Oh so true.

Fact or fiction?

Clever!

"Government doesn't create jobs" Mitt Romney (aka Roadkill)

While Mr. Romney's statement " That government doesn't create jobs." is correct, it doesn't follow that government cannot hinder job creation.

Not so. If it can't create jobs then it has no control over job creation or the lack of. Unless you were to think about all of the corporate welfare that government hands out. Does that create jobs? If not then lets put a stop to it right now. Think Romney would be behind no corporate deductions? It's a give away with no return right?

Really? Mr. O. stopped the Keystone pipeline and all the jobs that would come with it. Does that mean that if he had allowed it, that he would have "created" those jobs? No it does not.

However if I use your line of reasoning, I can now understand Elizabeth Warren's "You didn't build that" concept, that President O plagiarized.

I can see that if a person believes in an omnipotent government how your logic could, or perhaps must follow.

Deduct your mortgage interest?
The massive corp deduction for R&D?
Interest on a yacht or motor home?
Small businesses a tax break?
If none of these govt actions leads to job creation as they were designed to do then we should get rid of them all. Deductions and subsidies are anti-capitalism.
In fact your Keystone pipeline is heavily dependant upon govt susidies. Look it up.

Romney would have made more sense if he called for a flat tax and no deductions or subsidies for anybody or anything. Of course then we'd hear from the fat cats "Fund it with my own money? Are you kidding?".

A government levies taxes, many of which provide a disincentive to invest and thus hurts employment. Now the government that levied the taxes elects to return some of the money by means of a tax cut, or targeted deductions. Hopefully some industries can now find incentive to hire new workers, and you will say that government has created those jobs. It's almost as if you assume that the money that was taken in taxes was the governments to begin with.

"You didn't build that."

It's Bush's fault!

"targeted deductions"

Targeted at what? Creating jobs right? Romney, and you, use warped logic. You both believe that the hand out should be kept whether jobs were created or not and if jobs were created it wasn't because of the hand out.
"and you will say that government has created those jobs" Absolutely! You seem to argue that the jobs would be created with or without the govt hand out. If so then you would also have to agree there was no need for a hand out in the first place and those dollars should be returned to the tax payer. There are reasons Romney isn't president. This is one of them.

This would mean the Solyndra’s executives need to pay back the bonuses recieved to the tax payers right? After all it was stimulas monies..

Stlhead has logic that only works if you say the govern created the money. It is not a handout when they take 36% of someones income as opposed to 40%. That 4% less they come in and take because they can is not a handout or welfare you jacka$$. I have attempted many times to explain it to you without success so wont beat the dead and dumb horse.

That logic does play good in liberalland though. Not to be confused with legoland where things are actually get built.

What if "they" take 0% of a corporations income, then send out a tax refund and award subsidies? Still no handouts? You sir are an idiot.

Idiot number 2: Tariffs are between countries with unequal and even non-capitalistic versus capitalistic economies and other currencies controlled in other ways. For instance when China flooded our market with cheap tires. If there were global capitalism using the same currency then yes tariffs would be anti-capitalistic. And yes propping up solar power, or any other energy or the real estate/construction market, etc is manipulating prices (supply and demand) and anti-capitalism.

You dolts don't realize you are agreeing that govt does in fact create jobs.

You have come very close to describing the EITC.

And by the way, those who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

dont forget, you are talking to someone who lives in a stone house and throws glass



jfc...

Noted

WTF? Ok number 3 has chimed in. EITC is on the same par as corporate welfare. Wow!

BTW, if you haven't deduced it yet I am all for a flat tax with zero deductions including the earned income tax credit, or the interest on a second home, or a corp's R&D, etc, etc. Everyone pays their taxes. Everyone and every company on a level playing field.

I find it amusing that you seem amazed by your own conclusions.

Our main problem with China is past currency manipulation which has always been a reason to impose tariffs. There are over 12,000 tariffs. Are you advocating removing them all? A further move into a global economy only at a larger disadvantage? Maybe you need to re-read what I wrote?

The tariff you picked out of those 12,000+ is meant to keep production of solar panels alive in this country. Will it work? Probably not.

"The U.S. International Trade Commission found, in a 6-0 vote, that U.S. solar-panel makers had been injured by illegal dumping from Chinese competitors, clearing the way for the Commerce Department to order tariffs. "

BTW, we've had small scale trade war with China for some time now. The guy you voted for wanted to turn it into an all out war but it sounds like you've flip flopped on that.

"Does it make any sense at all to get into a trade war with them when they can stop buying our stuff and wait us out?"

Who said that? Oh it was you. Flip flopping again?

So - are you promoting or arguing against tariffs ?