Hello all –
Sorry I’ve been out for about a month – the workload is beyond silly and I’ve literally no time for any extra items, even my blog. This comes a really bad time because there is so much to write about and say – I’ll be more in the swing in coming weeks, but for now, please just don’t write me off.
Side note – a big combined thanks and apology to SFNathan, who sent me 4 awesome articles to seed discussion here on the blog and I’ve not gotten any of them into a postable place. I really apologize because it was a gift of both time and thought from SFN and I have not addressed it.
Anyhoo, for today’s quickie I want to address Richard Steele’s comments to Wolf Blitzer on CNN because he’s already doing an excellent job of continuing the absolutely stupid, ill thought out talking points of the ridiculous right as well as playing the obstructionist and hardline partisan player brilliantly. Today (paraphrased because I don’t have the actual transcript, but as accurate as I can remember) “This is no stimulus plan, this is just a spending plan. Government cannot create jobs. Government has never, in the entirety of human history ever created a job. When the contract [for that bridge or public works project] goes away so does the job. Those 2.5 million jobs will never happen.”
Wow. Well first off, government has created a huge number of jobs. I’d imagine that soldiers would feel slighted that what they do is not really a job. And teachers, firefighters, police etc must really be amazed to know that what they do is not a job. But second and much more importantly, if permanence is the defining criteria for a job, then what, exactly, does Lockheed Martin do when the contract for a plane goes away? Reassign all those workers on the toaster assembly line? Have them do temp work for other divisions? What does any hiring entity do when the job requirement does not exist? LAY OFF THE WORKERS. Say … kind of like the 660K jobs from last month?
Personally I’m just fine with the likes of Steele spouting off. Even better when Rush says, “I hope he (President Obama) fails” because he is not interested in the betterment of this country – he is interested in getting things his way. This is the problem with Republicans – they want it THEIR WAY, not even open to the possibility that it might be great for you, me and the country at large if it (recovery et al) is accomplished via those vile and repugnant “Liberal, Socialistic programs.” I think it’s great that the Republican water bearers are showing their true colors. This morning they identified 500MM for firefighters and 1.2BB for kids after school care workers as pork and some of the reasons that the stimulus program is a sham.
The idea, is that giving tax breaks will create jobs. Personally, I think creating jobs is better at creating jobs. Call me silly, but thus far the tax cuts brought about by the Bush administration did not seem to either make things better or hold back the tide of financial failure we are now experiencing. I’ll comment more later about the fact that I don’t think this is because Republicans are dense or out of touch – in fact, I think they know *exactly* what they are doing, and it all ties back to the Reagan revolution and the attempted elimination of social entitlements.
But I’ll have to comment on that later, because I’ve got to get back to work. Have a good one!
/p
Hey Perk, I thought you were hiding because the first two weeks of the B.O. administration have been a miserable failure!
The daschle drama being especially embarrassing. Ouch!!
First of all you probably don’t like richard steele because he’s black. Liberals love to carry poor little black victims in their pocket everywhere they go and now here’s this Michael Steele guy upsetting the applecart.
When you talk of all the soldiers you must remember they are fighting “Bush’s” war, so therefore we must give credit to Bush, not the gov’t, for giving those soldiers their jobs!
Perk, you had a lot to say about michael steele but I really can’t nail down what you disagree with him about. I guess fundamentally you think that government is, can be or should be creating jobs.
Michael Steele is a conservative and most conservatives believe that jobs are created out of demand. For instance it’s the demand for public safety that creates jobs for cops. The gov’t acts as an intermediary.
If the gov’t were to create jobs then ultimately there would be a problem when supply didn’t equal demand.
I think the jobs steele is referring to are the infrastructure building jobs. Jobs that arise from a short term gov’t contract. They will be temporary.
I don’t think our system needs to be fixed at all really. I don’t even think the current state of the economy is a result of regulation or deregulation (by the hand of Bill Clinton). I think corruption is at the bottom of this whole thing. Good old fashioned corruption at the top. Lobbyists, Congressmen,Governors… the whole bunch of them.
There are WAY too many conflicts of interest in every aspect of our legislative process. Too many rich guys in congress doing business with big bankers and contractors and lobbyists. That’s the real problem.
@Rush
Good for Rush. He thinks that everything Obama has planned is a disaster waiting to happen. So therefore it’s good that he wishes obama to fail. Of course by ‘fail’ he means that he hopes obama fails to ruin this country. Kind of an oxymoron. A mans ways always seem right to him.
