Wash. Post uncritically quoted Steele's false claim that government "has never created one job"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: The Washington Post uncritically reported RNC chairman Michael Steele's statement that "government -- federal, state or local -- has never created one job." In fact, about 15 percent of the labor force is employed by federal, state, or local government, and Steele himself has acknowledged that funds included in the recovery bill for school construction will create jobs "[f]or a short term, yes. It's a construction job."
In a February 9 article, The Washington Post uncritically reported Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele's statement that "in the history of mankind and womankind, government -- federal, state or local -- has never created one job. It's destroyed a lot of them." In fact, as Newsweek senior editor Dan Gross noted when Steele previously made a similar claim, about 15 percent of the labor force is employed by federal, state, or local government. Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' preliminary data for January 2009 shows that out of the approximately 153.7 million people in the civilian labor force, about 22.5 million people had government jobs in January 2009.
Moreover, the Post did not mention that Steele acknowledged, on the February 8 edition of ABC's This Week, that funds included in the recovery bill for school construction will create jobs "[f]or a short term, yes. It's a construction job." He did so after host and ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos confronted Steele on his claim that a government job is "not a job. A job is something that a business owner creates. It's going to be long term."
From the February 8 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
STEELE: You've got to look at the entire package. You've got to look at what's going to create sustainable jobs. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's a job.
STEELE: No, it's not a job. A job is something that a business owner creates. It's going to be long term. What he's creating is a --
STEPHANOPOULOS: So a job doesn't --
STEELE: Well, hold up.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- count if it's a government job?
STEELE: No, let me -- let me -- let me finish. That is a contract. It ends at a certain point, George. You know that. Those -- these road projects that we're talking about have an end point.
[...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats would say that the broader school construction funding will create jobs. Do you accept that?
STEELE: For a short term, yes. It's a construction job. I agree with that. But, you know, do we need to put -- is that what you -- we need to put in place right now when you can look at other ways in the economy to stimulate that type of growth?
During the February 4 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Gross addressed Steele's prior claim that "the government doesn't create jobs":
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (guest host): Welcome back to 1600. It's now to separate some economic fact from fiction on what we like to call "Myth Buster" Wednesday. Newly elected Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele has taken up his role as party spokesman with enthusiasm. And what he's using his new bully pulpit for? Well, he's taking a stand against President Obama's stimulus package.
STEELE [video clip]: The government doesn't create jobs. Let's get this notion out of our heads that the government creates jobs. Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job. ... Those 2 to 4 million jobs that are projected won't happen. Trust me.
BRZEZINSKI: OK. Joining us now to bust a myth, Dan Gross, senior editor at Newsweek -- welcome. What's the myth here? That government creates jobs?
GROSS: In the history of mankind, government has created many jobs. In fact, if you look at the latest data, 15 percent of payroll jobs in this country -- more than 25 million -- are from government: schools, defense --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
GROSS: -- government itself, huge industries. And with -- we've cut interest rates all we can. Tax cuts don't necessarily work, because people use that money to save.
BRZEZINSKI: Right.
GROSS: Government spending is basically the only thing we have left; government buying goods and services to keep the economy going.
BRZEZINSKI: Well -- and how about investing in businesses so that they hire people? Is that -- can the government --
GROSS: That's part of it.
BRZEZINSKI: That's part of it.
GROSS: That's part of it. But the area with the lowest unemployment rate -- the metropolitan area with the lowest unemployment rate, Washington, D.C.
The Post article included Steele's quote without rebuttal despite referring to two government jobs -- senator and federal prosecutor -- in the very next paragraph:
In his initial statements as party leader, however, Steele has stuck to tried-and-true themes, including invoking the GOP's 1994 victory as a model and praising House leaders for their stimulus vote. "The goose egg that you laid on the president's desk was just beautiful," he told them. "You and I know that in the history of mankind and womankind, government -- federal, state or local -- has never created one job. It's destroyed a lot of them."
Steele is also facing a distraction -- a federal inquiry into allegations that his 2006 Senate campaign paid a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed. The campaign's finance chairman made the allegations to federal prosecutors last year as he sought leniency during plea negotiations on unrelated fraud charges.
Well, this is easy. They're just excluding Government workers from the definition of "job".
If you're willing to lie and redefine language, no argument is too absurd.
Note this little gem from Steele: "A job is something that a business owner creates. It's going to be long term."
Oh really??? I guess in Steele's fantasy world, businesses don't hire and lay off to react to fluctuations in demand.
Must go get a Rovian Decoder.
the Ring version.
That's a good point. I know people who have been laid off several times from private sector jobs. Does that mean they're not really "jobs"?
I know a few people who lost their government jobs now working for FOX as " analysts " Wonder how long before GW gets a gig there.
He's already got a great job offer, so he'll be too busy to go to fox.
Elliot’s Hardware — a local Dallas hardware store — has “appealed to former President George W. Bush to spend his new-found retirement working as a part-time greeter at its Maple Avenue store.” “Our greeters are a legendary part of our customer service,” said Kyle Walters, Elliott’s Hardware president and CEO. “And we are offering the position to Mr. Bush in all sincerity. We think it would be a great fit for him as he settles back into life in Dallas.” If he chooses to take the position, Bush will enjoy company perks such as “a flexible part-time schedule (to allow travel to Crawford),” a parking space, and an employee discount.
Now that's a real job.
