It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Government does not make jobs!

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:12 PM
Read the title, it says a lot in very few words. I was reading the discussion about how too many people here in the U.S. have to be on SNAP and thought that I should bring this up, but it didn't seem like I should derail that thread with this. So here it is, our chance to discuss our different opinions about if the U.S. government creates jobs.

Obviously, I do not think that the government creates jobs. I also don't that that should be the purpose of the government. I mean sure, the government creates "government jobs," but that just adds to our federal spending. Government does not create the majority of jobs in America, those would be "private" jobs.

It would seem that many of us here on ATS believe that it is the government's fault that there are so many people who are in need of things like foodstamps. But if the government doesn't make the jobs then how is it their fault that there aren't enough of them?

Some would argue the "too much regulations on businesses" angle but those people are wrong. What many of us fail to accept is that in the eyes of our government, big businesses and small business are two very different entities.

Too many regulations on business... Do you mean small business? That I can agree with entirely. However, larger businesses who can afford to convince politicians to push for laws that benefit them are nowhere near as regulated and have many more loopholes available to them than the majority of small business can even dream of.

Every time I see a discussion here on ATS about this kind of thing you have people defending large businesses tooth and nail. Making claims that if you put regulations on those larger businesses you are contributing to crippling all of us, while mostly ignoring the fact that small business already have tons of regulations and rules they are required to follow.

A lot of these things like Obamacare don't hurt the big business at all but they damn sure affect the small business. You'll never hear me argue otherwise, no matter how "socialist" or liberal some of you would like to believe I am. I know Obamacare is bad for small businesses, but this ain't about that anyway, it's about how government doesn't create jobs. What the government does do is "regulate" jobs and prevent small businesses from being created while working with big businesses. Now I know that Obamacare applies to pretty much all business including the big ones but what people can't do is tell me how it's bad for larger businesses, all they keep saying is that it isn't "fair" but while making such an argument they are failing to accept that life ain't fair.

But lets not waste too much time talking about that crap... Like I said, I don't want this to be about Obamacare, there's already tons of threads about that.

So the big thing for me is that it seems as if many of my fellow Americans think that the government creates jobs, when it actually does nothing of the sort. A while ago I commented that the government prevents small business from being created. This is a true statement. It doesn't matter who you are or which side of the political table you prefer to sit on, none of you can provide a reasonable argument to suggest that the government in it's current state, including both liberal and conservative politicians, isn't preventing small businesses from being created. You also can't prove that it doesn't seem to favor larger businesses.

So with hat being said, I simply cannot see how the government is in any way, shape, form, or fashion helping to create jobs. It would seem that it is doing the exact opposite. This is a conspiracy site and I do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that our government is doing everything that it can to help out its big business buddies, which ultimately leads to destroying small business competition. Those big business people pay the politicians, so why wouldn't the politicians want them to have more money?

So it is true that we have far too many poor here in the states right now but it is not for the fact that the government isn't creating enough jobs. The government isn't supposed to create jobs, that's not its responsibility. One of its responsibilities should be to ensure that the people of the nation aren't harming one another. But by backing big business while helping to push small business out of town, it damn sure isn't doing that.

I've never heard of a small business that has been "bailed out." I hear of a lot of that happening for big ones though. If a small business fails then it fails, bottom line, end of story. Why should a large business not be expected to be treated the same?

Unlike many of you, I would not oppose the government actually helping to make jobs. One way this could be done is by learning to accept that very large businesses and corporations are not the same as small businesses and to put them into separate categories with different rules. I would propose that we remove some of the crazy regulation on small business and add some to the bigger ones so that they are not allowed to essentially screw the people as hard as they currently do.

We could prevent off-shoring but many Americans scream the word "socialism " when someone such as myself makes such a suggestion. The government should step in at some point. If you're going to run a business in this country then you're going to run a business IN this country. If you do not like the fact that while you're still making much more money than any "average" American is by hiring fellow Americans to work for your company than you are free to look for a different line of work. Nobody should be telling us what kind of work we should be doing, if we don't like our job than it should be up to us to find something else, so if some rich business dude doesn't like the fact that by employing Americans he will not make as much money as he would like to be doing then he is completely free to find a different line of work, just like all of us. How does that hurt the country? How is it unfair? It doesn't and it isn't!

