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

Either it is false (as you claim in the second sentence) that all jobs are created with preexisting capital and you are saying that no single job can be created in the absence of capital. Or you are saying that some jobs can't be created in the absence of capital, which means that some jobs can be created with no preexisting capital.There was some confusion, and it was a typo, and it is now fixed? Other than government jobs, all private jobs are created by the absence of capital.If capital is required to create jobs, then the capital must, by definition, preexist those jobs. If new jobs are created, new capital must be created in order to accommodate those new jobs, and GDP proves this measure.GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)So, as government spending increases, the higher percentage of the GDP is consumed by government, and private consumption and investment becomes smaller due to the reallocation of resources by the government. It is merely shifted around. WHY? Government possess no assets. So, it is impossible for it to create wealth or jobs unlike people do possess assets and can create jobs and wealth.Any disagreement you might think you have are not disagreements with me. They are disagreements with the definition of "preexisting", which you don't seem to know, and sentential logic, in which you seem woefully inadequate.I now what preexisting means. Pure imperious attitude that you and liberals have.To someone who doesn't have an adequate grasp of the English language, it certainly is.How does it feel not to grasp the English language? Maybe you should look into the mirror.Name one single job, which actually exists, that has been created without the shifting or reallocation of money. I don't need an argument here. All I need you to do is name the job that has been created without money being shifted or reallocated.EASY.Every single private business in America. HOW? First, it is their own money or business loan.Second, they have to pay it back. When they do, it is newly sustainable job creation. NEW GOODS AND SERVICES IN THE ECONOMY.This reminds of something. Milton Friedman was in China and workers were digging holes for a project, and he asked, why are you not using tools and heavy equipment, and the Chinese official says, job creation, and then Milton Friedman said, if you want job creation, why use shovels when you can use spoons.This is an example of government MAKE WORK JOBS. They are unsustainable because they eventually run out of funds from taxpayers when government shifts jobs.When government taxes or borrows money, two things are apparent. Since government possess no wealth, one, taxpayers never see any of the benefits of taxation because they have no control of where the money goes, therefore, their money is merely transferred to somewhere else.Two, when government borrows the money, government doesn't own the money back, the taxpayers do, probably because government possess any assets.I can prove one of two things. (1) You don't actually believe this or (2) you're holding two conflicting positions (doublethink). Or both. A very large number of small businesses get loans through the federal 7(a) loan program, by way of the Small Business Administration.It doesn't matter whether if it is a federal loan or private bank, they still have to pay the money back. Plus, that federal loan isn't the governments money.Again, government doesn't pay back loans, taxpayers do. Private business do pay back loans, if not they are out of business.Also, way to prove your point by sending me to the main page of SBM. What did that prove? Nothing.Right, because me calling the author a moron is the only thing I ever wrote about his work or to you.Ok, you are a moron for thinking that he is moron.