And Steele repeated his government has never created a job quip again on "Brian & the Judge" (FOX News talk radio). I heard him slip it in right at the end of his interview and he wasn't challenged.
Steele is obviously a student of repeat a lie often enough....
I am sooooo pleased with the appointment of Michael Steele as the head of the RNC. Just let him keep talking like this and further expose himself as the nut he is...no rebuttal necessary. And judging from the way Steele handled his own campaign finances he'll probably bankrupt the Republican Party. I will bet that Steele will be replaced as RNC Chairman before the end of his term.
I saw Steele on Bill Maher's show before the election.... just another Republican Talking Points Toadie.
He is handsome and well-spoken, however. Apparently that is all the Republicans are going for in the presentation of their lame ideas to the public.
Was it Mike Malloy? that said....
The new slogan for the RNC should be....
"Hey, look here! We have a black guy too!"
Are the Republicans really this pathetic that Mr. Steele is only where he's at for no other reason than to try and get a few blacks on their side? Or is Mr. Steele to stupid to realize that he's being used?
So far, all I've heard from Mr. Steele is the same old tired talking points that FoxNoise and the true leader of the RNC, Rush Limbaugh have been saying all along...
I would bet that there are Republicans who are cringing at this very moment over Steele's comments. IMO this is an embarrassing start for the Chairman of the RNC. The Repubs are in a hole and just keep digging it deeper.
I hope he's not replaced! His lies are so blatant that even Repubs will find them hard to swallow. Let him stay out there spouting nonsense, it's better for us.
Wanna see Steele's idea of job creation?
Michael S. Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, arranged for his 2006 Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed, his finance chairman from that campaign has told federal prosecutors.
That's why he won't be fired. Whenever a republican is found guilty of fraud his colleagues will rally round him and defend his job to the bitter end.
That little nugget was courtesy of C&L!
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-rnc-chair-under-investigation-all
I'm betting that the nefarious "liberal media" will give this the same kind of play they gave Daschle's tax problems. Ri-i-ght.
Ssshhhhhhhh....
How dare you claim the government creates jobs that are long lasting....
How un-American of you! The last thing you want to do is speak 'fact' or spout any truth around a rightwinger... or where a few might be lurking in the form of a troll! Like say... in here! It confuses them. They're twisted enough already, why add to their misery?
Sheesh....
Those aren't jobs...that's just work. ;>)
One huge factor that the Republitoids ignore is that Government BUYS things, whether it be paper, building materials, computers or vehicles. I know that a lot of this stuff comes from China now, but there are millions of Americans whose jobs depend on the sale and resale of these products.
The Democrats need to point out this obvious fact, but they're letting the Professional Liars keep them on defense.
Any person can just look out the window every day and see a government created job - unless mail delivery, trash pickup, road construction, park maintenance, etc are not real jobs.
Which, when you define a "job" as something created by private business, it is not I guess. These guys are good.
No, no no--they have redefined "jobs" to specifically EXCLUDE anything related to the government.
...they have redefined "jobs" to specifically EXCLUDE anything related to the government.
But only if those "jobs' were created by a Democratic administration.
Great point, WZ. Yes, what about the TVA?
If you look at a map of the Tennessee Valley, you'll see that the TVA has benefitted red states mostly. Yet, who screams the most about government "pork"?
The TVA was an investment in America. Paid for by Americans and built by Americans. We could never measure the benefits of the New Deal. As Americans, we should be proud of what FRD did for this country. It never ceases to amaze me when those who've benefitted from a government program squawk the loudest about it.
Other jobs created by the U.S. Government:
The post office
The army
The Navy
The Air Force
The UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS!
C'mon... we all know that the Army isn't a job.... it's an adventure.
And, don't forget the FBI. Those "non-jobs" are pretty hard to get, or so I've heard.
And the CIA, the coast guard, the border patrol, the dept. of homeland security (created by the republicans, btw!), all government jobs that also spur private sector jobs. Some companies that were created or increased due to govt. jobs?
E-Systems, TI, Boeing, pretty much any gun manufacturer...
The Post Office is a non-governmantal private organization now also.
This topic of "government jobs" really exposes how deeply the neocon mythology is ingrained. A poster at this site recently made the distinction between government employees and those who earn their money, framing them as two distinct and mutually exclusive groups.
It's part of the gospel of righty radio & tv. Of course, to truly believe it you need to consider a pretty large number of people completely worthless freeloaders; police officers, public school teachers, soldiers, firefighters, Marines, sailors, health inspectors, Air force, park rangers, etc..
See, if they are to maintain that Government is, in fact the problem, as their God Reagan told them, they cannot admit that Government provides anything resembling a job.
It's the Fruit From the Poisoned Tree doctrine. If government is bad then jobs created by government must also be bad, too. When I was in college I worked construction during the summers and one summer worked for a construction company in the construction of a large facility at a Naval Air Station. As I recall that one project put a lot of people to work. No one complained about having those jobs.
Michael Steele is a total disaster.
What's surprising is how quickly he revealed that. As I said above, I'll bet that Steele doesn't serve his full term as RNC Chairman.
The grown-ups in the GOP have all died of old age. Their spoiled kids are now running the show and have no clue where the controls are.
Sometimes a falsehood is so incredibly idiotic that it takes your breath away; as in the Big Lie Theory- if you tell a lie, tell such an incredible whopper that people assume you MUST be telling the truth.