@tax cuts
Tax cuts or no tax cuts could have stopped the downturn of our economy. Like I said before, I think corruption is the problem. And corruption will kill any scheme good or bad.
Michael Steele is an idiot and they REALLY should have voted in someone with something better to say.
Jobs are created by demand, that is true. There is plenty demand in this country, it’s that the Repugnicans just don’t want THOSE jobs. You see, if we actually put 3MM people to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure (read, roads, bridges, power systems etc etc) then they will be demonstrably wrong. Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that already, but that will be the nail in the coffin.
Tax cuts never built a bridge. The country needs infrastructure, there is demand. Additionally, the country needs people that are making enough money to pay their mortgages and buy things on Amazon.com. Ergo, investing in our own country is a good thing. Considerably better than investing in Iraq, or giving tax breaks to the already super rich.
@ Rush: A blowhard idiot that does not care about you, me or anything about the USofA – he cares about his ratings and the wealth of he & his buddies. His notion of policy (as well as Billo, Hannity et al) are bankrupt and they are quickly being exposed for the lies that they are.
Thank God.
@ Hiding: No, not at all – just so fantastically busy I cannot get the time to spend here. Unfortunate, but it’ll come back around.
-Perk
“@ Rush: A blowhard idiot”
“Michael Steele is an idiot”
Where is all this liberal rage coming from? The assertion here is that they are idiots because they say thing you dont agree with? Why so closed minded?
“WALLACE: All right. On Saturday, you spoke at a meeting of Republican congressmen, and you congratulated them on voting as a group against the House stimulus plan. In fact, as you put it, “the goose egg you laid on the president’s desk was just beautiful.”
Mr. Obama has a 70 percent approval rating. Eighty percent of the country says they want Republicans to work — not necessarily agree with, but to work with President Obama. Are you saying the GOP should just ignore that?
STEELE: No. I’m saying — well, I’m just — I’m saying the GOP did what the GOP had to do to protect the pocketbooks and the interests of the American people. That’s a bad bill. It’s not a stimulus bill. It’s a spending bill. Let’s call it what it is.
Don’t tell me, “Well, I’m going to give you a third tax cuts, and then I’m to spend two-thirds of that.” It’s crazy. So I called it what it is. The Republican Congress did a great job in drawing the line.
I hope the Senate will follow. I hope the Senate members will follow with the House leaders in making certain that we do not spend the American people — the money that’s proposed. It is not a good plan.
WALLACE: But, Chairman Steele…
STEELE: Yep.
WALLACE: … if you end up with a bill that is passed by the House and the Senate, and every House member, Republican House member, votes against it, and every Senate Republican member votes against it, you don’t think there’s any danger that they’re going to be seen as obstructing?
STEELE: Why? If I — if I think you’ve proposed something that is not in my best interests, why am I an obstructionist if I don’t agree with it?
Why should I agree with something just because you proposed it? Why should I agree with it just because you have a 70 percent approval? You can still be wrong with a 70 percent approval rating.”
THATS what he said.
Why is he an idiot for wanting to protect americans from wasteful spending of there hard earned money?
Good to see you guys are still around.
Edgar, still making fantastic points!!
Excellent rebutal! Open minded and yet savvy!
@perk on Rush:
“His notion of policy (as well as Billo, Hannity et al) are bankrupt and they are quickly being exposed for the lies that they are.”
Quickly exposed for the lies…? Rush is a twenty some odd year veteran of Talk. He’s so influential that even Obama (his Majesty of course…) felt compelled to speak out against him. Obama is trying to silence him. I think that alone speaks to Rush’s influence. He has influence not because he is a lying idiot. He’s been the top dog for twenty years because he has not been exposed as the “lier he is.”
Bill Orielly and Sean H. are more popular than ever. Every time bill puts out a book it goes to number one, unless he is competing with Coulter.
Perk, these guys are wildly successful and tens of millions of people (they must ALL be idiots right?) listen and agree with them every day. You are basically shitting on everyone who disagrees with you. That’s not tolerant…shame, shame…
“Tax cuts never built a bridge.”
Perk, tax cuts put more money in my pocket. I get to keep more of MY money that I worked for and earned. Me alone. I will spend that money. Companies will supply my needs. The Company will hire someone to keep up with supply.
