but what the hell makes you think he should be providing jobs for everyone. That is up to you, me and the rest of the population, clearly the idea of the population relating jobs and opportunities is rather shocking for some of you
OP didn't say it was his responsibility per se. She said it was his responsibility if he thinks everyone should get off benefits, and is providing endless rhetoric on how those on benefits are happy to be there and are playing the system. If he can't provide the work, how can he use that rhetoric? There are hundreds of thousands of jobs... and millions of unemployed. The comment was made in that context, so citing the suggestion out of it is pointless. Context is fairly important in most things, no? You aren't representing the OP's words fairly there.
Having said that, plenty of Keynsian economists argue that Roosevelt managed to haul the US (and thus arguably the world) out of the Great Depression partly through instituting massive programmes of public works (the "New Deal"), thus creating jobs and getting the economy moving again. So it's not the case that the government definitely shouldn't job-create, as you vehemently aver. Not an economist myself, but I know a couple who say there is a strong argument for that option (not that it's the only argument, or that the opposing are weak, but that it's a strong one). That being so, the "why the hell" can be answered, "because we're economically in very deep shit, there are no concrete answers as to what to do, and a lot of economists think that would be the best route forwards."
They also say tax breaks for the rich are economically worthless in hard times - those lower down the ladder have so little stretch in their budgets that they're far likelier to spend any cuts they may get, so cutting tax on the lowest 3rd of workers can be an effective stimulus, while cutting higher up just means they will save more. If you want more money circulating in the economy in a recession, tax the rich more and the poor less (though that is arguably not the case in times of economic growth, speaking purely economically). So the 50% tax rate should remain in situ and the 10% rate reinstated, in essence.
It also makes my eyebrows rise when monetarists (and some journalists) insist quantitative easing will inevitably mean uncontrollable hyper-inflation, and is thus an unwarranted interference with the free markets that can only end catastrophically badly. Whatever your views on it as a tool, it at least has the built-in deflationary remedy to address that - they aren't actually printing paper money, which cannot be recalled once in circulation. It's all electronic; it can be immediately recalled, via selling the UK-based assets the BoE has bought with the created money and promptly deleting it.
OP, YANBU. Cameron seems worryingly incompetent as well as disturbingly unconcerned with how most of the country live.