Michael Steele is an idiot: "Government jobs aren't jobs!"

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/steele-confuses-stephanop_n_164991.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TeePee4Prez]

And this guy wanted to represent Maryland?  sh**t, that's the home of MANY government employees.  If he said that before the 2006 election, he would have kissed a lot of votes goodbye especially in Prince George's County.

[King]

So, we need to put professional athletes on welfare?

And actually there is more job security in government work.  Even if the project you were hired for does end, they are always looking to hire more and all sectors are pretty much covered by our vast federal and state governments.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Steele has always been an idiot. This is hardly a surprise.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He's just mad because he didn't get a cushy government job 2 years ago.

[Holmes]

Is this guy's term as chairman over yet?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is he running for Sarah Palin's vice president?

[Ban my account ffs!]

In the 80's, when unemployent was high, Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill consulted with Ronald Reagan to complain about the abysmal unemployment rate, which had fallen recently but was still high.  He was astonished when Reagan proposed that people serving in the army count as being employed, thereby reducing some of the people who were 'unemployed'.

In the same vein, governments cannot just create jobs and say, "See?  The unemployment rate is falling."  For a job to exist legitimately, there has to be enough demand for it.  Government can reduce the unemployment rate and create 'jobs' by simply putting everyone to work.  Steele is right here.

The point of these jobs is not to permanently put people to work on the government roles.

It is to upgrade infrastructure in order to better the business environment and CREATE an environment for new demand.

This recession is not simply a "correction", much of it is psychological.  People aren't buying not because they've lost their job... but because they fear that they might lose their job.

If we start putting people to work it will raise morale and people will spend more, thus pushing up demand.

The invisible hand is not sufficient in this unique set of circumstances.

[Landslide Lyndon]

People, not governments, are the engine of human progress.  If free men cannot solve this problem, then it is very unlikely it can be solved by government. 

It would be great if we could give everyone a job.  But whenever we do this, taxes must be imposed.  There is no other solution.  And for every visible improvement in infrastructure, taxes must be raised higher and higher.  A $10 million bridge is $10 million diverted away from the taxpayers.  People under heavy taxation limit their spending - if there is anything to deepen, rather than end, the recession (or depression), taxing would be a good solution.

So now you have a bridge (which may or may not be necessary), a few people put to work building this bridge, with everyone given a heavier tax burden and denied what they could have bought with the money diverted to the bridge that they may or may not use.  Nothing has been solved.

What the heck?
That reads like a WSJ editorial written by George W. Bush.

[opebo]

People, not governments, are the engine of human progress.  If free men cannot solve this problem, then it is very unlikely it can be solved by government. 

The government is people, VB, and the 'private'/'public' dichotomy is a false one.  Don't fear the government, Blubb, it is what keeps the rich you love so much in their position at the top of the hierarchy.

Anyway your use of the term 'free' to describe people living in a capitalist society is testimony to how deluded you are..

[Marokai Backbeat]

People, not governments, are the engine of human progress.  If free men cannot solve this problem, then it is very unlikely it can be solved by government. 

It would be great if we could give everyone a job.  But whenever we do this, taxes must be imposed.  There is no other solution.  And for every visible improvement in infrastructure, taxes must be raised higher and higher.  A $10 million bridge is $10 million diverted away from the taxpayers.  People under heavy taxation limit their spending - if there is anything to deepen, rather than end, the recession (or depression), taxing would be a good solution.

So now you have a bridge (which may or may not be necessary), a few people put to work building this bridge, with everyone given a heavier tax burden and denied what they could have bought with the money diverted to the bridge that they may or may not use.  Nothing has been solved.

What the heck?
That reads like a WSJ editorial written by George W. Bush.

Well. It is VB, afterall.

What Blubb doesn't quite get is that in a nation of a few hundred million people, paying a few cents for said bridge, and that the bridge in his scenario would affect more people than just the workers that built the bridge. Not only do you get people into a job by building the bridge, you get permanent jobs repairing and maintaining the bridge, travel across the bridge, the bridge allows easier access to businesses and other institutions, etc. All in all, you have a project that cost virtually nothing for the entire taxpaying American population but benefits several groups in the immediate area.

In any case, higher taxes don't necessarily mean a weaker economy, as our taxes (compared to the last 70 years) are historically pretty low.

[Smash255]

I wonder how many people who have recently been laid off would consider a government job as not being a real job.....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How many millions of unemployed people are there out there desperately seeking a job, and the best the Republican party could come up with was Michael Steele? Sometimes when you can't find a qualified worker, it's your own damn fault for sucking.

[Ban my account ffs!]

In the 80's, when unemployent was high, Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill consulted with Ronald Reagan to complain about the abysmal unemployment rate, which had fallen recently but was still high.  He was astonished when Reagan proposed that people serving in the army count as being employed, thereby reducing some of the people who were 'unemployed'.

In the same vein, governments cannot just create jobs and say, "See?  The unemployment rate is falling."  For a job to exist legitimately, there has to be enough demand for it.  Government can reduce the unemployment rate and create 'jobs' by simply putting everyone to work.  Steele is right here.

The point of these jobs is not to permanently put people to work on the government roles.

It is to upgrade infrastructure in order to better the business environment and CREATE an environment for new demand.

This recession is not simply a "correction", much of it is psychological.  People aren't buying not because they've lost their job... but because they fear that they might lose their job.

If we start putting people to work it will raise morale and people will spend more, thus pushing up demand.