If I have less money in MY pocket then I will spend less. There will be less demand. Companies will need less workers. People get laid off.
If 3MM people suddenly become bridge builders then who is going to pay these 3MM new employees? Me? Then I will have less money in my pocket, and I will spend less, there will be less demand, people get laid off.
IT didn’t work when Roosevelt tried it.
A scenario: Everyone in town keeps more of their own money. More people in town can afford to buy houses. More property tax is paid. The town collects more in taxes. The town fixes bridges. The town gets things done.
@ The real issue:
This stimulus bill is not strictly a stimulus bill. It has a lot of add-ons. Many of these add-ons are for liberal programs and are only marginally stimulative. This is a big expensive bill. It doesn’t need to be as big as it is. Republicans have two reasons to argue against this version of the bill.
The first reason is that it is a big enough bill already and everyone in congress should be doing everything they can to keep this damn bill as small as possible. IT’s going to be tough on tax payers.
The second reason republicans should argue against this bill is that the Pork is largely liberal programs and conservatives are fundamentally against those things anyway.
The solution? Craft a stimulus bill that is purely that, a stimulus bill.
Save the add-ons for another day and just get this bill passed right now. There will be plenty of opportunities to argue the merits of the ‘add-ons’ in the future.
@ Trent
Thank you. Trent, regarding the hostility of perk toward micheal steel and the other conservatives. I think perk is a closet homosexual and he is battling his inner demons. Let’s just try to be understanding and not take it personally of course.
@ “What Steele Said” – well, perhaps if you quoted the Wolf Blitzer article as I did rather than trying to muff the point with what was said elsewhere…
STEELE: Are you taking into account inflation?
And, first off, the government doesn’t create jobs. Let’s get this notion out of our heads that the government create jobs. Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job.
Small business owners do, small enterprises do, not the government. When that government contract runs out, that job goes away. That’s what we’re talking about here. And those two to four million jobs that are projected won’t happen. Trust me.
@ Hostility: The word “Liberal” has been cast as a 4 letter word for so long, and so hard it’s lost it’s core meaning. Think, for just a moment, about your friends like Ann Coulter, who’ve claimed that Liberals are treasonous and should be shot. You think that because I call people idiots I have rage? You need to address the way that your ilk has been speaking to people like me for almost 30 years now.
But just for the record, I do have rage: Republicans and anti-Americans like Rush and Billo have been trashing my country, our reputation and it’s people for a long, long time. They deserve no less than to be called out for what they are.
@ More popular every day? Actually, you’re not reading the polls: they are losing ground every day and their message is needing to become more shrill and extreme so that they can at least claim their base. Moderate Republicans and independents are leaving the right wing noise machine in droves. You’ll need to listen to something else other than them to get these facts though.
@ Tolerance: Straw man. I never said I was tolerant of anti-American views that are designed to strip the common man of his place in American society. Don’t mistake “Liberal” for “Dove.” The problem with so many Democrats is that they’ve let the much more disciplined Republican Party have their way with them without meeting the hostility and bared-teeth aggression in kind. It’s time that Liberals fight fire with fire.
@ Tax cuts never built a bridge/taxes = more money in my pocket: Then with all the tax cuts we saw during the Bush years, we should all be in great shape, right? Why didn’t it work before? Why, if it wasn’t enough, didn’t the Republicans just do more when they could over the last 8 years? Why, if it didn’t work then, do you expect a couple more dollars in your pocket now to do the trick?
But that’s not really the point in any case – a couple more dollars in your pocket will not stop the collapse of the housing industry. It will not put the 528K more people out of work last MONTH back into a position of financial security. And let me get this straight: you’d argue that when the government is done with a contract, people lose their jobs and so that’s why we need to give more money to the corporations. Do the jobless numbers not make sense to you? Do you not understand that these jobs were ALL LOST in the private sector?
@ Roosevelt – you’ll have to read some history to understand why you are wrong. Roosevelt was tremendously successful for the first 5 years, then when he took his foot off the gas at the urging of Republicans (about ’37) we slipped back into a recession again.
@ Stimulus: The amount that the Republicans are complaining about is about 0.5% of the total package. They are using every missed comma and apostrophe to try and tear Obama down, because they know that when he gets his package, and it succeeds, they’ll look like the turd in the pool that they are.
@ Stimulus Again: It IS A spending bill, that’s the friggin’ point! If Republicans are so good at crafting such things, they should have done so a long, LONG time ago. They are simply approaching the problem with the same worn out ideas that got us here in the first place.