If we made it unprofitable for a company to off shore jobs then there would be a lot more jobs in America and, in a way, the government would be helping to "create" jobs. There are also tons of stupid rules that prevent jobs from being made int his country. Industrial hemp...

The bottom line is that we can't complain that we have so many poor because the government isn't making enough job because that isn't what the government does in the first place. However, we can complain that by aligning with larger businesses and doing more than it should to ensure that they remain in power, the government IS a leading cause for why there are so many poor people in America.

We shouldn't expect for the government to make jobs, that sounds kind of "socialist" to me. What we should expect is for the government to leave us alone and let jobs make themselves while also not "picking favorites." Just imagine how many jobs could be created if we only did two things: make off-shoring pointless, and industrial hemp was no longer illegal. There is A LOT more that could be done but I'm just saying... those are two very small examples of how to bring back jobs. What's wrong with that?

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:43 PM
long post there
the govt...the entrusted governors we elected...the middleman
the governors or people suggest a project which requires workers
they huddle and say yes or no to using the funds we entrust to them
a yes's your taxes back now go out and produce it as we agree its good to go
a no taxes for this project as it's your taxes we are going to hold for better idea's
the governors need more help to do this middleman project
so they hire..isn't that job creation
the yea on a project produces need of workers...job creation too

but yeah...word play
and how far we have drifted from it's core at inception

we the sheeple for the sheeple as controlled by the sheepherders

edit on 24-11-2012 by lasvegasteddy because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2012 by lasvegasteddy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:47 PM
in short
they decided they need more help to be government
they huddled
they now offer more government jobs...those precious lil fema corps,dhs and tsa comes to mind
edit on 24-11-2012 by lasvegasteddy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 04:27 PM
I completely agree with your viewpoints, and they sound like they are not partisan, which is a bonus! No, I don't think the government creates jobs, either. Or makes money off of people who pay taxes on government jobs. Well, okay, the government creates jobs but it pays for them.

The only kind of jobs that will help the federal budget would be private jobs. And there should be policies in place that promote small-business owners and the middle-class.

As it is now, small-business owners and the middle class have to take a lot of hate from both Republicans and Democrats - this is not good for our country. The middle-class is where it's at.

It seems like liberals these days actually attack a lot of middle-class values, specifically solid family units (gay or straight) and long-term relationships, and I've even heard hate about people who earn more than $50,000-$100,000 a year. Ridiculous.

Our goal as a nation should not be to make everyone poor, our goal should be to improve the middle-class.

I am eventually going to make a thread on how destroying the middle-class is actually straight from Marx "Communist Manifesto" which I am reading at the moment.

edit on 24-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by darkbake

That's because I am non partisan

I'm very interested to see what you have to say when you finish with that reading because I've always thought that the (R) and (D) both seem like they are trying to destroy the country more than anything. An example would be of the ( gay or straight ) issue that you mention. Both sides can't stop fighting over it and I'm pretty sure that if the (R) would just say

"okay, you know what, it doesn't affect us in any way, we think you're going to burn in hell for it but if you don't think so than go ahead and have fun in hell."

In my opinion gay couples can be perfectly normal middle class families as well. The only difference is their sexual preference.

That being said, the whole gay rights issue does seem to be heading in the same direction as the feminists did and I don't think many of us want that, just look at the average girl claiming to be "feminist" now... just as bad as one of those crazy evangelicals that keep telling me I'm going to Hell because I'm not one of them, if you ask me.

Things like who can or can't get married and the products we can or can't use shouldn't even be a political issue, they have no place in politics and I think that religion in politics is one of the big reason why people haven't accepted that yet.

I think that guys like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have a point when they tell us that if we're too busy arguing over what other people should and should not do in the privacy of their own home, that we are never going to get anything done.
edit on 24-11-2012 by Anundeniabletruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:17 PM
Yeah, I think we are on the same page - it makes a whole lot of sense. It's too bad that we are having this conversation by ourselves.

See, feminism, in my opinion, has destroyed the nuclear family - the only people that are going to survive that disaster are probably going to be the Church of Latter-Day-Saints. For various reasons, the way their organization is set up allows for scientific thought but has a strong safety shield protecting them from the decaying society around them.

Feminism could have been approached in many different ways, all of which could have helped women. But the way it was approached resulted in most of the girls I know raising 2-3 kids on their own while working full-time and changing boyfriends on a regular basis (this is not a hyperbole).

new topics

top topics

log in