less or exercise more. It is not the place of government to protect us from ourselves, but only from each other.

These are not arbitrary assumptions, but extrapolations from A to B to C and so on, based on reason, which you and Wilbur ought to agree on (Wei, being a socialist, will be immune to reason, but that's another issue). We establish that government is a corallary of our rights to live, to create and own property, to resolve disputes within the context of our rights and to maintain a public order in which we can conduct our business without interference from others.

In summary, a just government's most basic functions are not to feed, clothe or house people, but to protect the right of the people to feed, clothe and house themselves.


Ah, fuck.

Sucks when he agrees with you, doesn't it? It always makes me wonder where I went wrong, too. :D

Constitutionally Speaking
10-06-2010, 06:59 PM
We hear the "create jobs" rhetoric being thrown around by both parties but what I want to know is why is the GOP latching on to the "job creation" mantra instead of the "job promotion" mantra? The government's job isn't to create jobs. But by giving tax breaks the government can promote job growth. So I ask, why aren't any of the politicians promotion job growth?



The government CAN create jobs, but each one comes at the cost of 2 or 3 private sector jobs.

That is why the role of government is NOT to create jobs but to create an atmosphere that encourages business growth and entrepreneurship. This is primarily done by getting the hell out of the way.

NJCardFan
10-07-2010, 01:48 AM
I think the Preamble spells out what the role of government was intended to be, and it's not ambiguous as the left would like for you to believe. Let's take a look, shall we?


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let's break it down:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,

Which they did creating the bodies of government(3 branches) which create the laws and then the SC determines the meaning of the laws.


insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense
These 2 go hand in hand. Domestic tranquility is insured by providing the common defense meaning keeping us from being invaded and our people from being subjugated.


and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

This is essentially the federal government's job; keeping us safe from foreign invaders while allowing us to grow as a nation and as a people, securing our liberty.


promote the general Welfare

I put this last for a reason because the left love to point to this when believing that the welfare state is enumerated in the Constitution, yet, they leave out one little detail. When mentioning defense, justice, tranquility, and liberty, the descriptions are pretty solid; Insure, Establish, Provide, Secure. No debating these terms, right? However, when it comes to the general welfare, the word our Founders used was Promote. Meaning, we would like you to do something, yet it is your option to do it or not. Promote in no way is synonymous with insure, establish, provide, or secure. Not even close. You are responsible, ultimately, for your own welfare. The government is only going to promote it, not provide it.

Odysseus
10-07-2010, 10:08 AM
I think the Preamble spells out what the role of government was intended to be, and it's not ambiguous as the left would like for you to believe. Let's take a look, shall we?

Wei considers the Constitution to be a charming relic, but not something that should be guiding us. He believes that Marx, by virture of coming after Washington and Jefferson, had a better take on economics.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 02:12 PM
Yes Philosophy died in the 18th century. Thought stopped then.

You know I'm more impressed with 20th century thinkers than I am with Marx, but there's no doubt Marx was a true revolutionary thinker.

A timeline isn't necessary a guide towards correctness (with more modern meaning more right), however something coming AFTER has the benefit of being able to comment on the previous school of thought, while old schools of thought cannot.

Molon Labe
10-07-2010, 02:25 PM
Yes Philosophy died in the 18th century. Thought stopped then.

You know I'm more impressed with 20th century thinkers than I am with Marx, but there's no doubt Marx was a true revolutionary thinker.

A timeline isn't necessary a guide towards correctness (with more modern meaning more right), however something coming AFTER has the benefit of being able to comment on the previous school of thought, while old schools of thought cannot.

Nah...Philosophy and reason started dying at the beginning of this century. It's death rattle is right around the corner. It's killer is the advent of mass media.

There's an old quote that goes something like this: Romanticism was grounded in sincerity...modernism in authenticity and our current world, post modernism........is it's "visibility".

Modern man cares more about being a celebrity and attention than thinking.

Just look at me and everyone else on the internets. :D

Apache
10-07-2010, 02:29 PM
We hear the "create jobs" rhetoric being thrown around by both parties but what I want to know is why is the GOP latching on to the "job creation" mantra instead of the "job promotion" mantra? The government's job isn't to create jobs. But by giving tax breaks the government can promote job growth. So I ask, why aren't any of the politicians promotion job growth?

Government, especially the current administration, has no business "creating" jobs. They should roll back taxes, red-tape and strangling regulations in order to promote job growth.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 02:31 PM
Nah...Philosophy and reason started dying at the beginning of this century. It's death rattle is right around the corner. It's killer is the advent of mass media.

There's an old quote that goes something like this: Romanticism was grounded in sincerity...modernism in authenticity and our current world, post modernism........is it's "visibility".

Modern man cares more about being a celebrity and attention than thinking.

Just look at me and everyone else on the internets. :D

Exactly, I'm familir with the quote. The postmodern self is grounded in being seen. Youtube and Facebook and American Idol has told us that everyone can be famous, this is what matters, this is what gives our existence value today.

This is why Fox News reports it's own opinion polls as "news", because people LOOOOVVEEE polls today in this modern era.

It also explains why even though American teens rank terrible in math and science, they rank #1 in Confidence, and believe they can accomplish anything in the world (even becoming a millionaire) if they just have enough Confidence.

Chris Hedges's book Empire of Illusion does a fantastic job of illustrating our modern image-obsessed society in the world of mass media.

Bailey
10-07-2010, 02:45 PM
Exactly, I'm familir with the quote. The postmodern self is grounded in being seen. Youtube and Facebook and American Idol has told us that everyone can be famous, this is what matters, this is what gives our existence value today.

This is why Fox News reports it's own opinion polls as "news", because people LOOOOVVEEE polls today in this modern era.

It also explains why even though American teens rank terrible in math and science, they rank #1 in Confidence, and believe they can accomplish anything in the world (even becoming a millionaire) if they just have enough Confidence.

Chris Hedges's book Empire of Illusion does a fantastic job of illustrating our modern image-obsessed society in the world of mass media.


Answer the question, what subject do you teach?

Troll
10-07-2010, 06:59 PM
"Is it the government's job to _____________?"

No.

Employment is not the government's business. The government could get us up to 100% employment tomorrow if they wanted to - everyone can dig holes for 4 hours a day, then fill them back in for the other 4. However, the private sector couldn't get away with it, nor should government be able to.

I wouldn't be opposed to the government "creating" jobs, but their services would have to be bound by the same competitive forces as the private sector's. In other words, if Obama Cross/Obama Shield can't provide a better service than UHC without taking taxpayer money, it should close its doors.

I love these philosophical questions. :D

Molon Labe
10-08-2010, 08:35 AM
Chris Hedges's book Empire of Illusion does a fantastic job of illustrating our modern image-obsessed society in the world of mass media.

Yes. I've read it. Too bad he get's the problem but ends by blaming it on Captialism.

He should have stopped at the inevitable consequences of "technology" and how it destroy's thinking.