Steele doesn't include federal employees. Or defense contractors. Or the military. Or anyone who has ever worked on a federally-funded project in any state. He's just a moron.
"in the history of mankind and womankind, government -- federal, state or local -- has never created one job. It's destroyed a lot of them."
It amazes me how cloase to the truth the opposite of this statement is.
Try this:
In the history of mankind and womankind, government -- federal, state or local -- has never destroyed a single job.
Unless you count republican's coming in and underfunding every single gov't agenciy, that works almost perfectly.
Why stop at 15% of the labor force working for the government? If government work stimulates the economy and helps the GDP, I say hire the 7.65 who are unemployed and up the government percentage of the workforce to 22.6 percent. Who cares if we can't afford it. Just continue to pass trillion dollar stimulus bills and tax the rich (with a waiver for Obama administration workers who try to cheat on their taxes anyway).
:-)
Hey, that's a pretty good straw man for this early in the day.
Normally they don't get up that early down in Mayberry.
Okay that last bit was snarky. But the logic of the stimulus bill is the same as my example.
Government jobs do not provide net gains to the GDP. It is simply taking money from one group and giving it to another. (Of course that is simplified. There is the borrowing aspect too.)
The goal should be private sector job creation. Lowering taxes and feeing up capital for investment and private sector spending does that. Government jobs do not even if some of them are necessary. Fifteen percent of the workforce working for the government is way too high and unsustainable in the long run.
We're seeing that now with the funding problems at the State and local levels, not to mention federal level. Borrowing and spending a trillion dollars only will make it worse for us down the line not to mention being inflationary right now.
It is simply taking money from one group and giving it to another. (Dep. Barney Fife)
You do understand that moving wealth from one party to another is the basis of all economies, and the only reason money was invented.... don't you??
Just to give you a clearer idea of how willingly you're being suckered by right wing propaganda, you should try to conceive of an economic model that doesn't involve transferring money from one person to another. Your attempt at a slippery slope argument is pretty silly when you look at it rationally, eh?.
In Trickle Down Economics 101, they teach you that, when Government spends money on projects, it buys everything from itself. You know, all those building materials like wood, concrete, nails, tools and machinery are requisitioned from a Government warehouse, where it is magically deposited... at great taxpayer expense, of course.
And that money that the Government pays the people who work on those projects? It VAPORIZES as soon as the workers leave the job site. POOF!
that's not it. The fact is we as a country cannot afford for government to get too big, look what has happened in the last 8 years, govt. has grown more than in the last 40 years. Spending and borrowing have increased beyond our ability to pay for it, and if that continues, or if taxes are raised too high on anyone it only stunts economic growth. Now I know the REpublicans have no credibility when it comes to fiscal discipline, so Obama may very well get his way. Also, as govt continues to grow, more and more money is allocated by political forces, not market forces - whereas any benefits to the economy will wane and become negative. higher taxes will have to come to pay for it, and as a result their is less money to invest and grow the economy.
"look what has happened in the last 8 years"
See? There it is again. I tell, you, these guys are disciplined.
So, is your solution just to ride it out, cut more taxes and wait for the free market to correct itself?
I think any real Republican or Conservative who holds a "government job" should resign immediately to show their true colors. That also goes for any radio hosts who work off federal licenses. And all those pensions going to past Republicans who had "jobs" with this government should give the money back. I'll bet they won't agree with the GOP's new.....MAN OF STEAL., Michael Steal
i never said that. I believe we need some stimulus, but not with every politician's payback pork for their own district, or social engineering spending programs. It needs to be disciplined and targeted to infrastructure and necessary expenditures.
Who gets to decide what is pork and what is not?
it's a fair question, but in an economic downturn when money is tighter than ever, pork can be defined much more broadly than in better economic times when we can better afford it. It's like a families budget, when times are good there is money for junk food and extravagances, when the belt is tighter, non essential luxuries are trimmed, it should be no different for politicians.
"Pork is what the other guy gets. What I get is a benefit." Signed, the Greedheads of the GOP.
Col.
You are confusing the difference between creating wealth and the transfering of wealth from one group to another.
Wealth is only created when something, (a good or service,) is sold at a profit. . The free market approach, (Capitalism,) of creating profit and wealth is the foundation of our economic system.
In your confusion, you bring up a strawman about money. I did not argue that 'any' economic model does not tranfer money (i.e. wealth.) Money is simply a useful tool for measuring wealth and purchasing goods and services.
Taking dollars from one person, say through taxes, and giving it to another through rebates and/or wellfare does not create any new profit for society even if it enriches the receiver. It only moves money from one person to another. Government transfers do not create wealth because they do not create profits. No new money/wealth/profit was created in that exchange.
That is basic economics.
And, when government buys a fleet of trucks from GM? Is no profit created?
Nerzog,
You have to ask yourself where did the money come from for the government to be able to buy the fleet of trucks?
GM would get same profit (and probably more,) if the money were used by individuals to purchase their own trucks.
Unless individuals don't have the money/incentive to purchase their own trucks.
I have no plans to buy a new vehicle in the next 6 months (or any other big purchase) but I DO plan to pay my taxes.
I know "pooling resources" sounds communist, but sometimes it really is effective.
Mrs. T.,
The same argument for individuals goes for the government.
Just ask yourself what you would do with your money if you did not have to pay those taxes.