And you know it. There is no logic behind the Republican’s argument – only obstruction. They cannot let it be seen that after their policies have failed America so blatantly and utterly, a more centrist and involved government is a good thing.
@ Not take it personally – I hear your
for both Trent and me, because you know it’s a straw man as well. You know in your heart that this is now a losing battle and your team is going to have to throw everything they can at trying to save face.
BTW:
Just sayin’.
@perk
“@ Tax cuts never built a bridge/taxes = more money in my pocket: Then with all the tax cuts we saw during the Bush years, we should all be in great shape, right? Why didn’t it work before?”
Corruption
@perk
“@ Stimulus Again: It IS A spending bill, that’s the friggin’ point! If Republicans are so good at crafting such things, they should have done so a long, LONG time ago. They are simply approaching the problem with the same worn out ideas that got us here in the first place.”
Perk, corruption is the culprit here. It’s not the fact that Bill Clinton turned the market into the wild, wild west with his deregulation in 98. It’s not the fact that Bush tried to reign in Freddie and Fanny in 2003.
It’s not that nit picky bullshit. It’s corruption. Corruption, corruption, corruption!!!
What do you get when you cross a lobbyist, a congressmen and big time bankers? Corruption. That’s the problem.
I think there are many in the private sector that should be held accoutable, and they are not. I think there are many in congress that should be held accountable and they are not.
I dig your phony outrage perk, it’s very entertaining and one hundred percent liberal. But this is really not a liberal/conservative fireball in my view. It’s simply about corruption and accountability.
@ Corruption – I have no argument that there’s a lot of corruption out there. And it’s both sides of the aisle, although the Republicans have a longer and more storied past of corruption, cronyism and pork barrel special projects than Dems, at least in the last 30 years.
But it is hilarious when you claim that deregulation is Clinton’s deal and the Republicans tried to regulate. Deregulation is all Republican, particularly since Reagan. Unfortunately, Clinton went along with too much IMO, but Dems cannot be held liable for the wild west that is our economic frontier nowadays.
@ private sector, held accountable: you’ve got that right. The bonuses paid to banking execs just recently are enough to set anyone’s blood pressure a’boil. Now where’s that “self regulating market place” and notion that “left alone, the market knows best” argument when you need it? roflmao:
“But it is hilarious when you claim that deregulation is Clinton’s deal and the Republicans tried to regulate”
Bill clinton deregulated. Bush proposed a measure in 2003 that would have increased regulation where it was needed most.
That’s just recent history perk. No wriggle room there.
@ the market knows best
The market means supply and demand. Demand dictates supply. You disagree?
The market does know best, and when people abuse the market they need to go to jail. If you allow people to abuse the market and not pay the price then you have a problem. It’s not the market though, it’s the abusers.
@ Clinton: Yup, he did some deregulation. But the way you argue it, (clinton’s passage of Graham’s bill vs Bush’s push on FMae et al) makes it sound as if that tiny tit-for-tat make an example of reality. The truth is that deregulation has been a hallmark of Republican philosophy for 30 years where Dems have wanted more regulation. Your example exceptions do not make the rule.
@ Tricky twist on the argument: when someone abuses the market they go to jail. Fair enough, but how about when they simply behave in a way that is dangerous to people?
Loggers want fewer-to-no restrictions on what they can dump in rivers, as do companies that would happily dump mercury without issue until it’s illegal. Or take the recent peanut butter issue: the “market” ie., companies ship putrid peanuts into the country – they obviously think they can get away with it since there’s not enough folks to regulate them. People get sick and die. So, is this an example of “the market knowing best?”
Without regulations, companies would do anything they want to do to try to make a profit. This is not me spouting, this is as clear as day and has gone on since the dawn of time. People will do whatever they can to make a buck until they are stopped. The “Stopper” here is the government.
Were everyone of integrity, were everyone concerned about their fellow man as much as they were about making a profit, then government would not be necessary. As it is though, government is the only entity that protects us from rampant profiteering.
@perk
“@ Clinton: Yup, he did some deregulation. But the way you argue it, (clinton’s passage of Graham’s bill vs Bush’s push on FMae et al) makes it sound as if that tiny tit-for-tat make an example of reality.”
