Government has ZERO of it's own $'s It CAN NOT CREAT JOBS.

[BondiHarry]

Theres no market demand for teachers? Then why do class sizes keep going up?

Why are public schools doing such a poor job of educating children and private sector alternatives such as religious schools or home schoolers are doing demonstrably better? There IS a demand for teachers but again there is that huge difference between how a free market and a state managed economy respond to demand.

I'm also still waiting for an answer here. http://www.christianforums.com/t7621819-14/#post59546499

Umaro, foolish solutions can kill a sick patient. Are you aware that in WWII allied troops accidentally killed many starving death camp inmates by feeding them food their bodies could not handle? Your proposal in the question you asked is of the same nature.

 

[A2SG]

Why are public schools doing such a poor job of educating children and private sector alternatives such as religious schools or home schoolers are doing demonstrably better?

Define "demonstrably better". Also, explain that while considering that a public school must teach every student that comes to the school, but a private one can turn away any students they want to, including those who need special education, have special needs or simply perform lower on standardized tests.

There IS a demand for teachers but again there is that huge difference between how a free market and a state managed economy respond to demand.

Yup, one charges a large tuition fee, the other uses public funds. The applicable difference between the two, of course, is that in one all children are educated and in the other, only the children of the rich and privileged are educated.

-- A2SG, from your response, can we infer which difference you prefer?

 

[BondiHarry]

How is it "out of the economy"? Just like with private industry, money goes in, and it goes out again. A teacher spends his paycheck the same way an insurance company secretary does, am I correct?

What's the difference?

What is the difference between the creation of wealth and the confiscation of wealth? Is that what you're asking?

Um, there is no demand for teachers, police officers or fire fighters? You think there's a demand for ignorance, crime and fires?

How a free market responds to demand and how a state managed economy responds are quite different. And again it FASCINATES me that so often when these types of discussions are held statist immediately go back to legitimate functions of government like police ... if our government were once again limited to its Constitutional and moral purpose we could massively cut spending and taxes and still pay for the things the government should be doing.

Hmmm....are you trying to suggest an argument against teachers, police officers or fire fighters???? Go right ahead, this oughtta be good!

You missed my point (again)'

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????

Are you serious? Do you seriously consider the "return" on the work done by teachers, police officers or fire fighters to be "of little concern"?????

There is a reason why government bureaucracies tend to be so miserably inefficient and their private sector equivalents so much better ... or if that is too complicated there is a reason why successful private concerns make money and public concerns LOSE money on a massive scale.

Come back to me the next time you've been robbed or your house has been on fire.

What is the purpose of government A2SG? BTW, just because the government has traditionally provided certain services doesn't mean it should. Compare the U.S. Post Office with the efficiency of Fedex for example.

I wasn't taking about the efficiency of government employees, but nice attempt to change the subject.

You should be talking about the efficiency of government employees.

For the record, though, I'd stack the efficiency of the average teacher, police officer or fire fighter against the efficiency of the average private sector employee anytime.

But, again, not the subject here.

Would you stack their efficiency against their equivalent counterparts in the private sector? Again, government doesn't tend to concern itself with efficiency when all it has to do to replenish its coffers is confiscate more money from the tax payers ... as the line goes however "the problem with socialism is you ALWAYS run out of other people's money".

Still not answering my question.

"You could start by explaining how a teacher's salary doesn't contribute to the economy while an insurance company secretary's does."

I did answer but you missed it. Look again please.

Feel free to address that one at any time.

Again, I did but you chose to ignore it.

-- A2SG, not that this trip into libertarian utopia rant-land isn't a nice fantasy adventure and all that.....[/quote]

 

[A2SG]

What is the difference between the creation of wealth and the confiscation of wealth? Is that what you're asking?

No. I asked my question in simple, plain, straight-forward language:

"You could start by explaining how a teacher's salary doesn't contribute to the economy while an insurance company secretary's does."

How a free market responds to demand and how a state managed economy responds are quite different. And again it FASCINATES me that so often when these types of discussions are held statist immediately go back to legitimate functions of government like police ... if our government were once again limited to its Constitutional and moral purpose we could massively cut spending and taxes and still pay for the things the government should be doing.