I am not saying no pooling of resources, I simply believe that the government should not spend over a trillion dollars it does not have.
CNN divided that number by 156.3 million, which was the total number of U.S. income tax filers in 2008.The total is $9,718.49 per U.S. taxpayer.
Who is going to pay that bill? Are you willing to cough up $10K for this stimulus package alone? IMHO, this stimulus bill is only creating another, equally dangerous problem later on. How much later? I do not know. However I read that the CBO says in the long run, it will slow down the GDP more than doing nothing.
According to Moody's, a dollar in tax reductions or rebates stimulates $1.02 in economic activity or, to use your term, "wealth creation." A dollar in government spending resultsl in $1.59, and a dollar in FOOD STAMPS results in $1.79.
If you are going to insist on tax cuts to stimulate the economy you HAVE to give those cuts to people who HAVE to put the money into circulation. That means that the cuts, to be effective, MUST be targeted at the lower end of the economic ladder.
that quote is from Mark Zandi, the head economist at Moody's. He is being paraded by the Democrats to try to justify the spending. He is controversial to say the least and many economists disagree with him.
The tax reductions and wealth creation you cite are from his economy.com macroeconomic model alone. Can anyone replicate Zandi's model or is it a secret? Can anyone tell me where Zandi's figures come from and which data he is using? I cannot find it searching his website, economy.com
All I found was their philosophy which starts out this way - FORECASTING PHILOSOPHY — We rely on four key ingredients to produce an economic outlook: data, models, market insight and experience.
Without knowing what those models are, or the influence of Zandi's market insight and experience on those models, they are of questionable accuracy to any skeptic. If he is above board, he would allow others to see his data, and his model, and his modifications he added. So far I have not seen it. Of course you do not see these figures coming out of the CBO.
Zandi is a registered Democrat and for all we know, because there is nothing supporting the numbers, he might making up those figures.
How many individuals can buy fleets? Large companies can, but in an economy where large companies are cutting back and laying people off, the biggest entity left to buy those fleets is the government.
Which brings us back to the principle you will not acknowledge. When the government buys things, it flushes revenue into the system so that the private sector can start creating wealth again.
Wealth is only created when something, (a good or service,) is sold at a profit
and that profit is simply a transfer from one party to another. I think you're so deep into this "created wealth" theme (I know, Rush says it a lot ), that you've lost sight of the very basics, not just basic economics, but basic reality.
Maybe if you spent less energy telling others that they're confused, and more energy trying to understand things yourself, you wouldn't need to post so much BS at this site.
Gee Col, maybe if we allow the private sector to sell the government $1000 toilet seats and $500 wrenches again AA will be happy?
"Government jobs do not even if some of them are necessary"
Can you even defend that statement, or are you so immersed in the Trickle Down Religion that you're no longer dealing with reality?
I thought I explained it quite clearly. Let me try again.
The money paid for those who work in the government comes overwhelmingly from taxes and or fees. Taxing is only transfering wealth from the taxpayer to the government. It is not creating any wealth. Government jobs are not intended to create profit, therefore they do not create wealth. Some examples are police, road crews, national defense, etc. I think we both agree they are necessary to one degree or another. However their jobs are what could be considered overhead. They do not add wealth, they are paid by th the wealth that has been created by the taxpayers and transferred to them. That is a legitimate function of taxes, but it is a zero sum game where the wealth of one person is transferred to another.
Most of government spending is in reality wealth transfer. Social Security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, etc. It is the reallocation of wealth from one group of individuals to another. That in and of itself does not create wealth. It only moves it.
What you say is true to a point. However, you can extend that model into the private sector, as well. The only jobs that truly "create" wealth are manufacturing jobs, where raw materials are collected and transformed into something more valuable.
Retail does not "create" wealth, nor does banking or any other service industry. In these jobs, people are paid fees or wages for their time, or the use of their facilities. Period. It's just moving money around and keeping some as it goes by.
I think we're just constantly transferring wealth unless new markets emerge.
nerzog,
You are confused. Retail sales creates a profit, therefore it creates wealth.
If profit "creates wealth", do wages "create wealth"?
I'm totally confused.
Maybe AA can disconfuse us both.
When a private business gets money from somebody else, it is magically created wealth. When the government gets money, it's theft. I think that's about as far as AA's thinking goes on this.
I wonder where that profit/wealth comes from . Wealth fairies?
nerzog,
Wages can only be paid if a product or service is sold at a profit. So wages are part of the cost of creating wealth. Part of those wages can also be profits over and above the cost of those services. Wages are compensation to the individual for the services he renders, so they do create wealth for the wage earner.
The key is where does the money come from that pays those wages. Are they transferred from the taxpayer to the government and back to the wage-earner? If that is the case, the money has simply been transferred and the wealth created by the wage earner could also have been created by the taxpayer, (by the taxpayer either spending or investing the money,) before the money was taken from him by the government and given to the wage earner. So you have to look at the wealth created by those wages against the amount of wealth that could have been created by remaining with the taxpayer.
Government overpays for many types of jobs, funneling them to areas that do not create wealth. Government is very innefficient in allocating resources and creating wealth.
nerzog,
Wages can only be paid if a product or service is sold at a profit. So wages are part of the cost of creating wealth. Part of those wages can also be profits over and above the cost of those services. Wages are compensation to the individual for the services he renders, so they do create wealth for the wage earner.
