0 votes

Sue them for fraud?

So, we hear all the time our elected officials talking about "creating jobs". It's a very very clear economic fact that government CANNOT in any way create a job. It can shift them from industry to industry, or destroy them, but it can never induce a net increase in jobs.

So, this is fraud. The representatives promise creating jobs, etc., by doing various government actions. They know, or should know, that this is a blatant lie. Unfortunately, many Americans have come to believe this lie. Thus, this fraud has been perpetuated and caused great harm.

Elected officials stand to gain from this fraud because they get reelected, receive campaign contributions from special interests, receive good positions after leaving public sector, etc., etc...

I suppose they could claim ignorance or incompetence, but... that would be a good truth to come out, too :)

So... question: is there a way we could work toward pursuing this in court? Couldn't we take anyone to court who claims they are "creating jobs" through government action for fraud? We know they're frauds, is there a way we could pursue justice?

ps. The slight exception to this is if government did nothing, let us have freedom and a free market, it could then indirectly support and allow an increase in jobs, but that's not what these guys are talking about when they say "create jobs".



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sounds great!

Lets go to the government owned courts, with their government paid judges and armed thugs, and charge a government official with anything having to do with betraying their oath, tried against laws that the government crafted.

Good luck with that, let us know how it works out for you.

Yes, I should have marked

Yes, I should have marked this topic "Food for Thought" as opposed to necessarily a useful action item. It came to me last night and seemed like something worth tossing around... Even if it didn't work, could it potentially garner sufficient attention...

I don't know. It just seemed that incorporating the concept or something in some way might help get the word out about this lie and help... anyway.

not fraud, maybe a grand

not fraud, maybe a grand jury could impeach them for treason, voting on the bailout, is out side there authority to do so and in violation of there oath.

Uh-huh

Suuure. The DA will go along with that!

Sets him up for failing LARGE in his later political career.

~jaq

~jaq

Creation

By the argument above, the term "job creation" even by an individual entity is also fraud.

Not saying I agree with the idea that government created job are right or anything of the sort, but it's an issue of semantics.

For instance, free market policies will lend itself towards the "creation" of jobs. Really, a government can create a job, they just do it at the point of a gun and with a moral blank check.

Grossly immoral, but not fraud.

**EDIT**

Look at Roosevelt's New Deal. It 'created' many jobs, it just paid for them off the back's of every taxpayer.

The difference is, again, the point of a gun demanding income with which to pay these jobs.

Eric Hoffer

If used in the context that

If used in the context that elected officials use the term, yes, job creation would be fraud. Meaning, if someone obviously implied that some governmental action would result in a net increase in the number of jobs, that is a fraudulent statement no matter who says it.

Oops, for many people it might just be a lie, which is not illegal. I believe fraud requires the speaker to benefit from the lie. Elected officials do benefit from these lies, while many others who might make that statement receive no benefit and so would only be guilty of dishonesty, not fraud.

And if you mean, what if a business said "I created 10 jobs" that is different. The scope, intention, context, and reality of the situation is utterly different than when the government says anything about creating jobs through its direct actions. The free market can increase net number of jobs. Government actions cannot.

I would suggest that over a reasonable term, FDR's new deal did not result in a net increase in number of jobs. Although, we'd need to analyze history to determine that, the fact that his actions extended the depression by 7 years seems to substantiate that.

This just came to me: "FDR: He made the depression Great!"

Morals vs Fraud

Again, it's a subject of immoral behavior.

If I act as a highwayman and hire footpads, then I am in effect creating new jobs. It does not make the way in which I pay these employees fraud, it is the taking of the money from the victims itself that is the crime, not the creation of jobs based on my corrupt business. It is not fraud, but assault and theft. As the government has an unfortunate legal monopoly on the use of force, we're screwed nailing them on those two.

Meaning, if someone obviously implied that some governmental action would result in a net increase in the number of jobs, that is a fraudulent statement no matter who says it.

How many people work for the Department of Homeland Security? These are all "jobs." I know plenty of people in Detroit around the airport absolutely love these jobs, and they are absolutely government created 100%. They merely pay the employees with money they've stolen from us taxpayers. Again, this is not fraud, but theft. It is not their distribution of the money that is at issue, but the fact that they never had the right to those moneys in the first place.

