You're basically right about governments don't create jobs but in return, businesses don't create the conditions necessary for businesses to succeed. Governments do that.
First, businesses don't exist in a vacuum like many conservatives, which I am BTW, want to believe. As I said, "If you build it they will come" only works in the movies. Understand this, creating jobs does not create wealth. This is where many conservatives fall off the rail. Creating jobs redistributes wealth, not create it. The value or worth of an economy or by extension, all economies is pretty well fixed. It takes major upsets to change the aggregate worth of an economy(s). Recent upsets have been the industrial revolution, the great depression, the computer-information-digital age and unfortunately, war. Creating money only results in inflation and restricting it results in deflation. But, both are proportional in the up and down in value. That doesn't mean access and control is proportional.
Giving business or anyone money does not create jobs. The only way to create jobs in a free market economy is by taking an action to meet a demand. A common example of this in the study of economics is the buggy whip. It doesn't matter how many people you hire to make them it's a waste if nobody wants them. You can give a company every penny in an economy to make buggy whips isn't going to create a demand for buggy whips. Economies run on demand, not production.
There's also the limit to growth known as competition to individual companies. If Ford, GM, Chrysler or Nissan had any inkling that putting up 5 more factories would increase sales to support them they wouldn't sit around waiting for tax cuts or local tax deals. If they believed that if they made enough cars to put 12 in every driveway they would be doing it. The reality is only so many cars are going to be sold every year and how many are sold has nothing to do with how many are made unless not enough are made. The annual year end sales identify that, that's not the case. The belief that just giving businesses money will create jobs is just wrong and untrue. Competition doesn't create jobs. It creates lateral moves. The amount of market share a company has determines their workforce. Shifts in market share means one company will create jobs but it's at the expense of layoffs at another.
Can you give me any example of how giving a car company tax breaks will create jobs? I can give you any number of examples though of how they costs jobs. Usually by the companies that reinvest the money back in the company, which too few do, they invest in innovation. Innovation is usually in the form of robotics and automation which doesn't require a weekly paycheck, lunch breaks or benefits.
Your comment about liberals being anti-business, anti-jobs and pro-government is untrue. I know there are sources that like to repeat for this nonsense to fulfill their agendas but it's not true. I will accept that liberals and conservatives disagree with how economies should proceed but just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they are naturally anti or pro anything. For cars a reality is the future of the carbon based, liquid fuel vehicles are coming to an end. The next upheaval in the economy is going to be with energy and liberals want to support growth their now while conservatives want to support it's last grasp. That's not my opinion either. That's the opinion of Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. In the 80's when all the manufacturing in this country was leaving it was leaving with a "good riddance" attitude but along the way that attitude has morphed in to something else and it's liberals that are anti-government over the change in attitude. I suggest you're not seeing the forest for the trees on your liberals comment. Both conservatives and liberals are equally pro and anti when it comes to business and government. The difference is in the focus of the pro and anti attitudes. Liberals want to use the economy to invest in overcoming the well known problems with alternative energy while conservatives think the resources of the economy are better spent on supporting the time honored energy sources of the past.
Please don't read in to what I'm writing. I have no clue about who is right or wrong in this and I'm not suggesting I support one side or the other by challenging your perspectives. I'm just commenting on what I've read and what I've observed and giving both sides equal deference. What I will say though is that the latest tax cuts are hurting this economy and will soon be negatively effecting people. Bottom line, the tax cuts will create very few jobs and cost many more. We would have been better served by taking all that money and rebuilding our infrastructure which would have created more jobs than could be filled and left everyone better off.
Finally, have you ever heard the expression, "What the market will bare?" It's often erroneously explained to be about what price can be put on a good or service. It's actually about the resources of an economy and how much can be put in to A before it becomes detrimental to B and C. Often explain with an arbitrary example called "guns and butter." What happened to Russia is often used to explain this example. In an attempt to keep up with our military build up in the 80's, Russia diverted so much of their economy to military spending that their economy collapsed. The total of their non-military spending couldn't survive with the resources leftover in their economy after the military spending. The tax cuts aren't going to be this hard on our economy but it's going to hurt. Answer this, if the tax cuts were to have the results you believe they will, why weren't they enacted with a plan for the expected result and made them contingent on working towards that goal? The tax code is full of contingencies but not this time. There is only room for one faith in an economy and that is the value of a paper dollar, or whatever, is actually worth a dollar when the value of the actual piece of paper (cloth) isn't even one cent. Now back to my original question, why should anyone else subsidize the price of a car you or I buy? Because they are.