Still not an answer to the above question.

You missed my point (again)'

Oh, I got it. You said governments were "creating a position that may not have a market demand but none-the-less some government politician/bureaucrat/commissar thinks is a good idea". Since I specifically mentioned teachers, as well as police officers and fire fighters, I can only assume those are the positions that "may not have a market demand"...and I dispute that.

Still not an answer, though.

There is a reason why government bureaucracies tend to be so miserably inefficient and their private sector equivalents so much better

Yes, it's called an assumption, one presented without factual support. In fact, that assumption is very much in dispute.

... or if that is too complicated there is a reason why successful private concerns make money and public concerns LOSE money on a massive scale.

Sure, the reason is obvious: the goal of public concerns is the public good, not profit. Spending money to teach every child in a community, to protect every citizen from crime or to put out any and all fires isn't exactly a profitable endeavor.

Are you trying to argue that there should be no promoting the general welfare unless there's money in it?

What is the purpose of government A2SG?

In the case of the US:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

BTW, just because the government has traditionally provided certain services doesn't mean it should. Compare the U.S. Post Office with the efficiency of Fedex for example.

No problem. The post office will deliver a letter from anywhere in the United States to anywhere in the United States for 44 cents in, usually, a couple of days. FedEx charges much more, the cheapest I was able to figure out was $15.16, four day delivery (Massachusetts to California).

Your point being?

You should be talking about the efficiency of government employees.

Why? That wasn't the question I asked.

Would you stack their efficiency against their equivalent counterparts in the private sector?

Yes.

Again, government doesn't tend to concern itself with efficiency when all it has to do to replenish its coffers is confiscate more money from the tax payers ... as the line goes however "the problem with socialism is you ALWAYS run out of other people's money".

And yet, many teachers, police officers and fire fighters are efficient, nevertheless. And many private sector employees are not.

Imagine that.

I did answer but you missed it. Look again please.

Point it out to me, please. Because I read your post carefully, and there was no answer anywhere.

-- A2SG, a lot of libertarian utopian rhetoric, but a dearth of answers....

 

[BondiHarry]

<edit>
A book running hundreds of pages is a more efficient means of gaining understanding about free markets than posting the same truths in increments here. And I HAVE been explaining why free markets work better than state managed economies ... in a nut shell free markets rely on free people making their own reasoned decisions while state managed economies rely on the brute coercion of government (truth and reason being inconsequential factors in such economies) ... not to mention free markets are more in line with God's economy than your preferred state managed economy.

 

[whatbogsends]

Why are public schools doing such a poor job of educating children and private sector alternatives such as religious schools or home schoolers are doing demonstrably better? There IS a demand for teachers but again there is that huge difference between how a free market and a state managed economy respond to demand.

No Child Left Behind. It has been an utter disaster, with public schools having to pass students and dumb down curriculum to maintain federal funding.

 

[stiggywiggy]

"You could start by explaining how a teacher's salary doesn't contribute to the economy while an insurance company secretary's does."

That's easy. If an insurance company takes on a new employee, they plan on paying that employee's salary from the prospective new revenue which that new employee will hopefully bring in. A new government position for a teacher will not directly produce any extra revenue to subsidize that position. Instead, those finances will have to come from the public at large, and so further deplete the overall public monetary assets available for greater consumption (and thus consequent GNP growth to raise the tax base), as well as for further hiring in the private sector.

 

[RobinRobyn]

The Republicans are not the party of God.

And yet they don't, which is exactly why you failed to supply any quote from any leading Republican even implying such an absurd thought.

There was supposed to be a line in there about how Republicans claim to be the Party of God.

In an October foreign policy speech, Mitt Romney said: "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will."

"Father, our heart breaks for America," Ricky Perry said at his August prayer rally, The Response. "We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government and, as a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us."

"In the Bible, in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, Christ was recognized to be the prince of peace. He was never to be recognized as the promoter of war. And he even said, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God.' He never said blessed are the war makers. It was the peacemakers that we must honor and protect," Ron Paul said at the Value Voters Summit. "Christ was very, very clear on how we should treat our enemies. And some days I think we quite frequently forget about that."