And if you mean, what if a business said "I created 10 jobs" that is different. The scope, intention, context, and reality of the situation is utterly different than when the government says anything about creating jobs through its direct actions. The free market can increase net number of jobs. Government actions cannot.

Assumption, and badly placed. I hire employees based on what I need to get done. If the government has an action they need to accomplish, they create jobs to do it. What do you call people working as police officers? Do they not have jobs?

The free market can increase the net number of jobs, just as it can lower it. The government can increase the net number of jobs, just as they can lower it.

It is not good, it is not moral, but it is POSSIBLE. Too much regulation, and of course the whole thing falls apart, but that's not the topic we're talking here. We're talking about whether or not government can create jobs. Of COURSE they can, it'll just tank the entire economy long term. The same goes for a business hiring more people than it can afford to pay. Eventually the business tanks. The business created more jobs during it's life, but you don't measure the net infinitely after the business is closed.

On FDR, who's this "we" you speak of that need to do research? He absolutely created jobs, he just debased the dollar and stole from the rest of the country in order to do it. Again, this is unsound for a government and stomped all over our liberties, but it is not fraud. It is immoral, that does not make it fraud. During Roosevelt's term, we're looking around 18 million jobs created, tons of which were low skilled labor type positions.

Obviously, jobs were created. Was this a moral maneuver or a smart one? Absolutely not, and in the end it absolutely prolonged the depression. However, it DID create jobs of minimum sustenance.

Eric Hoffer

Okay, I think you're missing

Okay, I think you're missing the key to this thing. You're thinking "create jobs" means someone got hired. That is NOT what politicians are saying when they say "create jobs". They are implying that there will be a net increase in jobs. That is what government cannot do because...

"How many people work for the Department of Homeland Security? "

As we've seen from some of the commentaries about the current stimulus thing, each of those job "costs" a certain amount. Let's say $200,000. Let's say there are 1000 jobs in DHS. That means there is now $200,000,000 that has been REMOVED from the private sector through taxation or inflation. That means that $200 million CANNOT be used by businesses to pay employees. That means the private sector LOSES more than 1000 jobs. Thus the net result is a reduction in the total number of jobs.

There's great examples in "Common Sense Economics". For example, there was a time when steel companies in the US lobbied government to tariff imports of steel because the imported steel was half the price of the domestic. It was sold as a way to "preserve" US jobs. But the result? Steel prices triple, and all the downstream industries get creamed. The auto and construction industries all layoff large numbers of people. Thus the result of the government action? A net loss of jobs.

Literal vs. Implied

I'm fairly certain we're arguing semantics now, but lets have at it.

Okay, I think you're missing the key to this thing. You're thinking "create jobs" means someone got hired. That is NOT what politicians are saying when they say "create jobs". They are implying that there will be a net increase in jobs. That is what government cannot do because...

Again, we're talking fraud, not whether long term or short term government interference will create or remove jobs from the private sector. We all know that government interference long term will screw everyone. However, they could easily socialize and create more jobs. They just nationalize the industry and work inefficiently. When I automate a process in my business, and can therefore fire 3 people, those jobs are closed up. Governments are usually so inefficient they actually create jobs. We call these people "bureaucrats" and look down on them as scum.

You're saying that they're implying that by their policies, people will create jobs on their own, I think, as opposed to direct government creation of jobs, which we argued before. Again though, this is fallacious.

Government intervention allows for all kinds of job creation. Heavier EPA regulations means the need for companies to do consulting on EPA compliance. Complicated tax laws created the dreaded tax attorney. All kinds of jobs are created or done away with, and to naively assume that the net increase in jobs over a given period will be negative simply because the government is doing it is to not look at the picture with clear eyes.

For instance, we have hired 12 people on to our compliance consulting division in the last year, because the EPA is coming down on one of our customers. These jobs would not exist without the EPA regulating hazardous chemicals. You can argue that we'd be in a better society and that people would naturally higher more if they didn't have to protect themselves from the EPA, but that's speculation of a blatant sort.

We can cite examples and hurl them back and forth all day, but the inevitable response is that the government can create and destroy jobs in the private sector.

