Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

amidst this flurry of anarchism, to actually be able to continue defending this position against the onslaught of logic, facts and statistics which prove beyond any mere human reasonable doubt, that you are in fact quite incorrect on your basic summation that all government = evil.I know have been trying to provide you with logic, facts and statistics but the liberals (that being you) only deny and deny again.Hey, I want to live in freedom, unlike yourself where you want to live in servitude, which I guess that is your preference.I would even go so far as to say that if it were not for your odd government turret syndromeSee, I find this highly offensive, which is why I went on my little name calling last post. I don't like name calling as much as the next guy.granted politics is my least favorite subject but I as a citizen of government feel a need to defend it, and the human specie's best example of it, democracy, as best I can.Again, for some reason, you seem think that government and economic system is democracy. Sadly, this is the logic and facts that I must defend that it is not.Government and economic system are separate.Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand.While it is obvious that on these debates that you regularly set up as a strawman, others do the brunt of the work in disclaiming your assertions, and while, it is quite true by this debate in itself, that you and you alone answer every challenge to this logic that you hold that some evil, all powerful, destructive government exists.Strawman, that is pure exaggeration. Oh, please, GOVERNMENT CAN'T CREATE JOBS OR WEALTH. YOU ARE YET TO DISPUTE THAT GOVERNMENT MERELY TRANSFER WEALTH, NOT CREATE IT. Hence, it doesn't create jobs or wealth.Of active debaters your lot out numbers myself and the Mohollinder's, Caspers, Aves, etc. at least 2 to 1.What, you are accusing me. This is my debate. I created it. Nobody forced you into answering it.Yet, when the debate gets complex, the other anarchists abandon you.How is that true? There is none on the site. Name one other than me. Terminator left.Look at this debate. You are answering alone.Seriously, what is your point. I can't help that you don't understand that GOVERNMENT IS INCAPABLE OF CREATING JOBS.Why are you the only one to come to this conclusion? While the rest give their bumper sticker response and bail?Others who agree with that government doesn't create wealth nor jobs!!Freeman Author Associate Professor EconomicsCato Author Senior Fellow at CatoCNN Debate Obama Even Obama doesn't think so.World Liberty New HavenYet, of the one's who consistently give solid, well-thought debates, you stand alone in this position.I don't stand alone. There is more liberals on this site than conservatives or libertarians.But you are so outstandingly wrong in this issue, that it makes me wonder if it possibly could be from your own thought, as bright as I know you are, or if it must be the result of something. I just give 6 sources that agree, government doesn't create jobs or wealth.Who is wrong, you?Honestly it is irreconcilable to me that one so otherwise intelligent could be so obviously at fault in one specific area.I am not wrong.1. The point was an overall gravitation toward this site, quite suddenly, by the oddest group once Obama was President. All preaching fiscal responsibility. Yet not one of them was here when this deficit was created. It is an odd thing. I am curious what caused this migration of what is definitely an overall drop in the quality of debate since the inauguration of a new president.Honestly, I didn't gravitate to this site because of Obama and preaching fiscal responsibility. I stumbled upon this site while searching for conspiracies on the death of Princess Diana.Obama ran specifically on ending Iraq, and concentrating on Iran. He's done exactly that. He has been true exactly to the letter to his word, on all things war. I don't know what information you are looking at.What perpetual war? Ooo, wow thanks, Obama.Since when were we at war with Iran. Damn it missed it again. Perpetual war destroys economies. This is a major reason why are economy is suffering.Bush took us from the largest surplus in US history, to the largest deficit.Bush had high deficits, but Obama has took deficits to a new level, and this graph proves it because it includes Bush's war deficit spending.In which case they have to admit that since Obama took office the deficit has dropped, the rate of unemployment is down, and the GDP has increased significantly.As the article clearly states, Bush's highest deficit was 400 billion while Obama has reached 1.47 trillion, which is more than 3 times.What I'm curious about though is how, without checks and balances, you propose to ensure the corporate world does not exert undue influence on these things.Since I already explained this, but in a world of no regulation, big business is only created by the help of big government. Business can only grow in a capitalist economy with the help of government. Regulation helps big business grow because it puts extra costs on the little guy and eventually forces him out.How? Economics. Therefore, corporate crusaders wouldn't exist. It would only be localized economies. Basically, Big Government = Big Business, and this is what you want. This would get rid of your EVIL CORPORATIONS, yet you don't even see your own hypocrisy because you endorse big government.I don't argue that for instance, food stamps or welfare could logically be eliminated.They could be. As I told avesde, two stories. First, friend of mine was laid off. Since then, he has been on welfare or unemployment benefits for a year. He gets 600 dollars a month, and he spends bare minimum so after the government stops giving him handouts, he will have leftover to stay unemployed. He hasn't even filled out one application over a year. Not sure why I am his friend. Maybe college buddies.Second, girl in high school gets pregnant. Drops out, goes to teen pregnancy school. Leaves the school and gets welfare because the father left. Then he gets welfare until the child goes to school, guess what she gets pregnant again by some random loser. The vicious cycle continues. She pays for nothing, health care, transportation, heating and water.Handouts only empower the dependents and feel that they are not responsible for their actions. They are like parasites. Looking for ways that the government will give them free money. Sure, extreme cases, there should be some money, but not the losers.You villify. I highlight the absurdity of your vilification.I don't villify that is your exaggeration. I think your just wrong.6. Obama killed the public option because Republicans would not have allowed it to pass otherwise. I disagree with the decision to kill it, but I understand democracy is messy and requires compromise.Doesn't matter. It was a backroom deal, and he promised transparency.Next, Obama buys votes... really? Actually this blog is talking exactly about the public option, and the lack there of. And it's called a compromise, give and take, no money was exchanged. And this blog is a slilly joke. Here's the homepage http://centristnetblog.com/. There's nothing "centrist" about it. The whole thing is one long hit job on Obama. Are you taking source lessons from Terminator?Sad, Terminator did leave. No, if anything, he was taking lessons from me.8. This shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what govenrment is. Look it up. You don't understand that humans naturally create governments, as do all social animals. We name ours and have choice in ours, because we are complex. Hit the world with an Asteroid, a week later, people will be forming governments. It is what we do naturally.Remember the law enforcement, military and courts. This must have slipped your mind already.... Ugh, this is silly. Like Warlin you're really not worth my time on this anymore. Likewise. Those countries with a higher living standard have different means of ensuring a minimum wage which is simply not called a minimum wage. The reality is, if it were called minimum wage, theirs would be higher. And they all, to a one, have a higher standard of living.Maybe you should know the difference between law and collective bargaining.Law is enforcement by government, and none of the countries have a law, thus, no minimum wage; however, most have collective bargaining, which is voluntary agreements between both parties, not government enforcement as law, There is a difference. Know it. I am not arguing collective bargaining. That is voluntary, which is great.So often in these anarchy debates the very links you all provide are the proof against your position... if you would only actually read them.That is your story.