At the 2007 Value Voters debate, Paul said: "Christ to me, is a man of peace. He is for peace. He's not for war. He doesn't justify preemptive declared war. I strongly believe there is a Christian doctrine of Just War and I believe this nation has drifted from that, no matter what the rationals are, we have drifted from that and it's very, very dangerous and I see in many ways being un-Christian. And to justify what we do in the name of Christianity I think is very dangerous and not part of what Christianity is all about. Christ came here for spiritual reasons not secular war and boundaries and geography. Yet we are now dedicating so much of our aggressive activity in the name of God, but God -- He is the Prince of Peace. That is what I see from my God, and through Christ, I vote for peace."

"I felt like Moses when God said I want you to go into Egypt and lead my people out," Herman Cain said. "God has been in this since the beginning ... there are certain things that happen along this journey that they couldn't happen unless God was in it."

"This is not about gay marriage, it is about changing what is right and wrong and fundamentally changing what people of faith can say and do in society," Rick Santorum said. "The ultimate objective here is to drive faith out of the public square, to drive morality out of the laws of this country, to secularize our society with a different set of values."

"People ask me when I decided to become Catholic," said Newt Gingrich, who formally converted in 2009. "It would be more accurate to say that I gradually became Catholic and then realized that I should accept the faith that surrounded me."

He went on: "The depth of faith and history contained in the life of the Catholic Church were increasingly apparent to me. ... Slowly, over a decade, the centrality of the Eucharist in the Catholic Mass became more and more obvious to me."

"In a few months, when the smoke has cleared, those of us who are evangelical Christians are going to have a choice to make," said Rev. Robert Jeffress while introducing Gov. Rick Perry at the Value Voters Summit. "Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric, or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience, or one who is conservative out of deep conviction? Do we want a candidate who is a good moral person, or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?"

all from: Republican Presidential Candidates Talk God And Religion

And this:

"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending." &#8211;Rep. Michele Bachmann, suggesting at a presidential campaign event in Florida that the 2011 East Coast earthquake and hurricane was a message from God (Aug. 2011)

from: Dumb Michele Bachmann Quotes - Top 10 Crazy Michele Bachmann Quotes

Plus they took time out from focussing on jobs, jobs, jobs to reaffirm that "In God We Trust" was still the motto of the United States:
Republicans Shift Focus From Jobs to God : Roll Call News

 

[A2SG]

That's easy. If an insurance company takes on a new employee, they plan on paying that employee's salary from the prospective new revenue which that new employee will hopefully bring in.

New revenue? Where does this new revenue come from? Oz? Narnia? Some other magical realm outside of our economy? Or does it come from the same place tax revenue comes from: people who live and work in the US. In other words, THE ECONOMY.

A new government position for a teacher will not directly produce any extra revenue to subsidize that position.

Revenue is produced now, is it? What do you make it from?

Instead, those finances will have to come from the public at large,

As opposed to....? Oh right, Narnia.

and so further deplete the overall public monetary assets available for greater consumption (and thus consequent GNP growth to raise the tax base), as well as for further hiring in the private sector.

Because insurance companies don't take money from people who pay taxes too, they generate revenue all on their own, made from....magic beans, I'm gonna guess?

But you still failed to answer the question: why doesn't a teacher's salary contribute to the economy? Do not teachers pay bills? Do not teachers buy things? If they bleed, do they not buy band-aids?

-- A2SG, swing and a miss, but thanks for playing, Stig....

(I know I'm going to regret this....)

 

[stiggywiggy]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

That's easy. If an insurance company takes on a new employee, they plan on paying that employee's salary from the prospective new revenue which that new employee will hopefully bring in.

New revenue? Where does this new revenue come from? Oz?

Well, sure. I see no reason why a guy named Oz cannot have a new insurance policy written for him by a newly hired salesman, so that his premiums will become revenue to help pay the new salesman's salary. I'll bet Ozzie Nelson had insurance.



​

stiggy earlier: A new government position for a teacher will not directly produce any extra revenue to subsidize that position.
​

Revenue is produced now, is it?

