Who creates military jobs?
Public sector position. Paid for by you and me. I'm talking about the kind of jobs that actually stimulate the economy on both sides of the equation, not just the disposable income of the employee.
I'm not exactly certain what you meant to say in this post, but it sounds as though you're differentiating the relative economic impact of private vs. public sector jobs. It sounds as though you're making the gross generalization that ALL private sector jobs have a greater economic impact than ALL public sector jobs. Essentially, the argument is that because public sector jobs are paid for with tax dollars, they must first REDUCE the economy through taxes before they STIMULATE the economy through spending. A point I wouldn't disagree with, in principle.
But aren't a great number of private sector jobs funded with public monies as well? If we build a bridge, highway or a library, aren't private contractors working on the project? And isn't it also true that WHAT you're building is just as important as who you're giving the money to? If we pay a private contractor a billion dollars for a shipment of sidewinder missiles, what will we have to show for our investment in 10 years? Arguably nothing. That same billion dollars could more than pay for a commuter train from here to Milwaukee plus about 25 years of operation and maintenance. That's an INVESTMENT. Something we can point to and say, "this is where our money went."
I would be happy to concede that the government spends a whole pile of money that they shouldn't. Sometimes this spending is easy to mock, such as spending a few million dollars studying the impact of pollution on frogs and turtles in Lake Winnebago. But conservatives tend to criticize spending through a political lens, where military spending is always justified and infrastructure spending is never justified.
Why is that? Is it because infrastructure spending often employs union laborers?