Steele: Cops, Firefighters, Soldiers, Postmen, Teachers All Secretly Unemployed
That’s what this means, right?
Yesterday, Steele spoke to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos about the Republican position on the economy, and inexplicably, stuck to the same position, arguing, “What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.”
When Stephanopoulos responded, “But that’s a job,” Steele added, “No, it’s not a job. A job is something that — that a business owner creates.”
Stephanopoulos, looking confused, asked, “So a job doesn’t count if it’s a government job?” Steele stuck to his guns, insisting that hiring someone to perform a service isn’t an actual job because government contracts “have an end point.” Apparently, a job is only a job if it’s indefinite.
I think it would come as a surprise to the woman who delivers my mail to learn that she doesn’t really have a job. And it would also come as a surprise to a lot of people working in the private sector to learn that they have lifetime employment guarantees. And since the troops in Afghanistan don’t have actual jobs, maybe we should stop paying them?
64 Responses to “Steele: Cops, Firefighters, Soldiers, Postmen, Teachers All Secretly Unemployed”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 9th, 2009 at 9:47 am
When I first hear this, I wanted to give Steele the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that he was making the conservative argument that the government can’t create any NET jobs, because any spending they do just comes from elsewhere, resulting in fewer private-sector jobs. Wrong, but a respectable, defensible, intelligent position.
Nope. Dude’s a numbskull.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Well, all we need to do to save the economy is to pass laws that say that anyone who is in a public, er, ‘job-type thing’ will now be privatized, so millions of “real jobs” will be created out of nowhere, though they won’t last very long, although of course they will, because Michael Steele says private jobs last.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Dude, don’t play into the conservative line that the postal service is government work.
And if you paid attention to your comments you would’ve been ahead of the anti-Steele bandwagon – http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/michael_steeles_bad_math.php#comment-1088740
The one thing I don’t see in any of the response to the GOP alternative proposals is anybody pointing out that the majority of the tax cuts proposed by the GOP aren’t temporary, and that in fact temporary tax cuts would do little to spur growth because costs would rise within two years or whatever it might be. I guess people think the hypocrisy involved in attacking, say, school funding for being a permanent power grab better suited to regular appropriations while proposing a permanent 30+% reduction in the corporate tax rate is so obvious it doesn’t need to be pointed out?
February 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Ummm I might be mistaken but I think some of the most secure jobs in the country come from the public sector. I haven’t heard about the Federal Government announcing laying off 50,000 people every week now for the last year, in fact they are actually adding jobs.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Steele needs to get a job.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Joe,
But I think he is making that point. Not very well. But even the site MY links to seems to say that’s what Steele is getting at. And like you say, it’s an important point.
Seriously. MY says that it would surprise his mail carrier to learn she doesn’t actually have a job. Zing! Well, then, why not create more of them? Why not hire all 600,000 people who lost their jobs last month to deliver his mail? After all… the government “creates” jobs. Except, um… it doesn’t. It tranfers wealth away from someone (either by taxing someone today, or borrowing the money and taxing someone later on) and delivers it to someone else. And when you do that on a large enough scale, you are destroying jobs somewhere in exchange for the ones you are “creating.”
Sometimes that might be a good trade. But clearly, it’s not inventing or creating anything in particular. If it was, why object to something like the F-22 fighter project? Certainly, the people building those have jobs. Right? I guess you might say that they could be doing something even better. But why bother? Why not just add other programs to do those other things? Why not do them all?
Because you can’t just keep taxing and borrowing to create anything.
Again, Steele does a ham-fisted defense. But it’s pretty standard economics to point out that the government does more transferring than creating.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Wow, this is staggeringly dumb.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:07 am
To be fair, Steele never had a real job, so he might easily get confused about what the word means.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Postal carrier.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am
To be fair, Steele never had a real job, so he might easily get confused about what the word means.
He has real experience with the “expiration date” government jobs – he paid himself out of campaign funds when he was running for lieutenant governor.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:20 am
you are destroying jobs somewhere in exchange for the ones you are “creating.”
This makes no sense
February 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
You’re missing the key part of the Steele quote, where he says “Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job.” That’s just idiocy.
But I think I can take his point that there is a pretty clear difference between hiring more teachers, postal workers, etc. and creating a work contract to renovate the National Mall. Six months later, when the work contract is finished, you’re still out looking for a job.