Yes. Insurance premiums do indeed produce revenue for the insurance companies to use to help pay the wages of those who muster up said premiums.


stiggy earlier: Instead, those finances will have to come from the public at large,

As opposed to....? Oh right, Narnia.

I see no reason why someone named Narnia cannot also have an insurance policy to produce those finances necessary to pay the insurance company's new employees.

Because insurance companies don't take money from people who pay taxes too,

No, I would imagine that most people with insurance pay taxes, in addition to the money they pay insurance companies which help pay the wages of the insurance companies' employees.

they generate revenue all on their own, made from....magic beans, I'm gonna guess?

Absolutely, IF a company called "Magic Beans" buys an insurance policy which generates revenue for the insurance company.

But you still failed to answer the question: why doesn't a teacher's salary contribute to the economy?

Who said it didn't? Anyone's spent money "contributes to the economy." Maybe you forgot what we're discussing here: A newly hired teacher cannot directly produce revenue which will aid in paying the new teacher's salary; unlike a newly hired insurance salesman, who can.

-- A2SG, swing and a miss, but thanks for playing, Stig....

Those who participate in a game cannot umpire that game. If Tom Glavine attempted to call balls and strikes, he'd be laughed out of the ballpark.

 

[rturner76]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

That's easy. If an insurance company takes on a new employee, they plan on paying that employee's salary from the prospective new revenue which that new employee will hopefully bring in.




Well, sure. I see no reason why a guy named Oz cannot have a new insurance policy written for him by a newly hired salesman, so that his premiums will become revenue to help pay the new salesman's salary. I'll bet Ozzie Nelson had insurance.



​

stiggy earlier: A new government position for a teacher will not directly produce any extra revenue to subsidize that position.
​

Yes. Insurance premiums do indeed produce revenue for the insurance companies to use to help pay the wages of those who muster up said premiums.


stiggy earlier: Instead, those finances will have to come from the public at large,


I see no reason why someone named Narnia cannot also have an insurance policy to produce those finances necessary to pay the insurance company's new employees.



No, I would imagine that most people with insurance pay taxes, in addition to the money they pay insurance companies which help pay the wages of the insurance companies' employees.


Absolutely, IF a company called "Magic Beans" buys an insurance policy which generates revenue for the insurance company.



Who said it didn't? Anyone's spent money "contributes to the economy." Maybe you forgot what we're discussing here: A newly hired teacher cannot directly produce revenue which will aid in paying the new teacher's salary; unlike a newly hired insurance salesman, who can.

Those who participate in a game cannot umpire that game. If Tom Glavine attempted to call balls and strikes, he'd be laughed out of the ballpark.

Can I play? WHat if the government mandates insurance like in MN it is against the law to drive without liability insurance thereby forcing some people to pay for something they don't want. Similar to taxes. How does that fit in to all this. Government requires the purchase, the most widely available lowest rate insurance gets the policies. It's usually one or the other. Quality insurance OR low cost. I try to get somewhere in the middle good and good. My homeowners insurance doubled over two years why? Because they could do it. WHen I called all they could say was, Our underwriting department found out we could be charging you more so we are. I was sick!

 

[A2SG]

But you still failed to answer the question: why doesn't a teacher's salary contribute to the economy?

Who said it didn't? Anyone's spent money "contributes to the economy."

Okay then, you've answered my question. There is no difference to the economy if a job is in the private sector or the public one, all contribute to the economy. Thanks, Stig!

Maybe you forgot what we're discussing here: A newly hired teacher cannot directly produce revenue which will aid in paying the new teacher's salary; unlike a newly hired insurance salesman, who can.

We weren't discussing anything, Stig. I asked a question no one has been able to answer, and you affirmed my point. Thanks.

-- A2SG, appreciate the help there....

 

[stiggywiggy]

Okay then, you've answered my question. There is no difference to the economy if a job is in the private sector or the public one, all contribute to the economy.

I have no idea who answered your question by telling you that there is no difference to the economy if a job is in the private sector or the public one, since I contended just the opposite.

Thanks, Stig!