If by example of reality you mean to imply that republicans are for regulation and democrats are against it then no. I of course am fully aware that conservatives lean toward deregulation. That is not what I was trying to express. I was talking about this specific instance and how we got here. Every situation is unique and so is this one.
In this situation the dems (clinton)deregulated and the repubs (Bush) actually pushed for regulation. A strange and unusual situation where both parties went against their core principles.
The situation we are in now is not the result of some text book example of how unfettered deregulation is bad for the economy. The current state of the economy is not the result, broadly speaking, of the general philosophy of deregulation.
There a specific events that lead up to this disaster and they are clearly marked out. There’s no need to generalize as we can trace back to specific landmark events that foreshadowed this catastrophe.
Deregulation does not mean idiot regulation. Deregulation is not meant to imply anarchy. People who believe in deregulation generally believe that life is more enjoyable when less gov’t is involved in it. So conservatives when given the choice lean toward deregulation.
It’s not all or nothing perk. It amazes me that you see it that way.
Long comment….
Perk, you just brushed it off before when I told you this whole rotten deal is due to corruption.
IF I may go on a bit.
Landmark 1. Clinton deregulated.
Landmark 2. Bush Proposed regulation.
Landmark 3. Frank, Watts, Waters, Dodd all gave F&F the thumbs up when in fact they were ready to fall.
Chairman Frank “F&F are a fundamentally sound institution” frank went on to accuse the Bush of just trying to make it harder for everyone (blacks and other minorities) to realize the American Dream.
But Frank was in bed both literally and figuratively with F&F and turned a blind eye to the troubling signs that Bush and others correctly saw.
Steps toward reigning in F&F and others were stopped dead in their tracks. Why would the dems do that? Three reasons.
1. Money ie corruption
2. They buy the minority vote this way
3. To obstruct Bush out of spite at the expense of the country.
Now before you go and defend these crooked scumbag cheats, who are all Lawyers (and you know what everyone says about Lawyers) just because they are liberals, just remember: they are all slimy politicians!
This is about corruption.
““market” ie., companies ship putrid peanuts into the country – they obviously think they can get away with it since there’s not enough folks to regulate them. People get sick and die. So, is this an example of “the market knowing best?””
the market is not a company. The market is the mechanism of the laws of supply and demand naturally at work. The market didn’t ship bad peanuts. An irresponsible asshole did and he should go to jail. Simple.
The kind of regulation you refer to are more like rules than regulations.
The type of regulation that conservatives object to is not a safety regulation. It’s the idea that if you increase regulation there comes a point where the gov’t will artificially manage the supply and demand rather than let supply and demand create it’s own natural balance.
I understand it is your mission in life to try and undermine every leg of the overall conservative philosophy but you misrepresent the issues at the core of the debate of regulation/deregulation when you start talking abuot dumping poison into water sources.
It is the finer lines we are inspecting. Everybody wants clean water etc… It’s the point at which the gov’t interferes with the natural balance of supply and demand that concerns those who understand this issue. At what point is gov’t too big? That is the question. If gov’t manipulates the supply and demand is gov’t too big? That is the issue perk. If this bill goes through then is the gov’t going to be too big?
That’s the heart of the matter.
@The type of regulation that conservatives object to is not a safety regulation.
Edgar … I simply have to challenge you on this because it’s patently false.
The most egregious example is the Sago mining disaster of 2006 where 1 person was killed by the initial blast and 11 out of the 12 survivors died waiting for rescue. MHSA regulations at that time only required “enough breathable air to last a ‘sustainable’ amount of time”, which at the time was 1 (one) hour. Afterward, the West Virginia Mine Safety Technology Task Force recommended this be ammended to 48 hours because most mine rescues average 40 hours and this should suffice. So what did the Conservative Republican Senate and Congress pass? They doubled the amount of air from 1 hour to 2, completely ignoring the recommendations of the experts and history. Why do you suppose they did this? Because it would be too costly to maintain those levels of breathable air.
The absolute Laissez faire methodology employed by conservatives (there are Dems too who do this as well, although I would argue they are in the minority) is not to impose regulations on anything until someone dies as a result. No one dies … no need to regulate.
Markets by their nature turn on demand, not beforehand. Safety or efficacy is never given regulations or oversight until something happens to force it. A crime has to occur first before any oversite is considered in a “market-based” society.
We haven’t even BEGUN to talk about finances and health systems – only safety at this point.
The comment window is now open.
Also … welcome back, Perkiset!