The key is where does the money come from that pays those wages. Are they transferred from the taxpayer to the government and back to the wage-earner? If that is the case, the money has simply been transferred and the wealth created by the wage earner could also have been created by the taxpayer, (by the taxpayer either spending or investing the money,) before the money was taken from him by the government and given to the wage earner. So you have to look at the wealth created by those wages against the amount of wealth that could have been created by remaining with the taxpayer.
Government overpays for many types of jobs, funneling them to areas that do not create wealth. Government is very innefficient in allocating resources and creating wealth.
ps. sorry for the double post.
The money I use to buy a product goes to the person who sells it. I transferred some of my wealth to them.
Excuse me, but any job that is publically listed on the stock market has the potential for creating wealth. That would include government created jobs.
snoop,
Jobs are not listed on the stock market.
I thought I explained it quite clearly.
I don't think anybody's having trouble understanding what you're saying. It's just nonsense.
"Wealth" is not a product, what's being pointed out to you is that you've been chumped into a lot of smoke & mirrors about "creating wealth" versus "transferring money". It's Rush Limbaugh mumbo-jumbo, designed for his audience of working-stiff huckleberries.
The object is to convince the rubes that the gazillion dollar paycheck Rush gets for fooling them is a valuable product in itself, that "wealth" is something of worth that is produced, and will benefit everyone in some way.
The problem isn't in your delivery, or the comprehension of others-- it's that you're trying to re-sell the snake oil youre buying, but you're trying to sell it to people who never fell for the pitch in the first place.
The goal is put the unemployed back to work and give the underemployed more work.
Tax cuts can get some results if you give them to people who spend the vast majority of their income. The private sector will not spend as long as consumer demand continues to fall.
Private companies will be under government contract.
The republicans just produced a plan that would have increased the national debt by three trillion dollars.
loonz,
Where do you get your three trillion dollar figure?
The Democrats could use this if they were smart. I can envision a commercial featuring construction workers who have made their living building highways, asking them if they consider what they do a "job" or not. You could ask the same of firefighters and police officers.
If you wanted to stoop to Republican tactics, you could show government rescue workers clearing the rubble of the World Trade Center.... but that would be shameless.
If it was the Republicans, they would have already brought that talking point up. Fortunately, it's so obvious that I hope the Democrats avoid it.
Holy crap! I just realized.... all those "jobs" created by defense spending are not "jobs" either.
Steele is an idiot.
Yeah, think of all those people working in the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA. They're about to find out that they don't have jobs.
Not to mention all those people on their third or fourth tour in Iraq, or the career military personnel who train them. Why does Steele hate the troops?
The more I look at this the more ridiculous it is. By Steele's definition, no construction worker has a "job", since they are all based on contracts. Every building project, whether funded by public or private entities, involves a contract, and comes to an end.
In fact, manufacturing jobs depend on contracts, known as "orders". Dealer "A" contracts with factory "B" to buy "X" number of widgets.
I think Steele was given a certain set of Trickle Down Talking points to push, and, since he knows they're bullsh*t, he's having a hard time defending them.
What really made me slap my forehead was when Stephenopoulos told him that millions of jobs in the private sector ended just in the last year. Then Steele says," and they come back though, George. They've gone away before and they come back"
Doesn't Steele realize that the only reason that there is even any hope that jobs will come back anytime soon is BECAUSE of the positive parts of the bailout and the new stimulus plan? BECAUSE of government, in other words?
skip,
Steele is talking basic history. Everyone knows the economy runs in cycles. Recessions are part of the cycle, just as expansion is part of the cycle but in the long run, the trend has always been that the economy recovers and more jobs are then created than were lost during the recession.
Our economy is always in a state of flux. Industries come and go and so do the jobs that go with them.
Many argue that the stimulus part of the bill is reducing taxes, thereby freeing up money to be used for investment and hiring and/or paying dividends to stockholders who can then either spend or invest those dollars.
I think Democrats have conceded that tax cuts will be part of the stimulus. What we aren't willing to do is let millions of people languish for months in their misery waiting for tax cuts to work their "magic".
Wanna get investors to pour more money into ensuring businesses succeed? Get rid of the selling short option in the stock market. Investing in failure should never be an option.
His distinction between jobs and "work" is interesting too. Since the private sector has been in a race to the bottom over the past couple of decades I don't think the work they create really fits Steele's definition of jobs either. If your job can just go away tomorrow should your employer decide to relocate to the Phillipines or something is it really a job as Steele defines it?
I noticed that, too. And the percentage spent in the first year keeps changing.
I think they're just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping that it will stick. I bet their pollsters are doing focus groups around the clock.
The spending is not sustainable. But as much of it as possible should be put out there as quickly as possible. I don't see those two things as contradictory.
Actually, Democrats should be embarrassed that 42% of the stimulus is tax cuts, which most on the left view as being not very stimulating. There's your contradiction, a stimulus package that has a large chunk of non-stimulus in it.
Unless Obama disagrees with you.
But who are the tax cuts going to? The people who are more prone to spend it and stimulate demand?
Or will it go to the people who will create jobs in China, India and Mexico creating an abundance of supply?
that's such leftwing strawman baloney, that any tax cuts for job creators go to outsourcing. I've got news for you, many jobs can't be outsourced and maybe, just maybe, those who get tax breaks may invest some of those taxes to grow their company and create jobs right here in the USA. But liberals think government creates wealth and from all good things comes huge and expansive government. liberals' disdain for success and those that reap the rewards of their success is stunning.