Don't thank me. Thank the guy you're getting me confused with, who is saying the opposite of what I'm saying.

We weren't discussing anything, Stig.

No. We were definitely discussing stuff on this DISCUSSION BOARD.

I asked a question no one has been able to answer,

No, I definitely answered it. You replied to the answer by saying that you'd heard it all before from me, or something like that. Did you forget that?

 

[stiggywiggy]

There was supposed to be a line in there about how Republicans claim to be the Party of God.

In an October foreign policy speech, Mitt Romney said: "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will."

"Father, our heart breaks for America," Ricky Perry said at his August prayer rally, The Response. "We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government and, as a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us."

"In the Bible, in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, Christ was recognized to be the prince of peace. He was never to be recognized as the promoter of war. And he even said, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God.' He never said blessed are the war makers. It was the peacemakers that we must honor and protect," Ron Paul said at the Value Voters Summit. "Christ was very, very clear on how we should treat our enemies. And some days I think we quite frequently forget about that."

At the 2007 Value Voters debate, Paul said: "Christ to me, is a man of peace. He is for peace. He's not for war. He doesn't justify preemptive declared war. I strongly believe there is a Christian doctrine of Just War and I believe this nation has drifted from that, no matter what the rationals are, we have drifted from that and it's very, very dangerous and I see in many ways being un-Christian. And to justify what we do in the name of Christianity I think is very dangerous and not part of what Christianity is all about. Christ came here for spiritual reasons not secular war and boundaries and geography. Yet we are now dedicating so much of our aggressive activity in the name of God, but God -- He is the Prince of Peace. That is what I see from my God, and through Christ, I vote for peace."

"I felt like Moses when God said I want you to go into Egypt and lead my people out," Herman Cain said. "God has been in this since the beginning ... there are certain things that happen along this journey that they couldn't happen unless God was in it."

"This is not about gay marriage, it is about changing what is right and wrong and fundamentally changing what people of faith can say and do in society," Rick Santorum said. "The ultimate objective here is to drive faith out of the public square, to drive morality out of the laws of this country, to secularize our society with a different set of values."

"People ask me when I decided to become Catholic," said Newt Gingrich, who formally converted in 2009. "It would be more accurate to say that I gradually became Catholic and then realized that I should accept the faith that surrounded me."

He went on: "The depth of faith and history contained in the life of the Catholic Church were increasingly apparent to me. ... Slowly, over a decade, the centrality of the Eucharist in the Catholic Mass became more and more obvious to me."

"In a few months, when the smoke has cleared, those of us who are evangelical Christians are going to have a choice to make," said Rev. Robert Jeffress while introducing Gov. Rick Perry at the Value Voters Summit. "Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric, or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience, or one who is conservative out of deep conviction? Do we want a candidate who is a good moral person, or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?"

all from: Republican Presidential Candidates Talk God And Religion

And this:

"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending." &#8211;Rep. Michele Bachmann, suggesting at a presidential campaign event in Florida that the 2011 East Coast earthquake and hurricane was a message from God (Aug. 2011)

from: Dumb Michele Bachmann Quotes - Top 10 Crazy Michele Bachmann Quotes

Plus they took time out from focussing on jobs, jobs, jobs to reaffirm that "In God We Trust" was still the motto of the United States:
Republicans Shift Focus From Jobs to God : Roll Call News

A2SG had said that the Republicans claim to be the party of God. I had asked for the name of one single leading Republican who even remotely implied such an idiotic belief. A2SG came up empty-handed. At least you tried. Thanks.

Now how about some religious quotes from Democrats? FDR had tons. MLK Jr, and even JFK often spoke of God. Then we can declare that the Dems claim to be the party of God too.

 

[Corey]

A2SG had said that the Republicans claim to be the party of God. I had asked for the name of one single leading Republican who even remotely implied such an idiotic belief. A2SG came up empty-handed. At least you tried. Thanks.

<edit> I suppose the most accurate phrasing is that leading Republicans (and many Republicans) believe themselves to be representatives of God (or God's law) as evidenced by their statements regarding how secular authorities should apply the law (e.g., marriage equality for gays and lesbians). In aggregate, that makes the Republican Party the Party of God.

