What’s the evidence to the contrary?
You really can’t think of any job created by the government? Where’s the evidence that it “discourage[s] job creation through fear and doubt”?
Hoover dam springs to mind.
What evidence is there that incentives outside of education, safety and infrastructure creates jobs.
Government has core services that provide a qualified, productive workforce. They also need to ensure stability to encourage investment.
Outside that I cannot find any “evidence” that government incentives are related to job growth, as a country, in anything but a correlative fashion.
I am open to your cites
The IMF is not positive incentives work
“One concern with many business tax credits is that they simply reward behavior that companies would pursue even without the credit. In Georgia, Faulk used econometric techniques to estimate the level of job creation that such a credit actually induced. Her findings, as well as the simulations by Luger and Bae in North Carolina, suggest that job creation tax incentives do influence firms’ hiring decisions, but that the companies would have created a majority of the subsidized jobs anyway”
If you have journal access look up,
“The employment effects of job-creation schemes in Germany: A microeconometric evaluation”
The mountain of evidence you claim is mostly political rhetoric.
I am not claiming they cost jobs, I am saying that politicians, in general, do not have the power to “create jobs”. They have the ability to destroy jobs, through fear, doubt and basically failing to meet their obligations.
That is a broad claim, not specific to any current politician and or specific law.
I am fully open to empirical evidence that proves me wrong.
I don’t think they let pro-gay, pro-choice, pro single payer, pro “death panel” atheists in their club 
You do realize that they were paid $.50 an hour, or about $7.09 an hour in todays money.
Below minimum wage for a very dangerous labor job.
But ignoring that point, where is your mountains of evidence that giving low paying labor jobs to 5000 white Americans (excluding mongoloids and only with a small group of African Americans who were mostly given buckets) helped the economic situation during the depression?
How about the Interstate Highway System? The largest public works program ever undertaken, it puts the Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Egypt to shame. How about Nasa? Putting a man on the moon? That project employed a few people. Hell, how about Lockheed Martin, the late McDonald Douglas, Boeing, Hughes, Raytheon, etc? The whole aerospace/military industrial complex is a great example of the government creating jobs…
Wow, I just found out that the military spend 80 billion dollars a year on Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation. I bet there is a bunch of jobs there.
I currently work (as an employee of a non-profit laboratory) for NASA, but I am kinda thinking I have to get me some of that!
Don’t those cites support what I was saying?
Again, can you explain the precise mechanic that the government employs to “destroy jobs, through fear, doubt and basically failing to meet their obligations”? I have no idea what that means.
By failing to meet their obligations.
Either through politics, or incompetence.
They can ignore infrastructure needs, allowing roadways to degrade or interfere with education in a non-productive way.
They can as my local mayor in Seattle did, threaten to shut down one of the only two North south highways in the city.
Not that he didn’t have a just reason, he approached it wrongly though.
I know several company owners who made the decision to locate their offices other places due to that Fear and doubt.
I don’t think any sane politician intentionally tries to destroy jobs it is their incompetence that does.
They can offer small tax breaks for people who hire etc… If you go and finish reading my cites you will see that is not proven effective.
L. G. Butts, Ph.D did point of one way government can create jobs but that role is as a consumer.
The spending on the cold war was very good to us as a country and did provide us with the interstate system, NASA, Velcro, tang etc…
However that is not a quick process, practical as a fix for a recession, nor was it a jobs program.
The construction of the Interstate Highway System, a federal project initiated by President Dwight Eisenhower at a cost of over $400 billion created millions of jobs and sparked economic activity equal to $6 for every $1 spent on the project.
The Best Investment a Nation Ever Made: A Tribute to the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Please read my response above, this was war spending, not a “jobs” program, I would argue that while it did produce some jobs and was good infrastructure spending it also enabled suburban sprawl and while useful and good for commerce it will be viewed as a net negative in time (mostly due to environmental concerns).
I am not a republican, I will stop adding to this thread as it is drifting from the OP’s intent.
I would like to know what the difference between a federal construction program that creates jobs, and a federal “jobs” program is. Please give some examples of purely “jobs” programs.
Those criticisms are entirely separate from the question of whether the federal government is capable of creating jobs.
A “jobs” program is a program created for the main purpose of “creating jobs”.
The Interstate program was not started to do so, employment was a side effect of the government’s impact as a consumer.
The fact that through consumption the government can create demand is not evidence that they can create jobs at will.
Please list recent examples.
But by signing construcion contracts they are directly creating jobs.
I don’t much care what the intent of the program is, if it creates jobs, it is good thing.
I really think the government has no excuse for not doing large public works projects right now; the yeild on the 10 year T note has dropped to 1.72%! This rate is probably going to be lower than inflation, but people are still buying the bonds because everything else scares the shit out of them… Let me reiterate, US bonds are so in demand right now that people are lending the US Government money even though they will probably lose money on the investment compared to inflation! The amount we will pay back over the next 10 years in interest plus the return of the principle will probably be smaller than what we get now. I just don’t get it…
I would love it if they were talking about funding infrastructure project or research and science.
That type of debt as you point out is fairly cheap, and when you control inflation you can reduce the costs even more over time. Within reason of course.
Payroll tax holidays and tax incentives do not work those are the type they are talking about now.
They reduce revenue with little evidence of really creating jobs and we need money to ensure we are fully funding entitlement programs.
Entitlement costs rise with inflation (or go even higher) and thus can not be inflated away.
NOTE: I said they should be fully funded, not that they shouldn’t exist.
I think they were in a rush to try and do so by funding “shovel ready” projects but IMHO they should have done a more targeted approach.
Yes, this is why I spend little time here trying to explain anything. It is just amazing.
Isn’t that what hasn’t worked for the last 4 years? How many are working at Solyndra now?
No it isn’t a lack of money, lower interest rates aren’t going to help. As long as the current hostile business climate prevails, so will the sick economy.
Interestingly, Solyndra represents a little over 1% of the otherwise highly successful DoE loans program. So this little snark is basically irrelevant.