Maybe the stimulus creates more contract opportunities allowing you to be retained by the contracting firm, but maybe not. Still, it hardly follows that tax cuts are the silver bullet.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:28 am
This has become really absurd. The Republicans have become such total caricatures of themselves that they’re no longer capable of pointing out the reasonable concerns that one might have about the stimulus bill from a conservative perspective.
Crowding out (for instance) really is something to be concerned with, and which liberals/progressives typically give short shrift. But the GOP is apparently no longer capable of reasoned conversation about the trade-offs of, say, short term pain mitigation vs. long-term effects of increased gov’t spending and so they’ve just essentially abandoned the field.
What jackasses. They’re not doing anyone any good, least of all the causes and positions for which the purport to advocate.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Here’s an idea: Every congresscritter had an army base in his/her area that was imperiled in the last round of base closures. Every one of them fought tooth and nail to see those “jobs” retained. Those are apparently jobs.
Sam M is on the right track, but he doesn’t follow the analysis far enough to reach enlightenment. The government takes money from some places and spends it in others. But that money is going back into the private sector. It’s not destroyed somehow, but recycled.
There is some danger of government spending “crowding out” private investment, because the government competes for investment and workers/materials. But investors aren’t investing in private companies right now, and businesses aren’t hiring new workers. So that’s really not a problem right now.
And of course there are some things the government does that create an environment for jobs to happen, such as providing infrastructure, good schools, keeping the poor from starving, enforcing contracts, and things of that nature.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:29 am
A few too many private jobs created by business owners have recently found their “end points” for Steele’s point to be remotely persuasive.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:31 am
@Les – Six months (or really 2 or 3 years) later when the contracts end you can get another job because the economy’s recovered and our GDP’s up to snuff without government intervention. It’s not that hard to figure out, but what you’re saying makes enough sense even if it’s wrong that well intentioned people will listen to Steele and nod their heads.
Making permanent jobs is exactly the opposite of what you want a stimulus to do (which is the stated reason why Nelson/Collins wanted to axe education, science, etc funding).
February 9th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Steele is a bit of a boob. If Obama was not the current Democratic president, one has to wonder if Steele would be where he is now. The Republican party is beyond bankrupt. They have less of a moral compass than the Democratic party, which is also ethically challenged and out of touch.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Seriously. MY says that it would surprise his mail carrier to learn she doesn’t actually have a job. Zing! Well, then, why not create more of them? Why not hire all 600,000 people who lost their jobs last month to deliver his mail? After all… the government “creates” jobs. Except, um… it doesn’t. It tranfers wealth away from someone (either by taxing someone today, or borrowing the money and taxing someone later on) and delivers it to someone else. And when you do that on a large enough scale, you are destroying jobs somewhere in exchange for the ones you are “creating.”
This is really confused thinking. I think the point you are trying to get at is that investments have:
1) Diminishing returns. Therefore simply hiring 600,000 more mail carriers isn’t a good idea.
2) Oppurtunity costs. So the money spent on hiring 600,000 more postal workers would be better spent doing something else.
Those points are true but they apply just as much to private investments as they do to public ones. To avoid the above problems we should focus on public investments that are useful. Furthermore, ultra-low interest rates and the reluctance of the private sector to invest coupled with slack in the labor market make the oppurtunity costs of the stimulus quite low.
Non of this suggests that public sector jobs aren’t real jobs.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:41 am
sheesh, dtm, i was all set to respond to sam m (in a ruder fashion, but same points), and you once again beat me to it.
so i’m left with noting for les’ benefit that, amazingly enough, in the private sector we have these thing-a-ma-jigs called “contracts” as well, and when the contract is over, you can, in fact, be out of a job too, so what’s your point?
other than revealing to us that you don’t understand multiplier effects: someone is working for six months and making money and therefore able to buy some things which need to be produced by someone else and sold by someone else and so on and so forth: it’s not simply a matter of the direct expenditure.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
@Zach: I hear what you’re saying, but of course that presumes that the stimulus has actually worked two or three years from now when those contracts run out. That’s the intent, but it’s hardly certain. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it; I’m saying Steele’s comments aren’t on-face quackery that can be dismissed or ridiculed out of hand.
Anyway, read Matt’s post again and tell me if it’s really addressing what Steele said.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I had to come in here and see if anyone was stupid enough to defend Steele’s comments. Congratulations.