"liberals' disdain for success and those that reap the rewards of their success is stunning."
And THAT's Right Wing straw man baloney.
liberals who want to level the playing field, redistribute income, take from those that earn it and give it to those who don't, whatever you want to call it - have a vested interest in making successful and/or rich people the bad guys, to demonize them, to label them as greedy and uncaring. For if they can do that loud enough, or with enough persuasion, then the political will to take more from them is stronger, or tell them that whatever dollar amount liberals see fit is plenty enough for them to live on, they needn't complain, blah blah. Trash the rich, rev up the warfare between the classes, nothing new.
"If you can identify yourself with those above you, then you can despise those who are below you. That's incredibly attractive to the weak and fearful." — Unknown poster on Huffington Post.
See, what I disdain is the incessant whining from those who live like kings that their "tax burden" is so unbearable. They pretend that they owe nothing to the societal structure that enables their success and nothing to the pi$$ant laborers who helped them build their massive wealth.
any wealthy "king" who considers those that labor in his or her business and have helped them get to be "wealthy, pi$$ants, won't have much wealth for too long. Greed and condescension for hard work may get some short term monetary gain, but it's not sustainable. because there are always other less greedy wealthy kings who value the laborer more, so your stereotype of the greedy rich who prey upon poor laborers may be great copy for the liberal media to include in their nightly reporting to give a target to those looking to vent, but it's not nearly as widespread as the leftist media likes to portray.
The ones who aren't greedy are not constantly complaining about their taxes. They know they're in a much better position than virtually every other American.
The people you're talking about don't usually whine about their taxes, do they? By the same token, I don't too often hear of tycoons failing because of greed and condescension toward their workers.
Who are all these people who are whining about their own personal taxes? Or is is just another faceless boogeyman propped by the left to justify your anger at them?
If no one is complaining, why do the republicans insist in giving them a taxcut?
you'd have to ask them. For me it's good for the economy, low taxes, limited government, all encased with smart, accountable spending.
It's all a myth. We have too many commitments.
low taxes does not mean less revenue. I know liberals think that is a myth too, but it is not. Try this, if you have 20 people - 15 work and 5 don't, the 15 pay $2 each in taxes, that's $30 revenue. But if you lower their taxes to $1 each, and as a result they have that extra $1 to spend and stimulate (liberals favorite word of the moment), maybe 5 more jobs will be created as a result. then you have all 20 people working, paying $1 each, that's $40 revenue. And your committments are better off with the lower tax rate than before.
sorry, my math sucks - I meant if you reduce the $2 taxes to say $1.75, you have increased revenue with $35 paid by 20 people instead of $2 paid by 15.
Capitalism sucks. Quit trying to defend it.
Well said. Capitalism works great, if the goal of Capitalism was to enrich 1% of the planet at the expense of the other 99%. People who equate Capitalism= Freedom make me sick because they've consumed the best-selling brand of Kool Aid in the history of propaganda.
jj,
What type of economic system do you suggest as an alternative?
I said earlier that taxcuts can get some results if they're targeted to the right people. Barack focused on that during the campaign.
Again, we have a lot of commitments to keep.
Liberals, conservatives, etc.
No need to ask, I just use the search function MMFA provides to look up Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilley...
"Who are all these people who are whining about their own personal taxes?"
Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.
oh, screaming ratings grubbing talk show hosts whose job it is to be provocative, you mean like those people? And I thought you were going to name unserious people.
And the people who call in to their shows. I hope you're right... i hope that most rich people aren't like that.
i'm not rich by any stretch, and I complain about high taxes all the time. Not because it's money taken from me, but because it's treated with such disrespect by those who spend it with no regard to how difficult it is for most of us to earn it. When I see the accountability and the stewardship return to those in charge of spending my money, I won't complain one iota. I just don't accept fraud, abuse and waste.
These people have a lot of power within the republican party. Limbaugh is practically your leader.
Not all rich people are greedy and uncaring. There are some who see the value in helping their fellow Americans and maintaining a civilized society.
ya, it's called charitable contributions, something many rich people do in spades.
Charitable contributions and taxes are a great combination.
Try, Liberals who want everyone to pay their fair share of taxes in proportion to the percentage of Government spending that allowed them to be successful.
that's such leftwing strawman baloney, that any tax cuts for job creators go to outsourcing. JamesB
Yoo hoo, James, I can pesonally attest to a few known instances of that happening. That's why I'm unemployed now, Dell is outsourcing all their manufacturing to China and India! And I had to train my replacement to boot!
"maybe, just maybe, those who get tax breaks may invest some of those taxes to grow their company and create jobs right here in the USA."
We've been doing that since Reagan. When is it finally going to kick in and yield the promised results?
I think the electorate shoule be embarassed they elected GW for a secong term and ignoring tax cuts is nothing more than a ruse in a failing economy burdened by a treasury draining war. And can you specify what it is that is non-stymulus in the package / I hear Mitch McConnell and his followers saying that without specifics. If I get one, it will go directly back into the economy by purchasing a blood glucose meter that gives me not only the rate of change of glucose but also how quick this rate of change is. that is what i have been looking for. I will spend it and i hope MiniMed spends it on research.