The invisible hand is not sufficient in this unique set of circumstances.

People, not governments, are the engine of human progress.  If free men cannot solve this problem, then it is very unlikely it can be solved by government. 

It would be great if we could give everyone a job.  But whenever we do this, taxes must be imposed.  There is no other solution.  And for every visible improvement in infrastructure, taxes must be raised higher and higher.  A $10 million bridge is $10 million diverted away from the taxpayers.  People under heavy taxation limit their spending - if there is anything to deepen, rather than end, the recession (or depression), taxing would be a good solution.

So now you have a bridge (which may or may not be necessary), a few people put to work building this bridge, with everyone given a heavier tax burden and denied what they could have bought with the money diverted to the bridge that they may or may not use.  Nothing has been solved.

Free men created our government that we might put our minds together to change things for the good.

The debate is not whether the government is a force for good, but where it can be used as one and where it can't.

Infrastructure is one of those places.  It is a public good that is usable by everybody to use their freedom and creative thinking to create jobs.

[Lunar]

I don't have a problem with what Steele was trying to say except this contradiction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if there's going to be private sector jobs coming back when the contract expires, that would seem a persuasive argument FOR the Democratic plan.

[Iosif]

Wasn't this guy meant to be a good communicator?

[Person Man]

This is pretty funny.....what the government is doing is performing supply subsitution while demand is stimulated, in a time where supply outstrips demand. Ronald Reagan did the same thing-  he stimulated the supply while using government spending to subsitute demand.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't have a problem with what Steele was trying to say except this contradiction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if there's going to be private sector jobs coming back when the contract expires, that would seem a persuasive argument FOR the Democratic plan.

I was thinking the same thing, actually.

[Lunar]

Wasn't this guy meant to be a good communicator?

He's probably better when  he's not speaking pure BS that he probably doesn't even believe in.

He's used to arguing his point of view and not a political platform created by the RNC's communications director

[Purple State]

Wasn't this guy meant to be a good communicator?

It was painful to read his abuse of sentence structure.

I don't have a problem with what Steele was trying to say except this contradiction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if there's going to be private sector jobs coming back when the contract expires, that would seem a persuasive argument FOR the Democratic plan.

Exactly. These government jobs aren't meant to be permanent, but meant to get people back to work in the short term to throw some liquidity into the market. That will result in increased spending and allow businesses to rebound, banks to begin releasing capital, etc. That would create new permanent jobs. Meanwhile, we get some nice infrastructural improvements and development. What exactly is Steele's issue with this?

[Person Man]

Wasn't this guy meant to be a good communicator?

It was painful to read his abuse of sentence structure.

I don't have a problem with what Steele was trying to say except this contradiction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if there's going to be private sector jobs coming back when the contract expires, that would seem a persuasive argument FOR the Democratic plan.

Exactly. These government jobs aren't meant to be permanent, but meant to get people back to work in the short term to throw some liquidity into the market. That will result in increased spending and allow businesses to rebound, banks to begin releasing capital, etc. That would create new permanent jobs. Meanwhile, we get some nice infrastructural improvements and development. What exactly is Steele's issue with this?

Like the average Republican, he doesn't believe that demand is important and that supply will generate its own demand. Watched too much "Field of Dreams", if you ask me.

[paul718]

What exactly is Steele's issue with this?

That in order to pay for these government jobs, you have to take money from the taxpayers.  You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

[Lunar]

What exactly is Steele's issue with this?

That in order to pay for these government jobs, you have to take money from the taxpayers.  You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

So am I still robbing Peter to pay for Paul my postman last year?

[Purple State]

What exactly is Steele's issue with this?

That in order to pay for these government jobs, you have to take money from the taxpayers.  You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

So we either: a) Rob Peter to pay Paul, who will then pay Peter, Matthew, Simon, and John; or we leave Peter and Paul be, Paul refuses to spend money in fear of losing his job, Peter has no revenue and so he shuts down and lays off the workers at his small business, and now you need to rob Philip to pay Paul, Matthew, Simon, John, Peter, and everyone who works for him.

Basically, you cut this thing off now or it just multiplies and worsens at an ever-growing pace. Steele has no sensible opinion on the issue beyond "government bad, market good." Everyone needs to start listening to the people who know what they are talking about. Or, an even better idea, just remember back to the intro economics courses a majority of them surely took. Dig up the old notebooks and get to work.

[paul718]

What exactly is Steele's issue with this?

That in order to pay for these government jobs, you have to take money from the taxpayers.  You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

So am I still robbing Peter to pay for Paul my postman last year?

But the government doesn't hire your mailman in order to create work.  They hire your mailman to deliver your mail.  Hire people to fix the road because the road needs to be fixed, not to merely create work for some people. 

For the record, I don't know where I stand on the issue.  But that's what I interpreted Steele's
argument to be. 

So we either: a) Rob Peter to pay Paul, who will then pay Peter, Matthew, Simon, and John; or we leave Peter and Paul be, Paul refuses to spend money in fear of losing his job, Peter has no revenue and so he shuts down and lays off the workers at his small business, and now you need to rob Philip to pay Paul, Matthew, Simon, John, Peter, and everyone who works for him.

We can lower income taxes, so Peter has more discretionary income to spend.  We can lower corporate taxes and capital gains taxes and then whichever apostle owns the business can hire more workers.  This way no one has to get robbed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are plenty of economists who disagree with the theory of Keynesian Multipliers.