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

[Purple State]

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.
[/quote]

Giving people free money will fail to stimulate the economy. People are hoarding all their money right now, scared that their job is next. Businesses are hoarding money afraid that their credit will dry up soon. This is not just a monetary recession. Fear is in the air. No one wants to spend. What government works does is it forces people to spend money. It forces these companies to hire workers to fix bridges and roads. It forces them to buy the products needed to accomplish these projects. That forces the supplying companies to purchase goods from other companies, etc. By funding one infrastructure project you create an incredible number of jobs while stimulating the flow of money through the system. Cutting taxes won't do that. It will only give people more money to shove under their mattresses.

[Lunar]

Why is government spending "robbing" but tax-cuts that create the exact same cost to taxpayers in the long run (the deficit) not?

[jokerman]

Except the roads actually do need to be fixed, Paul.  America is in massive want of infrastructure repair and upgrade right now, in the order of perhaps $2 Trillion, so hiring someone to rebuild the roads actually is very productive.

[paul718]

Why is government spending "robbing" but tax-cuts that create the exact same cost to taxpayers in the long run (the deficit) not?

Because tax cuts allow people to keep their own money and decide for themselves what they want to do with it.  Since we're already $10 trillion in the red, why don't we curtail spending and allow current tax receipts to pay it down?  And besides, tax cuts don't always result in decreased revenue.

Except the roads actually do need to be fixed, Paul.  America is in massive want of infrastructure repair and upgrade right now, in the order of perhaps $2 Trillion, so hiring someone to rebuild the roads actually is very productive.

That makes sense to me.  Like I said, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.  But why are we waiting until now to make the necessary infrastructure improvements?  That's what makes it smell like "make-work", which is I think what Steele was getting at. 

EDIT:  I'm going to bed now, so I probably won't be able to respond until tomorrow evening. 

[Lunar]

Why is government spending "robbing" but tax-cuts that create the exact same cost to taxpayers in the long run (the deficit) not?

Because tax cuts allow people to keep their own money and decide for themselves what they want to do with it.  Since we're already $10 trillion in the red, why don't we curtail spending and allow current tax receipts to pay it down?  And besides, tax cuts don't always result in decreased revenue.

Are you not still stealing from future taxpayers to dole money out through artificially low tax rates?

By the way, the premise behind the spending plan is to generate long-term revenue greater than the deficit created as well, so I don't necessarily buy that as a reason why it doesn't also constitute "robbing."

If they both raise the deficit in equal amounts in order to distribute income to segments of the population, I just don't see the ethical difference.

[Purple State]

Why is government spending "robbing" but tax-cuts that create the exact same cost to taxpayers in the long run (the deficit) not?

Because tax cuts allow people to keep their own money and decide for themselves what they want to do with it.  Since we're already $10 trillion in the red, why don't we curtail spending and allow current tax receipts to pay it down?  And besides, tax cuts don't always result in decreased revenue.

Except the roads actually do need to be fixed, Paul.  America is in massive want of infrastructure repair and upgrade right now, in the order of perhaps $2 Trillion, so hiring someone to rebuild the roads actually is very productive.

That makes sense to me.  Like I said, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.  But why are we waiting until now to make the necessary infrastructure improvements?  That's what makes it smell like "make-work", which is I think what Steele was getting at. 

EDIT:  I'm going to bed now, so I probably won't be able to respond until tomorrow evening. 

And the reason we are waiting until now is because Bush ignored it for 8 years and Congress under Clinton continued to try cutting spending on such things. It's not the fault of the Democrats that no money has been spent on infrastructure. But there is no denying that public works are good for a recession.

[Brittain33]

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

Does he have a defined point of view separate from whatever the GOP is selling in a given year? I ask because this mistake is very similar to the one he made at a synagogue, comparing stem cell research to the Holocaust. He followed a talking point to a logical but extreme conclusion that clumsily negated his original point.

[paul718]

Why is government spending "robbing" but tax-cuts that create the exact same cost to taxpayers in the long run (the deficit) not?

Because tax cuts allow people to keep their own money and decide for themselves what they want to do with it.  Since we're already $10 trillion in the red, why don't we curtail spending and allow current tax receipts to pay it down?  And besides, tax cuts don't always result in decreased revenue.

Are you not still stealing from future taxpayers to dole money out through artificially low tax rates?

By the way, the premise behind the spending plan is to generate long-term revenue greater than the deficit created as well, so I don't necessarily buy that as a reason why it doesn't also constitute "robbing."

If they both raise the deficit in equal amounts in order to distribute income to segments of the population, I just don't see the ethical difference.

You raise a valid point.  I've never really looked at it that way.  I guess my main beef is that government spending directs taxpayer money toward projects that the Appropriations Committee deems worthy, whereas tax cuts would allow the taxpayers to decide for themselves where the money should be spent. 

Also, I believe tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton all resulted in increased revenue to the government. 

And the reason we are waiting until now is because Bush ignored it for 8 years and Congress under Clinton continued to try cutting spending on such things. It's not the fault of the Democrats that no money has been spent on infrastructure.

I don't know how much the Bush Administration spend on infrastructure, or what parts of the national infrastructure the federal government should be responsible for.  I'll take your word for it, though.  But how much of this stimulus package is going towards infrastructure?   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure there is.  There has always been a debate, for example, on whether The New Deal pulled us out of The Great Depression orr actually prolonged it.  You can argue one way or the other, but you can't say that there is no denying.