• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2012 Debates

thaiboxerken said:
its wrong though. the government creates plenty of jobs.
Click to expand...

Taxing Peter's private-sector company to pay Paul's government salary doesn't create any net jobs. Just shifts things around. Which is not necessarily bad. If, for example, Paul is put to work building new roads which increase general productivity - instead of the all-too-typical government paper-shuffling job - then Paul could conceivably become a net job creator.
 
Biscuit said:
Oh my bad I had know idea you were going to cite opinion pieces from the washington post! MERCY! I SURRENDER!:rolleyes:

I'll stick with the president's words and not the opinion of people who are overtly biased against the Lion of Abbottabad.
Click to expand...

Well, it's an opinion he agrees with, you see.

;)

Biscuit said:
I am not quite sure why an opinion piece is more relevant than the president's own words in this case but suit yourself.
Click to expand...

Because he agrees with it.

RandFan said:
Yeah, odd narrative in which a president covers up a terrorist attack by taking about terrorism immediately following the attack.
Click to expand...

Of course. It's all a ploy. Like not talking about banning guns really means a conspiracy to ban guns.

Alareth said:
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in Romney attacking the President over the unemployment statistics and then insisting that the government doesn't create jobs?
Click to expand...

RudePundit's got a great piece on government job creation here.

Ziggurat said:
You're probably not the only person who thinks it's a contradiction, but it isn't. If the government isn't a job creator, that doesn't mean it can't be a job destroyer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, OK. The tank factory, Paul Ryan, and jobs.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
He'll tell us after the election ;)
Click to expand...

Since the debate, Romney and Ryan have been trying to deflect the main criticism about them (the lack of specifics) and aim it toward Obama. I've heard a couple of clips of them saying that Obama won't tell us what he's going to do for the next four years. Oh, the irony.

Steve S
 
Here's a public opinion poll in which Obama crushed Romney in the most recent debate, but I don't trust their sampling method. :D
 
Shalamar said:
A magic wad ad fairy dust.

I have to assume that, since it seems to be 'Elect me, and I'll create jobs!'
Click to expand...

So Romney's campaign is the following

1. President Obama has not created enough jobs

2. Government does not create jobs

3. Elect me president and I will create jobs

Brilliant.
 
Biscuit said:
So Romney's campaign is the following

1. President Obama has not created enough jobs

2. Government does not create jobs

3. Elect me president and I will create jobs

Brilliant.
Click to expand...

The argument is more like this:

1. Government does not create jobs, the private sector does.
2. Obama has prevented the private sector from creating enough jobs.
3. Romney will get government out of the way so that the private sector can create more jobs.

Whether or not that argument is correct (and I'm sure you don't think it is), it's still internally consistent. It's only your straw man which has internal inconsistencies.
 
Elypsis44 said:
RudePundit's got a great piece on government job creation here.



Yeah, OK. The tank factory, Paul Ryan, and jobs.
Click to expand...

To quote from the tank parable,

The military is saying let's save a little money here. Congress is saying that the jobs are more important, so let's just build totally unnecessary **** just to please defense contractors. President Obama left out the money. Congress restored it. But government doesn't create jobs, as Mitt Romney said, right?
Click to expand...

Are these the jobs Romney promises?
 
Dymanic said:
Now that the full Rose Garden transcript is on the page, I'd be fascinated to see how you would defend your earlier assertion that the President "was trying to link a number of incidents, for example Cairo plus other countries that had problems, with Benghazi."

Would you care to simply retract it instead?
Click to expand...
No.

I'll just continue to laugh at progressives attempts to paint 'binders of women' worthy of attack.
 
Ziggurat said:
The argument is more like this:

1. Government does not create jobs, the private sector does.
2. Obama has prevented the private sector from creating enough jobs.
3. Romney will get government out of the way so that the private sector can create more jobs.

Whether or not that argument is correct (and I'm sure you don't think it is), it's still internally consistent. It's only your straw man which has internal inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

And Romney will do this.. how?
 
Ziggurat said:
The argument is more like this:

1. Government does not create jobs, the private sector does.
2. Obama has prevented the private sector from creating enough jobs.
3. Romney will get government out of the way so that the private sector can create more jobs.

Whether or not that argument is correct (and I'm sure you don't think it is), it's still internally consistent. It's only your straw man which has internal inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

Even if that is his argument, and I am not certain it is, there are the following issues.

1. The first point is false.
2. The second point is false.
3. Bold claim not backed up by any actual plan.
 
AlBell said:
No.

I'll just continue to laugh at progressives attempts to paint 'binders of women' worthy of attack.
Click to expand...
So instead of either defending or retracting your claim, you opt for changing the subject?

How very Republican of you.
 
AlBell said:
No.

I'll just continue to laugh at progressives attempts to paint 'binders of women' worthy of attack.
Click to expand...

Why can't conservatives tell the difference between mockery and assault?

Also that "story" he told was a lie.
 
Government doesn't creat jobs...

  • What exactly are public sector jobs and why do they call them "jobs"?
  • Why are there statistics for "public sector" jobs if they don't exist?
  • What is the employment status of political leaders like John Bohener?
  • Why does the govt pay civil servants money?
  • Is being a civil servant a hobby?
Google dictionary said:
Job

  1. a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price: She gave him the job of mowing the lawn.
  2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position: She was seeking a job as an editor.
  3. anything a person is expected or obliged to do; duty; responsibility: It is your job to be on time.
  4. an affair, matter, occurrence, or state of affairs: to make the best of a bad job.
  5. the material, project, assignment, etc., being worked upon: The housing project was a long and costly job.
Click to expand...
"Government doesn't create jobs" is one of the dumbest memes ever. It's as idiotic as that old meme "bumble bees cannot fly". Of course government creates job. If Republicans didn't honestly believe that THEY WOULDN'T RUN FOR OFFICE.

Now, it's true that without the private sector govt doesn't fare so good in the maintenance of business and employment. The former Soviet Union and Communist China proved that quite adequately. But that does not in any way prove that govt cannot create jobs. Whether it is govt positions like diplomats or the military or whether it is service and manufacturing (not very prevalent in the US). People were employed in manufacturing and other non-governmental jobs in the former USSR whether you are honest enough to admit it or not.
 
It would be pretty silly of Romney to claim that the government doesn't create jobs when he's spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order to get a government job.
 
Biscuit said:
So how is Mitt going to create jobs?
Click to expand...


Tut-tut! Apparently, the proper question is, "How is Mitt going to prevent the destruction of jobs?" Perhaps also, "How is Mitt going to 'encourage' the private sector to create jobs?"

It seems that, in general, the only response is, "Let businesses keep more of their money."

It hasn't helped in the past, so I'm not sure how folks think it would be any different in the future. It's true that tight funds may prevent a business from hiring (assuming they can't just borrow the money they need), but it's not true that letting them have more money will cause them to create jobs.
 
Tricky said:
It would be pretty silly of Romney to claim that the government doesn't create jobs when he's spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order to get a government job.
Click to expand...

This ^

It's incredibly hypocritical... unless, he and all the Republican politicians repeating this talking point are willing to do their jobs for free and with no benefits :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom