Ron Paul

Can someone explain to me how the fuck a president, whose main purpose is to sign legislation and make nice speeches, managed to "create jobs"?

It's true. No part of the government can create jobs no matter how hard they try. Industry has to create jobs and since we have no industry, there are no jobs.

What do you guys think of him?

Personally, I don't agree with his views on abortion or gay marriage or the separation of church and state. However, I think his views on non-interference would help the country in the long run.

What are your thoughts?

I half like him.  Maybe even five-eighths like him, another quarter "I don't know" and a one-eighth "He seems over the top on some stuff."  A Paul presidency would be an interesting experiment but then that makes us  guinea pigs.   In short, I'm undecided.

"Experiments" on such a large scale, in an established society, doesn't sound appealing to me.

Exactly.  Let's not give up on more clarification or reassurance quite yet, though.  I think he could be the only guy willing to take on entitlements.  I'd like to know more.

Quote from: Blanko on January 11, 2012, 11:24:08 AM

Can someone explain to me how the fuck a president, whose main purpose is to sign legislation and make nice speeches, managed to "create jobs"?

It's true. No part of the government can create jobs no matter how hard they try. Industry has to create jobs and since we have no industry, there are no jobs.

Lol, are you really saying the government can't employ people?

Lol, are you really saying the government can't employ people?

Yes, the government can employ people, but the government itself doesn't actually generate income. Government officials get paid through tax dollars which come from the private sector.

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on January 11, 2012, 01:34:17 PM

Lol, are you really saying the government can't employ people?

Yes, the government can employ people, but the government itself doesn't actually generate income. Government officials get paid through tax dollars.

Perhaps, but we were talking about job growth and the federal government is the largest employer in the US so saying the no government can create jobs is very incorrect.

Perhaps, but we were talking about job growth and the federal government is the largest employer in the US so saying the no government can create jobs is very incorrect.

But they're not "real" jobs. They don't generate revenue, so it doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it. So, no, the government cannot create jobs. That's actually pretty bad if the federal government employs more people than the private sector.

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on January 11, 2012, 02:04:02 PM

Perhaps, but we were talking about job growth and the federal government is the largest employer in the US so saying the no government can create jobs is very incorrect.

But they're not "real" jobs. They don't generate revenue, so it doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it. So, no, the government cannot create jobs. That's actually pretty bad if the federal government employs more people than the private sector.

Um... no. The employees generate salaries, which they spend in the private sector. The only people who can afford to just hoard money are the already-rich, the ones that are apparently meant to use it to create jobs for no reason.

Um... no. The employees generate salaries, which they spend in the private sector. The only people who can afford to just hoard money are the already-rich, the ones that are apparently meant to use it to create jobs for no reason.

They get paid, if that's what you're referring to. Where do you think the money actually comes from? Government jobs DO NOT generate money. They can't by definition. It's basic economics.

For a government to give something to someone, it has to take it from someone else.

Quote from: heresis on January 11, 2012, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on January 11, 2012, 02:04:02 PM

Perhaps, but we were talking about job growth and the federal government is the largest employer in the US so saying the no government can create jobs is very incorrect.

But they're not "real" jobs. They don't generate revenue, so it doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it. So, no, the government cannot create jobs. That's actually pretty bad if the federal government employs more people than the private sector.

Um... no. The employees generate salaries, which they spend in the private sector. The only people who can afford to just hoard money are the already-rich, the ones that are apparently meant to use it to create jobs for no reason.

If taxpayers weren't paying the salaries of government workers, they would be spending it on the private sector, so it doesn't make a difference.

Quote from: General Douchebag on January 11, 2012, 02:25:40 PM

Um... no. The employees generate salaries, which they spend in the private sector. The only people who can afford to just hoard money are the already-rich, the ones that are apparently meant to use it to create jobs for no reason.

They get paid, if that's what you're referring to. Where do you think the money actually comes from? Government jobs DO NOT generate money. They can't by definition. It's basic economics.

For a government to give something to someone, it has to take it from someone else.

How does a job "generate" money as opposed to taking it from someone else?

Quote from: General Douchebag on January 11, 2012, 02:25:40 PM

Quote from: heresis on January 11, 2012, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on January 11, 2012, 02:04:02 PM

Perhaps, but we were talking about job growth and the federal government is the largest employer in the US so saying the no government can create jobs is very incorrect.

But they're not "real" jobs. They don't generate revenue, so it doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it. So, no, the government cannot create jobs. That's actually pretty bad if the federal government employs more people than the private sector.

Um... no. The employees generate salaries, which they spend in the private sector. The only people who can afford to just hoard money are the already-rich, the ones that are apparently meant to use it to create jobs for no reason.

If taxpayers weren't paying the salaries of government workers, they would be spending it on the private sector, so it doesn't make a difference.

Unless they're wealthy enough that they would simply hoard the extra income rather than spending it. That's why increased taxes on the wealthy have generally stimulated economies (public jobs for poor people so more money gets spent in the private sector, and more incentive for the wealthy to increase productivity to both meet demand and to make more money, hence necessitating hiring more employees and creating more jobs) while taxing the poor more heavily causes it to stagnate (rich people don't spend money, poor people can't, no money moves around)

Quote from: General Douchebag on January 11, 2012, 02:25:40 PM

Um... no. The employees generate salaries, which they spend in the private sector. The only people who can afford to just hoard money are the already-rich, the ones that are apparently meant to use it to create jobs for no reason.

They get paid, if that's what you're referring to. Where do you think the money actually comes from? Government jobs DO NOT generate money. They can't by definition. It's basic economics.

For a government to give something to someone, it has to take it from someone else.

Nothing generates money other than printing it, and if we all did that the economy would be fucked. Where do you think the private sector gets that money from, the Tooth Fairy?

Quote from: hoppy on January 11, 2012, 10:44:33 AM

If you guys think the politicians want to fix things, you are wrong. Things are progressing just as they want them to. Your votes matter not at all to them, except for the fact that they want you to have fun while debating issues and candidates.

Yes, hoppy, you've got it all figured out.  You're so much smarter than everyone else.

hoppy 4 prezidnt

They get paid, if that's what you're referring to. Where do you think the money actually comes from? Government jobs DO NOT generate money. They can't by definition. It's basic economics.

...And can you give me an instance of a private sector job that "generates money"?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 11, 2012, 09:31:10 AM

Weren't you just complaining about how Obama folded on the NDAA's liberty issue so that he could pass his bill reducing the defense budget? The senate embedded that small provision into that larger financial bill, giving him a choice. He could either veto it and fail to reduce the military expenditures (giving Republicans and propaganda machines more ammunition for him "not doing anything about the war"), or veto it to protect the rights of suspected terrorists.

I should have been more specific. He said he would veto the bill if it still contained language that would allow indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or conviction. He didn't. That is treason, period.

Actually, its called changing his mind. It was his decision to make as Commander and Chief, although I was pissed about it like many other people on this board.
If you bothered to look up treason for the federal US, you'd have seen this:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 11, 2012, 09:31:10 AM

Secondly, please demonstrate how the effects of the bad economy are only most pressing now. As I see it, you're just critical of Obama taking a vacation at all. Any time he decided on could be scrutinized for being during a bad economy.

The bad economy has been a pressing issue since 2009.

Without necessarily agreeing with that date, I'm still glad you concede my point.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy

Note "Job Creation" in the title.

And how do you think they tally those figures? By adding up the people currently receiving unemployment benefits and comparing it to previous months. Numbers are fun.

Stop pretending to know things.

The reason the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't tally job availability that way is because, as you pointed out, unemployed people don't necessarily get paid unemployment. In reality, data for the BED are generated from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), working in tandem with all legally performed payroll records, business registration, and taxable income.

How does a job "generate" money as opposed to taking it from someone else?

Because governments don't sell goods and services. Everyone on the government's payroll gets paid through taxes that come from businesses (and other places: roads, gas, etc) that sell goods and offer services (or generate revenue). If these businesses are not producing and selling their wares then the government does not receive money to pay their employees. The government itself cannot generate an income on its own, it is dependent on others. The bigger the federal government the more money that is needed to keep it running until eventually it gets to the point where the industry of the nation can't sustain the size of the government. What is so hard to understand about this?

Actually, its called changing his mind. It was his decision to make as Commander and Chief, although I was pissed about it like many other people on this board.
If you bothered to look up treason for the federal US, you'd have seen this:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I'd consider indefinite detention without charge or conviction, which is unconstitutional, an act of war by a tyrannical government. Or at the very least, a human rights violation.

governments don't sell goods and services

Um... What about the emergency services? And roads and everything else the government does (I don't know what's private or not in the US)? Those are services, which you pay for in tax.

What the Hell is all this crap about indefinite detention of US citizens? That law is very specific in saying it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Um... What about the emergency services? And roads and everything else the government does (I don't know what's private or not in the US)? Those are services, which you pay for in tax.