 

[RobinRobyn]

A2SG had said that the Republicans claim to be the party of God. I had asked for the name of one single leading Republican who even remotely implied such an idiotic belief. A2SG came up empty-handed. At least you tried. Thanks.

You're Welcome. Republicans use God all the time, they legislate according to God, they campaign according to God, they live their private lives according to.. well, on that a lot of them fail miserably.

Now how about some religious quotes from Democrats? FDR had tons. MLK Jr, and even JFK often spoke of God. Then we can declare that the Dems claim to be the party of God too.

Democrats don't claim God dictates and guides their political views and actions like Republicans do.

 

[stiggywiggy]

You're Welcome. Republicans use God all the time, they legislate according to God,

And yet they don't, which is most likely why you didn't even attempt an example. How does one legislate "according to God?"

they campaign according to God,

I don't even know what that means. Give me at least one quote from a Republican who tells us what God allegedly told him about campaigning.

they live their private lives according to.. well, on that a lot of them fail miserably.

Yeah? And meanwhile when Democrats mention God, they live exemplary lives? Or does your self-righteous judgementalism only extend to Republicans?

Democrats don't claim God dictates and guides their political views and actions like Republicans do.

Look, man. If you ever decide to give an example of a quote from just ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN who says that God "dictates" their political views, maybe we can talk.

 

[Umaro]

Look, man. If you ever decide to give an example of a quote from just ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN who says that God "dictates" their political views, maybe we can talk.

'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

-George Bush

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | World news | The Guardian

 

[Schroeder]

Same difference. All governments: state, local or federal, are funded by tax dollars which they use to buy stuff, pay employees and fund programs.

Yes the problem is most of it is wasteful spending. And those tax dollars dont come from the government they come from PRIVATE companies.

Their paychecks go into the economy in exactly the same way an employee of a retail store or insurance company does. Teachers pay bills and buy groceries just like retail clerks do. I see no difference whatsoever.

SO your use a guilt laden ploy to make a bad point. Its funny you all always go for the guilkt emotional plea instead of plain facts. makes one wonder. THE DIFFERENCE is there spending our money not money from private companies. Its not new money created its money relocated.

Well sure. Except, of course, their manufacturing process is mostly automated. Or when its outsourced to some third world country, in which case the money is truly removed from the US economy.

boy your really strecthing it. I think your just trying to hard to make a point. their is usually a reason they leave a country, and its usually got to do with government intervention. why would they leave a country if they can make a good profit there. THEY WOULDNT.

Naturally. Except, of course, when large corporations pay ZERO taxes and, instead, get government subsidies that do nothing other than serve to beef up their profits. That money, which contributes to the wealth of individuals CEOs and isn't put back into the economy, is actually money taken out of the system and does nothing to aid our economy.

yea like GE the biggest contributer of democrates who you gladly vote for. Also oddly the one that looks good if we go environmental with everything. BUT thats off issue. Funny everything you said here was done alot by democrates just recently. sure you still want to vote that party line. Individual CEO's spend money to. WHY do seem to think their money isnt put back into the economy.

Money taken out of the system. SOOO your easily say money WE GIVE to the government and sent to companies doesnt contribute to our economy YET the same money taken from use to the government and given to other places like say teachers etc DOES contribute. DOnt see how that makes sense. money is spent however you use it.

The crooks, as you call them, aren't stealing, they're given the money by the government directly. Our tax dollars at work.

you didnt read it right. the crooks i was refering to was corporate CEOS or whatever doing things illegal. no perfect system. And its stealing from me to take my money and give it to an unconstitutional direction. companies should never be bailed out by governments. Its our tax dollars WASTED.

How does that make it a wiser investment than paying teachers, cops and fire fighters?

Dont think i said this. you all always seem to imply much into things. investment into these are fine IF they were not wasted. Its all the other things our tax dollars goes into.

