putnam said: Think of it like this: Microsoft began as two guys working out of their basement, but grew to employ thousands of people (creating jobs), using its own wealth. Government doesn't have its own wealth -- it takes it from you and me.
I understand what you're saying but isn't that just semantics? A business in the true sense of the word has consumers from which the business generates revenue. The business provides a good or service and the consumer pays a price for that good or service. The government can be looked upon as a business per se. The government generates revenue via the citizens, the government's consumers. The government provides civil service items (roads, police, fire, military, etc) as the good or service and the citizens pay for that civil service in the form of taxes.
I'm glad you brought this up -- I hoped someone would. The parallel you're drawing is not completely accurate. A business does indeed draw revenue (as does the government), but the business uses its revenue to add value to a particular product or service, where the government does not. This added value creates wealth by creating a product whose total value is greater than the sum of its parts. For example, you value an assembled and operational car more than you value all its parts piled into a box. The business charges more for its final product than it pays for the parts and labor, which creates the wealth that enables new employment. Additionally, business investment (new technologies, additional equipment, etc) allow for greater productivity at lower cost, which increases the purchasing power of each dollar spent to purchase the product.
The government, however, delivers no added value and is not in the business of turning a profit. By design, the government at best is a zero sum game, thus it can't create jobs because it is continually braking even at best. Rememberthat the objective of a business is to make money. The purpose of a governmetn is very much different. The road or bridge that is built will depreciate in value and will never create a return on the investment. Because not all public goods are used by all purchasers at all times and some purchasers may use much more than they pay for, no government product creates enough wealth to fund additional government products. Couple that with how government revenue is collected -- forcefully. Money paid to the government carrise no expectation of ROI or added value, but business transactions do.
Because of the bureaucratic inefficiencies inherent in all types of government (call it administrative overhead, if you please), the end product will always be worth less than the expense that funds its production and returns very little to the government. In other words, the work of one government emloyee will never generate enough revenue to cover that employee plus hire one more. However, in successful businesses (not all are successful), the end product is always worth more than its expense and will often generate enough revenue to cover its expense and hire additional workers.
Knowing this, is it any surprise that Obama (who has very little private sector experience) advocated turning our backs on technology and increasing the cost of doing business as a means to jobs? He was advocating what governmetn does well, but he doesn't have the experience to know that it does not lead to job creation.