Any government program or service is bought and paid for by tax dollars, including social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, unemployment insurance, road construction and maintenance (which is why toll roads don't make much sense to me), health insurance starting 2014, and so on. Without people to tax, the government is broke. Without being able to sell goods or services, the people are broke, so in turn, the government is broke because there is no money for them to tax.

What the Hell is all this crap about indefinite detention of US citizens? That law is very specific in saying it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Uh, no, it actually says the opposite. NDAA Section 1021 titled "Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF" allows the detention of US citizens "without trial until the end of hostilities". That is in direct violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights granting a "speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." As bad as that is, no one is asking why such language is in a budget bill.

Quote from: General Douchebag on January 12, 2012, 01:29:55 AM

Um... What about the emergency services? And roads and everything else the government does (I don't know what's private or not in the US)? Those are services, which you pay for in tax.

Any government program or service is bought and paid for by tax dollars, including social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, unemployment insurance, road construction and maintenance (which is why toll roads don't make much sense to me), health insurance starting 2014, and so on. Without people to tax, the government is broke. Without being able to sell goods or services, the people are broke, so in turn, the government is broke because there is no money for them to tax.

That's exactly the same as the private sector. The only difference is that privately you pay for every product/service individually at point of sale while you pay the government annually in your taxes (which is usually cheaper, in my little experience).

What the Hell is all this crap about indefinite detention of US citizens? That law is very specific in saying it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Quote from: rooster on January 07, 2012, 07:49:39 PM

Quote from: Wendy on January 07, 2012, 07:13:58 PM

Any trial at all is better than no trial. Also, you still haven't provided a good reason for why they don't have the right to a trial.

Then it seems the only difference between us is that I don't care about all the red tape.

I never said they don't have a right to a trial, I just don't think they need a trial to be held during hostilities.

Once again, you're making the mistake of debating (and being angry at, Dann) someone who doesn't care over much either way.

You're making the mistake of getting involved in a debate you don't care about with someone far more knowledgeable about the laws of your country than you are, it seems.

Also, the quote saying that it doesn't apply to US citizens is bogus. The quote from section 1021 reads as follows:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

However, this refers only to section 1021, and does not forbid the detention of anyone as long as it's not US soil.

Section 1022 is often also pointed to as protecting rights, referring to a point stating that indefinite detention without trial for terror is not required for US citizens, but that's it. It's not required, it's just totally possible.

Then we have the signing statement, notably this section:
"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

"My Administration" won't make you disappear.
"My Administration" won't detain/murder you like we did with Awlaki.
"My Administration" had better get a second term to fix this shit, because fuck knows Romney or Gingrich would come in swinging.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I'd consider indefinite detention without charge or conviction, which is unconstitutional, an act of war by a tyrannical government. Or at the very least, a human rights violation.

I will drop this line of inquiry given our mutual dissatisfaction only differs in semantic use of  terminology and respective definitions.

Based on your lack of rebuttal, may I assume you concede the point about 22 months of steady job growth under the Obama administration?

That's exactly the same as the private sector. The only difference is that privately you pay for every product/service individually at point of sale while you pay the government annually in your taxes (which is usually cheaper, in my little experience).

You have no idea how governments work. I've tried to explain it at least three or four times and for some reason the explanation seems to elude you. Without industry, the government has no money to tax. Period. Therefore, the government cannot turn a profit, it's impossible unless they're licensing and selling t-shirts outside the White House (I kid). It's not possible. This is not rocket science.

Then it seems the only difference between us is that I don't care about all the red tape.

I never said they don't have a right to a trial, I just don't think they need a trial to be held during hostilities.

Once again, you're making the mistake of debating (and being angry at, Dann) someone who doesn't care over much either way.

I will drop this line of inquiry given our mutual dissatisfaction only differs in semantic use of  terminology and respective definitions.

Based on your lack of rebuttal, may I assume you concede the point about 22 months of steady job growth under the Obama administration?

I guess I have to concede your point, but it still doesn't make Obama an ideal candidate in my view. He dragged his feet getting the troops out of Iraq, he dragged his feet closing Gitmo, he supported the illegal PATRIOT Act, he voted for NDAA when he promised he would veto it, it was under him that Fast and Furious happened, etc.

And I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I hate both parties equally.

You have no idea how governments work. I've tried to explain it at least three or four times and for some reason the explanation seems to elude you. Without industry, the government has no money to tax. Period. Therefore, the government cannot turn a profit, it's impossible unless they're licensing and selling t-shirts outside the White House (I kid). It's not possible. This is not rocket science.