First of all, paying for teachers, police officers and fire fighters also creates jobs. And second, are you saying the cost of paying teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc. isn't a wise investment?

jobs that take money from use who get it from private jobs. its recycled money not newly created money. You know saying things i didnt say doesnt ACTUALLY help your arguement. And your assuming private componies couldnt do these jobs better. NOt that i think it ever possible now for this to happen they will always be government employed now

The question is how tax money that is used to pay workers is taken out of the economy. Whether we're talking state employees like teachers or federal employees like mail carriers or secretaries makes no difference.

Well money taken through taxes is money we cannot spend. Of course this money is spend by the ones we give it too. So it goes into the economy but it isnt any new money made. Would have been spend by use if not by them, so to me it comes out as nuetral.

The people also pay for private sector jobs by buying products or services. In both cases, private sector or public, when that money is put back into the economy in the form of paychecks. What I fail to see is how some can say that money is taken out of the economy when done by government, but not when done by industry. Care to address that question?

have already. its created money verses recycled money. Or private sector money creates money and or jobs as public sector money doesnt. Yes they spend the money from paychecks but it was ours in the first place that we got from private jobs the government has STILL not created any wealth at all. Its still money from private sector jobs, when the government is to big it needs more money, but bigger is not better because when bigger they need more to get more they tax and regulate more which in turn slows private sector business. Which in turn doesnt help economy.

Um...did you not pay taxes before January 20, 2008? I did.

not sure what this has to do with what i said.

I'm sorry...could you restate that, I didn't understand. Why don't government employees contribute to the economy?

Its not there money they are spending its our money. Yes they help economy by spending OUR money.

]Governments, especially at the state level, have been slashing jobs left and right, and the private sector hasn't compensated equally. After a decade of private sector job losses, there has been some small private sector job growth lately, but nowhere near the level of job losses from the private sector or the private sector.

-- A2SG, so your reasoning seems a little questionable there.....

Yea sure tell that to those in california and new york etc. Tell that to our white house. its called stability. They do not see it from the white house. They do not want to grow when they think it will all just be taken by government growth and regulations taxes etc. Like i said bigger government needs more money they only get it through regulations and taxes. So why would i grow if it would only hurt me. Once obama is gone growth will start right away. If reelected it will crash or stay stagnant.

 

[heymikey80]

What kind of issue was it? Was it a complicated or unusual situation?

Moving a car in-state from an adjoining state. Not complicated, not unusual. They ran across the fact that my wife had entered the state months before to care for her dying parents, and had transferred her car earlier. They just couldn't let it go. Hours later, I emerged furious of both the confrontation and the waste of time.

Even in the private sector. I almost had the employees of a private insurance company try to stiff me for a rather large sum of money until I challenged them after reading their research.

Insurance sector is an issue for legal reform. There are other private insurers though. The government is inherently forcing its level of service on everything it monopolizes.

That's bad management. You should be furious at that manager for not wanting to do his job and feeding you his excuses.

And I can also do nothing about it.

Yes, he would have to actually document the reason for reporting that employee to his management for disciplinary action. Oh, no! He'd have to actually do a little investigative work. That's part of being a manager.

He would have to fill out a truckload of paper, to be stopped in its tracks by just one of his superiors being unwilling to shake up the place. And believe me, there are plenty of superiors and plenty of chances to put a stop to it. There's nothing left to do.

Yes, there may even be union involvement (they are required, by LAW, to protect the rights of all their members in disciplinary matters). The union's job is to make sure that the manager did his job correctly.

The union's job is to hold onto its members. Don't call it unbiased.

This manager didn't want to add the extra things to his to-do list, so he sold you a line of nonsense and you bought it.

It's the government. I didn't buy it: I reported what I saw on paper.

And of course, no change. It is after all the guvment, they can do things without risk or reprisal.

Is it any wonder that the people under him are so lazy?

That's when you should have kicked your complaint upstairs.

Sure did. It accomplished nothing.

In point of fact the whole issue is much more involved, with me essentially canceling subscriptions that never got to me, and joining a damaging quality assessment until of course the slackard actually started opening the quality control emails sent to me, invalidating the quality assessment.

Yeah, these guys are dirty. If they decline in size and service I count it as something else that gets subsidized that I get no service out of. I'd rather have competition for mail service, and take my business elsewhere.