Scott Brown sums up the bottom line of the American Right

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://prospect.org/article/horrible-gaffe-scott-brown-straightforwardly-explains-conservative-philosophy

[Modernity has failed us]

Oh, Scott Brown.

[Miles]

Congrats, Scott! You've successfully made yourself into Sharron Angle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

At least he's being honest. Most politicians act like it's in their hands to create jobs.

You're posting this like he said something controversial.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

He's trying to be Arnie Vinick. He said that almost verbatim in the West Wing Season 7 episode, "The Debate".

[Lincoln Republican]

Big deal.

The economy creates jobs, not the government.

The government is to create an environment in which the economy can thrive.

[ElectionsGuy]

Big deal.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What he said is accepted as fact by just about everyone who has ever owned a business.

[RI]

The economy creates jobs, not the government.

The government is to create an environment in which the economy can thrive.

The government is part of the economy; you can't easily separate the two. The government is more than capable of creating jobs both directly and indirectly, but such a method of creation is not the most ideal method of making jobs when other methods are readily available, and such jobs are often inferior to non-governmental jobs.

[New_Conservative]

Umm, he's right.  That was not controversial at all. The private sector creates jobs, not a Republican senator from New Hampshire.

[Indy Texas]

Scott Brown is right. The federal government has never created a single job in its entire existence and is completely powerless to do so...









And if you're a "private sector" worker for General Dynamics, Raytheon or some other military contractor, or for the federal arm of a services/consulting company like Booz Allen Hamilton or Deloitte, your job basically would not exist were it not for federal dollars creating demand for it.

[free my dawg]

lol

[King]

Owners don't create jobs either. Their consumers demanding their goods or services creates jobs.

We could give owners all the money in the world but if there is no reason for them to expand, they won't.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

What if I told you both the private sector and public sector provide goods and services that are delivered by people being paid for their work?



Mind = blown.

[RogueBeaver]

What if I told you both the private sector and public sector provide goods and services that are delivered by people being paid for their work?



Mind = blown.

[Stranger in a strange land]

What if I told you both the private sector and public sector provide goods and services that are delivered by people being paid for their work?



Mind = blown.

[nolesfan2011]

Big deal.

The economy creates jobs, not the government.

The government is to create an environment in which the economy can thrive.

I actually agree with you, but you do have to recognize public sector jobs are a normal healthy part of the economy, and a sizeable chunk of it. If you are excluding public sector jobs (which their is nothing wrong with) then yes

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Scott Brown is right. The federal government has never created a single job in its entire existence and is completely powerless to do so...

(pics of people with government jobs)

And if you're a "private sector" worker for General Dynamics, Raytheon or some other military contractor, or for the federal arm of a services/consulting company like Booz Allen Hamilton or Deloitte, your job basically would not exist were it not for federal dollars creating demand for it.

and instead there would be other jobs in other industries if those funds stayed in the private sector rather than through the IRS and the military industrial complex.   

Some government jobs are involved in the projects that allow for industry to function, but it's not enough to point to someone getting paid by the government to conclude that a net job has been created.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Owners don't create jobs either. Their consumers demanding their goods or services creates jobs.

We could give owners all the money in the world but if there is no reason for them to expand, they won't.

    So as Winfield said, it's the economy that creates jobs.

[Brittain33]

Scott Brown is right. The federal government has never created a single job in its entire existence and is completely powerless to do so...

(pics of people with government jobs)

And if you're a "private sector" worker for General Dynamics, Raytheon or some other military contractor, or for the federal arm of a services/consulting company like Booz Allen Hamilton or Deloitte, your job basically would not exist were it not for federal dollars creating demand for it.

and instead there would be other jobs in other industries if those funds stayed in the private sector rather than through the IRS and the military industrial complex.   

That is presuming there is a fixed pool of dollars in the economy which can be allocated between private and public.

In fact, not all spending and investment is created equal. Government money spent on productive work by low- and middle-class workers goes directly into the economy and is spent on private sector goods and services, whose providers spend the money again. This is the multiplier effect and it's why stimulus in a time of low demand can provide a genuine boost to the economy.

If you want to talk about the military-industrial complex, I'll counter with wasted private spending and investment that stops dollars right in their tracks--how about building McMansions in Fresno on spec, or handing millions to executives who can't possibly spend or invest it all productively.

[angus]

I am not going to create one job, it is not my job to create jobs. It's yours. My job is to make sure that government stays out of your way so that you can actually grow and expand."

This is correct.  I would assume that most people already understand this, but if they don't then it's good for Scott Brown to explain this to them.

ANGLE: As your U.S. Senator, I’m not in the business of creating jobs.

Sharon Angle said many stupid things, but this is not one of them.  The sentences following this one, however, were incorrect and it made her look stupid.  Either you believe that tripe about politicians "creating" jobs (in which case you probably also believe in the Easter Bunny), or you don't.  Scott Brown doesn't, which is commendable.  It is not clear whether Angle does, and her comments simply made her look foolish.

Of course it is disheartening when politicians prove unable to create all the jobs that they promised to create.  Oh, sure, they might give tax breaks to attract a company from one state to another, or they subsidize certain manufacturers, but all that does is shuffle jobs around.  Can any politician or candidate or CEO really "create" jobs?  That probably deserves its own thread.

The disappearance of the credit bubble has been useful in one way:  without its distortion, it has become clear that far too many Americans don't know how to do anything that the world is willing to pay them a living wage for.  Neither Keynesian nor Chicagoan theory offers them easy salvation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Scott Brown is right. The federal government has never created a single job in its entire existence and is completely powerless to do so...

(pics of people with government jobs)

And if you're a "private sector" worker for General Dynamics, Raytheon or some other military contractor, or for the federal arm of a services/consulting company like Booz Allen Hamilton or Deloitte, your job basically would not exist were it not for federal dollars creating demand for it.

and instead there would be other jobs in other industries if those funds stayed in the private sector rather than through the IRS and the military industrial complex.   

That is presuming there is a fixed pool of dollars in the economy which can be allocated between private and public.

In fact, not all spending and investment is created equal. Government money spent on productive work by low- and middle-class workers goes directly into the economy and is spent on private sector goods and services, whose providers spend the money again. This is the multiplier effect and it's why stimulus in a time of low demand can provide a genuine boost to the economy.

If you want to talk about the military-industrial complex, I'll counter with wasted private spending and investment that stops dollars right in their tracks--how about building McMansions in Fresno on spec, or handing millions to executives who can't possibly spend or invest it all productively.

Your telling me all those billions of untaxed dollars wouldn't do any good if not directed by politicians?   No, I really don't believe money magically gains a stimulative effect just because it flows through D.C. that it could never have otherwise.

[Keystone Phil]

Scott Brown says something that is generally true. Atlas Forum throws a tantrum.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your telling me all those billions of untaxed dollars wouldn't do any good if not directed by politicians?   No, I really don't believe money magically gains a stimulative effect just because it flows through D.C. that it could never have otherwise.

The stimulative effect of money comes from it flowing, not from it merely sitting somewhere.  While far from the only tool to accomplish the task, and not always the best tool for doing so, government taxation and spending is one means by which the total flow of money in the economy is increased.

[Brittain33]

Your telling me all those billions of untaxed dollars wouldn't do any good if not directed by politicians?  

No, I'm telling you it does less good going into Paris Hilton's vaults than when it is directed to people who earn less so spend more of their income.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Economics is hard, isn't it?