I don't think anyone has a problem understanding that specific point.  What we're confused about is how this justifies the distinction from jobs in the private sector that "generate income."  Money always comes from another source.  If I have a job in the private sector, I make money from the customers who spend it with me.  Without customers to sell my goods or services to, I would have no money to earn.  Therefore, my job does not "generate income"?

You'd still have 'wealth' though in either goods or the potential of wealth in services offered?  I think his point is that if we take the definition of government as an abstract, it cannot create 'wealth.'  People working in government should not be confused with government unless we want to redefine terms.  What we need here is an econ major to set us all straight.

Quote from: Lorddave on January 12, 2012, 03:27:08 AM

What the Hell is all this crap about indefinite detention of US citizens? That law is very specific in saying it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Quote from: General Douchebag on January 08, 2012, 08:46:08 AM

Quote from: rooster on January 07, 2012, 07:49:39 PM

Quote from: Wendy on January 07, 2012, 07:13:58 PM

Any trial at all is better than no trial. Also, you still haven't provided a good reason for why they don't have the right to a trial.

Then it seems the only difference between us is that I don't care about all the red tape.

I never said they don't have a right to a trial, I just don't think they need a trial to be held during hostilities.

Once again, you're making the mistake of debating (and being angry at, Dann) someone who doesn't care over much either way.

You're making the mistake of getting involved in a debate you don't care about with someone far more knowledgeable about the laws of your country than you are, it seems.

Also, the quote saying that it doesn't apply to US citizens is bogus. The quote from section 1021 reads as follows:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

However, this refers only to section 1021, and does not forbid the detention of anyone as long as it's not US soil.

Section 1022 is often also pointed to as protecting rights, referring to a point stating that indefinite detention without trial for terror is not required for US citizens, but that's it. It's not required, it's just totally possible.

Then we have the signing statement, notably this section:
"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

"My Administration" won't make you disappear.
"My Administration" won't detain/murder you like we did with Awlaki.
"My Administration" had better get a second term to fix this shit, because fuck knows Romney or Gingrich would come in swinging.

I read it as:
We can hold, without trial, any non-American(or legal resident) caught anyplace other than the US.

Quote from: Lorddave on January 12, 2012, 03:27:08 AM

What the Hell is all this crap about indefinite detention of US citizens? That law is very specific in saying it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Uh, no, it actually says the opposite. NDAA Section 1021 titled "Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF" allows the detention of US citizens "without trial until the end of hostilities". That is in direct violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights granting a "speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." As bad as that is, no one is asking why such language is in a budget bill.

Yeah, section (e) begs to differ:

AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.

So all of Subtitle D has absolutely nothing to do with US citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or anyone captured/arrested in the US. 

Essentially it says "We can fuck up anyone else's citizens as long as they're somewhere else".

Also:
The senate bill didn't have this (because it shouldn't) so I blame the republicans for putting this shit in.

Quote from: General Douchebag on January 12, 2012, 11:23:11 AM

That's exactly the same as the private sector. The only difference is that privately you pay for every product/service individually at point of sale while you pay the government annually in your taxes (which is usually cheaper, in my little experience).

You have no idea how governments work. I've tried to explain it at least three or four times and for some reason the explanation seems to elude you. Without industry, the government has no money to tax. Period. Therefore, the government cannot turn a profit, it's impossible unless they're licensing and selling t-shirts outside the White House (I kid). It's not possible. This is not rocket science.

Without individuals earning salaries, industry has nobody to make money from. Period. I can't understand why you seem to think that the private sector is just drawing wealth from the aether and government is destroying it, in reality the money is just circulating between the two. A cop gets his salary from taxes and spends it in the private sector. Their profits are then taxed by the government and used to pay the salary. At what point is wealth being magicked into reality in the private sector and destroyed in the public sector?

drawing wealth from the aether

So that's how John makes money...

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy

I will drop this line of inquiry given our mutual dissatisfaction only differs in semantic use of  terminology and respective definitions.

Based on your lack of rebuttal, may I assume you concede the point about 22 months of steady job growth under the Obama administration?

I guess I have to concede your point, but it still doesn't make Obama an ideal candidate in my view. He dragged his feet getting the troops out of Iraq, he dragged his feet closing Gitmo, he supported the illegal PATRIOT Act, he voted for NDAA when he promised he would veto it, it was under him that Fast and Furious happened, etc.

To be fair, Fast Five was a pretty great movie.

Quote from: General Douchebag on January 13, 2012, 03:41:16 PM

drawing wealth from the aether

So that's how John makes money...

He has to fund the site somehow, even if it does destabilise reality.