The RNC should probably steer clear from hiring TOKENS (Palin & Steele) to run their party, and recruit someone who actually has something to contribute to the rebuilding of this country, but who knows, maybe they are enjoying the underdog role so much they'll just end up staying there for awhile.
imagine the Hannity/Limbaugh team if a democrat had said that. I think we cam run an experiment here and pay Howard Dean to say that and see what happens.
This stimulus package is necessary in my opinion, I support it.
Steele's point I believe is that the Government can foot the bill for this first round of stimulus but cannot do so indefinitely if there is any chance of balancing the budget. These jobs will need to be absorbed back into the private sector.
What happens after this first round of stimulus spending is going to be interesting. I don't believe the government can be a bottomless fund without some pretty harsh economic consequesces.
Government was not expanding during the Clinton years if I recall correctly. That was one of their strengths in balancing the budget.
Why do Republicans only care about "balancing the budget" when Democrats are in power?
I've always cared about it as a long term goal. I also said the stimulus package is necessary at this time in my opinion, so therefore there won't be any balanced budgets any time soon.
You know what happens when your credit cards all get maxxed out? Nobody has unlimited credit, not even Uncle Sam.
I gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling. The question now should be -Why should Democrats care what the Republicans think?--The Repubums didn't care. But they can share blame the Dems.
Who's in the White House? Not Bush, not Bush. I hope the press conference tonite is filled with softball questions. Not the tough ones like..What do you read?
Go get 'em Prez...give the country the real side of the story and put these RadioClowns to rest. They'll lie tomorrw no matter what you say.
'sure blame'..my keyboard is acting up again and this white-out must be bad.
Democrats shouldnt care what Republicans think. I've been saying that ever since the election.
You weren't elected to govern the way Republicans governed. Do it the way you see fit and take all the credit for it. This 60 vote majority stuff is such nonsense. Democrats should absolutely force Republicans to filibuster rather than compromise the bill.
Play some hardball.
If the Democrats held 99 Senate Seats, the one Republican would be running the show- that is, the 99 Democrats would be wringing their hands trying to make that one Republican happy.
I don't get why the hell the Republicans can get things done with a bare majority, but the Democrats- in charge of every damn branch of govt which matters right now- can't do a damn thing unless it passes some arbitrary "bipartisan" test.
F-- bipartisanship. If you believe in the stimulus package, pass it. When it works, take all the credit. If it fails, take the f--ing responsibility. Is that so damned hard?
I agree that the Republicans under Bush were guilty of deficit spending. Many conservatives objected to this. We feel the Republican leadership failed and lost the election because they behaved like 'tax and spend' Democrats.
But it goes both ways. I don't know how many times, (a lot,) where liberals here extolled the virtues of Bill Clinton and the balanced budgets of his administration. Somehow all that is forgotten.
I disagree with bruce in that I do not think this stimulus package, other than the tax cuts will stimulate the economy. Reducing government spending, balancing the budget and reducing our national debt would stimulate the economy much more than these failed Kenesyan policies.
Borrowing a trillion dollars will have devestating consequences on our economy as more and more goes to simply paying the interest. It has to stop. As a country we cannot keep diverting more and more money from our economy and our taxpayers to support the bloated government.
Bill Clinton raised taxes. Somehow all that is forgotten.
Why is it that Republicans and Conservatives are always noted seperately when 'one' of them screws up? While Democrats and liberals are always the same.
AA, you are wrong, the party, other than the Democratic Party, behaved like "tax and spend" Republican/Conservatives.
Who should decide what segment of the country should benefit from this stimulus package? I believe the mandate was given in November 2008. People decided that those that did not take care of the problem were dismissed from their position of power. Politics on the RIGHT side of the aisle is tragic.
See, that's another Limbaughism. Republicans lose elections for not being "conservative" enough, and Democrats lose elections for being too "liberal". Sort of like "Heads, I win; tails, you lose."
AA,
Could you clarify which Keynesian policies that you think failed?
The part that says government can spend it's way out of a recession by taxing and/or borrowing. It didn't work for FDR back in the 30s and it hasn't worked for GW Bush. It doesn't matter if it is a Republican or Democrat. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul when government tries to spend its way out.
Look at Tarp 1. Is that working? We are supporting failed companies with billions of dollars. Now we want to borrow a trillion dollars to support not only failed companies, but failed State governments as well. What happens when the trillion is spent? Will the States cut back on their spending or come back begging for more?
How much debt is too much? Right now the stimulus plan adds almost $10,000 of debt to every taxpayer in America. Who is going to pay the interest on that borrowing. Most of government spending will be on paying interest and not goods and services. We are robbing our children in order to get out of a recession that will work itself out.
So, what is your solution to our ECONOMY problem?
republicans behaved like tax and spend democrads. Stop making me laugh. republicans are more like cut taxes and spend more republicans. Every state in the nation has to cut spending as a result of this disastrous governance. Speaking of diverting money, how much of the tax dollars went ti Iraq rebuilding as opposed to their oil revenues paying for their own rebuilding ? You might be in for a big surprise when you open your eyes and smell the roses here.
On that same note, maybe we should ask the people who have been building Jeeps for the past 60 years if what they do is a "job".
Yes, Jeep is a private sector company now, but it was originally started to fulfill government contracts. Could we not say that jobs building Jeeps were "created" by government?