The real question is whether this is moral, and if not, then why not? It is immoral for them to force new industries in existence on the backs of the rest of the country. They have no right to even one dime of my happiness to spend on another soul. It is an abrogation of all that we hold moral in Capitalist society.

That means that $200 million CANNOT be used by businesses to pay employees. That means the private sector LOSES more than 1000 jobs. Thus the net result is a reduction in the total number of jobs.

Again, as a business owner and no socialist, your argument still is false. How do you know what I would spend that money on? Would I use it to hire new employees or would I take a nice vacation? Thrusting money into the private sector doesn't necessarily mean new jobs, and again you assume too much. Just because it COULD be used for those purposes doesn't mean it would. The math is flawed.

I'll argue it again, it's a case of blatant immoral behavior, and I'd argue assault and perhaps theft, but it's not fraud by any means.

I'll play the part real quick here too, and say that implied vs. actual meanings always land in the part of the actual meanings. If I say I'll give you 5 bucks in a contract, you'd better believe you'll have deer in your yard in the morning.

Eric Hoffer

fireant's picture

The courts are part of the fraud,

serving as political institutions. We have to invoke our original power which is higher than any congress or court they have.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams

Undo what Wilson did

"State Soverignty" shall set us free.

The 10th Amendment......will give us teeth if we choose to bare them!!
For example:
Chisholm v. Georgia back in 1793.
Georgia openly declared that to submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal court would be to destroy the “retained sovereignty of the State". Under a barrage of demands by the Supreme Court for submission, Georgia maintained that they had no authority to command the sovereign state. Because of this Georgia's State Legislature bravely issued the famous bill which stated any Federal agent who attempts to enforce the Federal government’s order within the sovereign state of Georgia should “…suffer death, without benefit of clergy, by being hanged.” That bill never was passed because the situation was resolved- without Georgia backing down- before it could get pushed. However they had every intention of enforcing it. This event was instrumental in compelling the sovereign states to adopt the Eleventh amendment.

This is the sovereignty we need to reassert because it is the true grounds which our country was founded on! If we reclaim that authority our battle is practically won!

Yes, I know. The Supreme

Yes, I know. The Supreme Court originally ruled the legal tender law unconstitutional. Then a few years later with new judges they overturned that 5 to 4.

The horrendous actions during the early 19th century by presidents also passed by only 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court.

All this time, the Supreme Court could have saved us, but they didn't. Very sad.

Sue them if it can be done.

Most of the money will be used to implement socialism. The states will be TOLD what that money has to be used for, and it will be part of implementing the socialist / communist agenda. The tax payer will of course pay and pay...enslaved forever to keep the socialist bubble inflated and working.

I also take offense to the

I also take offense to the phrase "put Americans to work",it has a slave ring to it.

------------------------------------------
The government throws the people bones while keeping the treasures of this country.

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

bump

for a healthy exchange of opinions.

(Better) to be confused in the search for truth than fully confident and sound asleep in a dream of lies. ~ Michael Nystrom
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/10/statement-to-ron-pa...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/2660779139

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Here's the thing

You need the government's permission to sue the government.

That, in and of itself, is fraudulent.

But try proving that in a court of law...

~jaq

~jaq

I was thinking of the

I was thinking of the individual official that makes the claim, not the government.

Still Won't Fly

If he's making the claim as a private citizen, then he has the right to say any damn lie he wants, so long as it's not slanderous.

It's only as a government official that the claim has any relevance.

You can't make an empirical legal case out of this. It's simply impossible. Even if jobs don't increase, there are so many "reasonable" factors that a politician or a government could claim, backed by government statistics and figures to three digit precision. (But not necessarily any accuracy, but prove THAT to the government courtroom?)

You *can* make an a priori case out of it, but you can't take that to court!

You can make some kind of frivolous lawsuit (frivolous, since there's no empirically provable harm beyond a reasonable doubt) like this against a private party. Most of the time, it will be thrown out unless you have an extremely bored judge.

But against the government? No, this is just plain ridiculous. And that's coming from *me*. I revel in ridiculosity but this is over the top even by my standards.

~jaq

~jaq