Debate: Should Obama get his second term?
Side: No

I think you contradicted yourself.I'm sure you think that, but your still wrong.If the creation of jobs is interchangeable with the creation of wealth, then it must follow that the government creates jobs (and wealth) whenever it creates new organisationsAnswer these questions.How is government funded? Does government possess any assets without taxation? Does government have any financial spending power without taxation?Government is funded by private citizens in an capitalist economy. Government has no assets so none of the taxation is generated by its own means.Those are not transferred jobs because there was never a private sector equivalent.There is no transfer because government prohibits these types of jobs to the provided by private sector through law.They produce technologies and monuments which are too expensive for corporations to createAgain, you only presume government is the only entity that can provide certain services. The private sector may be unable to provide a service because of the laws prohibiting competition such as NASA or USPS.All of the employees who work at NASA or Defense, whose money is it that they are using? Are these organizations self funded through their own personal money?, No because the employees whom work at these places are funded by taxation, who is paid by private citizens. Government employees taxes are just recycled into the system because their source of money came from the private sector. It is government taking from private citizens.Taxation takes surplus wealth from producers and uses it to fund the creation of these things.There is no such as as surplus wealth. If government accounts for 40% of the 100% of the economy, that means that 60% of the economy must provide for 100% of the people because 40% is being transferred from private to public.For instance, lets say I am a private citizen and you are government. I produce 100 dollars of the entire economy in our world for 100% of the population, so you impose a tax of 5%, so now I only have 95 dollars. Next, you say that you will create more jobs. Where are you going to get it? Well, me because you don't possess any assets. So, you impose a tax of 10%, now, I only have 90 dollars. Now, you want more government jobs, impose 25%, now, I only have 75 dollars. Now, I have to support our economy on only 75 dollars where it was 100 because 25 are being diverted to the public sector.The great depression was caused by insider trading and corruption of the stock market.No, The Great Depression was caused by failure in central bankers. MiltonMiltonIf the market works like Natural Selection, and businesses behave like animals, then Keynesian policy would merely be that which applies artificial pressure to the evolution of business. If this is true, then it follows that the market's behaviours can be changed to correct social problems like unemployment.This only shows your lack of knowledge of Keynesian economics. It is not about fixing social problems.If this is true, then private businesses may never create a net addition to employment opportunities because they produce a heavier burden on other private businesses and employees, because a private business "charges money for a service (same as tax), borrows money (loans), and prints coupons (similar to printing money practically)."OH MY GOD. Anyway. What Next?What I would be interested in hearing is how a tax is different from a sale, practically speaking. I'm not interested in how you're compelled to pay tax, because force is irrelevant to the immediate equation, which is the creation of jobs (and wealth) through the trading of money.Because private entrepreneurs use their own money by saving and invest or if they borrow money, then they pay it back, government doesn't use its own money because it doesn't have any of its own, so any money it borrows, neither are they paying it back with your own money, that burden is put onto the shoulders of taxpayers.For instance, if a man wants to sell lemonade, he will get a loan from somewhere of 5 dollars. So, over the course of the summer, the man makes 15 dollars in revenue, but he must pay back the 5 dollars in loan, and now he has a profit of 10 dollars where he created new wealth and a job.However, if government wants to sell lemonade, it must tax the man 5 dollars because it can't invest in anyone that of which it does not own because that is what it cost him to produce, so now, the child only only has a profit of 5 dollars, so the output is still 15 dollars, but it was transferred from private to public sector. Then, the 5 dollars that the government took, he could have reinvested and hired a partner to grow.In the discussion about economics, what matters is that money changes hands.And that money is who does the money belong to.Those state sales permits and laws which prohibit business startup are usually motivated by business interests who wish to stifle competitors.This is what I have been saying time and time again.It's how capitalism works in democracy.It's how corporatism works in democracy.Right. We also needed it, since our healthcare coverage is so poor in this country.Healthcare coverage is so poor because it is rationed care not driven by market forces, but you want government run health care where even more ration care will emerge.If you wanted more expensive coverage, that is what you got. Congrats.Government-funded research exists because most research is costly and unprofitable to the private market.Never said that it is for only profit market. Research should be non profit.Mayo Clinic is one of the most respected nonprofit medical research organizations in the world.Polio's researchers and early efforts to make a vaccine used a similar lack of ethics: 3000 children were injected with an unsuccessful mixture which caused allergic reactions in some of them.Well, they cured Polio. BUTYour going to cry over the few for the many. REMEMBER YOU ARE A BIG ADVOCATE FOR GREATER GOOD.Polio was a life threatening disease, and it is gone.government takes over where private industry would fail or be less successful.There is nowhere where government has done better than private industry if so, because government has no competition, NASA, USPS (First class mail), and EducationAs to the stem cells: you can thank Bush for regulating stem cells in the first place. Obama rescinded his laws.Why do you keep assuming I applaud Bush? Those laws hurt non profit search as well as your government research.It didn't, and wouldn't ask, as long as you didn't provide it. However what happened was that many officers and recruits were discharged annually because they were spotted in gay clubs on shoreleave, or "outed" by malicious coworkers.Again, this resorts to bad government military policy because before, you could get dishonorable discharge for being gay. This type of policy is stupid. I'm not sympathetic for big business.Despite your sentiments for the little guy, you are because no matter how much of a complete failure management was, you think that they should be bailed out. Those workers would just find different jobs.I think it does an admirable job handling the roads, sewers, water, schools, medical research, space programs, and research.Well, Great! I am so glad that you feel proud of the progress that you support. I certainly know that only a state could afford a project as big as the Large Hadron Collider.I am certain that one man, Branson, will be able to provide space travel for any paying customer instead of the select few the government picks. Maybe, space travel may become as inexpensive that anyone will be able to fly and experience it.By the way, you gave me a headache.