Good point, Nerz. Even jobs that aren't directly government jobs, but were created as a result of a government endeavor, could all be called government-created jobs.
I think that would include every business based on the interwebs. Dang, that government sure does create some jobs. And wealth too.
Maybe California should try it. Things seem to be fairly dire out on the left coast.
Exactly. Not to mention all the jobs that were created as a result of NASA and the space missions. How soon we forget about basic household items like Tang started out as a government created job.
NERZOG, Thanks for that last post . These REPUBLICANS areeither brain dead fools or complete liars.
Anyone else here hear circus music playing whenever you read a post by AnotherAmerican?
I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than responding to his ridiculous "Rush Told Me So" posts. AA doesn't know why he thinks the way he does about the economy. He doesn't know that his posts make no sense. All he knows is that Rush Limbaugh said this or said that.
Trying to debate him is like trying to teach a cat how to swim. Facts to Dittoheads are as water is to oil- they just don't mix.
jj,
I am amazed that you think you have extrasensory perception. I rarely listen to Rush.
You're the guy who doesn't believe in capitalism aren't you? I noticed you didn't produce any argument or proof why you don't like it. You simply stated earlier your contempt like it was fact. Tell me that is debating. I love a good laugh.
Just because you do not understand my posts does not necessarily mean they don't make any sense. It simply means you are most likely lacking in comprehension.
However this is typical liberal debating tactics.. attack the messenger rather than the message. I'm used to it. Happens all the time by those here on the left who proclaim themselves to be open and accepting. However they cannot accept a difference of opinion, but instead act like children with name calling.
When I see people like you saying you can't debate me, offering opinion as if it were fact, I know you've lost. All the whining and namecalling is simply an attempt to cover that up.
Well,
This is one "Brother" that is truely confused! I thought only people out of the "GW" form were that stupid...just goes to show you, skin color has nothing to do with intelligence. I think he and George must have gone to the same school for saying absolutely dumb things!
The government does't create jobs. It steals money from the private sector and spends that money recklessly. FYI... the Soviet Union failed as a result of central planning. All that money being borrowed or printed for the spendulous package comes directly out of the pockets of the citizens of this country. None of that money originates from the government sector. It all originates from the private sector. Without the private sector to fall back on the government wouldn't have any money. They can print all the money they want but without the private sector that money would have no value. That is why the USSR couldn't print money to buy its way out of its colapse in the 90's. There wasn't a private sector and a strong free market economy to back up the currency. All of these pathetic liberal ideas have been tried and failed.
Hey, Jockelay: The government created my husband's job. He's been an assistant federal public defender for 32 years. About half of his cases resulted directly from Ronald Reagan's war on drugs (see my previous comment). So you're absolutely wrong when you say the government doesn't create jobs. And as for "pathetic... ideas" that "have been tried and have failed", the G.O.P. has the market cornered.
Good try. The government didn't create anything. They spend the taxpayers' hard earned money on a-holes like your husband so he can defend criminals.
HEY JOKE, Read my eariler post. The GOVT. created the job ive been doing for 27 yerrs. Your right wing bull--t is foolish.
Where did the government get the money to pay you for 27 years? They didn't create anything. The government confiscated that money via taxes and redistributed that money by paying you to be unproductive.
JOKE, You seem to be operating under a big mistake. The GOVT didnt confiscate that money. That money come from taxes that under the CONSTITUTION, the GOVT has a right to levy. I've built F16 and F22 jets that the GOVT and USAF HAS DEEMED NECESSARY and I think I have been very productive. Maybe you would like to come down here and try to do my job ad see how prouductive YOU can be? I guess your answer to the current crisis is just to do nothing and wait for the economy to recover on its own? I believe that GOVT intervention is the only way to prevent this crisis from getting worse even if it means higher deficits. The reason we are in this mess are the polocies of the last administration.and I still believe those FAR RIGHT WING IDEAS AND POLOCIES ARE BULL--IT
The government doesn't build F16's and F22 Raptors slick. If you are building those planes then you work for a private company called Lockheed Martin.
JOKE, As I said earlier I work for a private company that is funded by GOVT CONTRACTS. NO GOVT CONTRACTS, NO JOB, NO GOVT CONTRACS, NO LOCKEED MARTIN. THE GOVT IS ULTIMATLY MY SOURCE OF INCOME. Does that clear it up for you slick?
And Lockheed Martin doesn't build those planes and then sell commercials hoping to convince private citizens to buy them- they build those planes because the US GOVERNMENT gives Lockheed Martin BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD THEM. You CAN'T be that stupid.
And AA? Really, shut your blow hole. You are just a bold-faced liar; its not a coincidence that your posts parrot Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talking points. You are just a sheep who comes here to bleat what your Lords and Masters told you to bleat.
And I'll put my Education and IQ up against yours any day of the week. I love how you Right-Wingers always think that if someone disagrees with you, that person must have "comprehension skills." Get the hell over yourself. You aren't going to indoctrinate any new dittoheads here, because we know how to use our OWN brains. We don't need a fat radio host to do our thinking for us. You, on the other hand, clearly get your marching orders from 12-3 Eastern Time five days a week. Stop denying it, it just makes you look even dumber than you clearly are.
JJ,thanks,I coulden't have said it better myself.
You forgot about the CIA, NSA, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Bureau of Land Management......here is a long list of government jobs.
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha.html