Why would that be such a bad idea? News flash: most people who lose their job wish they hadn’t. A lot of people would gladly go to work at the post office. People who suddenly find they have to move in with their parents or their children, people who realize they can’t send their kids to college, etc. Now obviously we probably don’t need 600,000 more post office workers, so government should instead hire those people to fix roads or innoculate children.
As opposed to, say, Wal-Mart, which doesn’t transfer wealth from someone (you) to someone else (the Walton family)?
Well yeah. On a “large enough scale”. But you and I know we aren’t going to reach that scale any time soon. And in the meantime, with a labor pool of millions, hiring people to patch up schools or update our electricity grid won’t take jobs away from any sector.
Now he’s going to say government never created anything? Look away space program, internet, airline industry, interstate highways.
So you live in a place that will be void of school-aged children and people who expect mail in six months?
February 9th, 2009 at 10:54 am
@howard: I understand the intent of the stimulus. I don’t think it’s out of line to question its real multiplicative effects, but my point is that Matt’s post misunderstands Steele’s intent. It’s the wrong response to answer a flawed premise, and that helps no one.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Bullshit.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Republicans simply refuse to recognize reality unless it conforms with their political agenda. It’s becoming a truly insoluble problem. Right now the GOP is pretty openly saying if they can find an advantage to making people suffer, they’ll go for it with gusto. Which is quite amazingly fucked up.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:10 am
DTM, you’ve got to cut this out! (or maybe you’re just my alternate personality posting while i don’t know it).
les, to add to dtm’s point: what steele said makes no sense in any way other than as propaganda. it is not an analytic point, it reflects no insight into how the economy works, and might best be summed up as “drivel.”
you appear to be more intelligent than steele, but attempting to make sense out of the senseless is a complete waste of time: he spouted a stupid right-wing cliche and that’s all we need to say about it.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:15 am
private sector jobs always come back
Like all the textile jobs that used to be here in North Carolina. Any day now!
February 9th, 2009 at 11:20 am
If you’ll notice, Steele’s take on the economy is essentially John McCain ca. September 2008. All we need is a good dose of optimism (and corporate tax cuts)!
The long view, if you will.
Luckily for Steele, comments like these, while absurd, aren’t nearly as damaging as those that McCain’s prone to making. There’s really no difference between what he’s saying here and what McCain meant by, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
February 9th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“Now he’s going to say government never created anything? Look away space program, internet, airline industry, interstate highways.”
Well, thanks. I am saying that. Exactly.
And it’s not all that controversial. Read some Bastiat. You might disagree with it. Or you might think that it misses some importsnt nuuances. But generally speaking, had the government not taxed people to build those things and hire those people, there is a very low probability that the people would have burned the money. They would have spent it on something else that would have required different workers.
You, of course, like to mention government projects that you think were good and important. But those are not the only projects. How’s Chrysler? The K-Car? Taxpayers, you know, paid for those things. Istead of paying for something else.
Quick and dirty: You break a wondow. Did you “create” a job for the window maker? Seriously, people. This is econ 101.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Seriously, people. This is econ 101.”
Which is why the rest of us disagree with it, because most of us have taken classes past econ 101 and have a far more nuanced understanding.
Seriously, dude, this is the wrong board to be peddling that shit. Either you’re being dishonest or you’re just really dull.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
How’s Chrysler?
The government made back its loan with interest. That Chrysler has made cars that look like dogs taking a crap for the past decade isn’t its fault.
Dear me, it’s a good job that libertarian marketroids have no relevance whatsoever.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
The fact that a major party official could make so little sense and sound so clueless is utterly depressing. I’ve picked up on this topic in this post -
http://www.ihatewhatyoujustsaid.com/2009/02/09/a-basic-economics-lesson-for-michael-steele/
February 9th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@DTM (#27), Howard (#28): Yeah, you’re probably right. I’m much more willing to give Steele the benefit of the doubt based on the snippet that Matt gives. I still think in that limited context that Steele doesn’t sound indefensibly ridiculous. In the broader context, he’s making assertions that probably ought to get him into trouble.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
“Either you’re being dishonest or you’re just really dull.”
So just to be clear… you think that creates a job for the window maker. Thanks.
DTM makes a good point regarding full employment:
“That adds an entirely new set of arguments for government spending to consider, albeit of a necessarily temporary nature.”
But the operative word here is “temporary.” As stated, progressives have repeatedly played the “gotcha” game with the GOP, pointing out, correctly, that no matter what the economic situation, Republicans recommend tax cuts.
Similarly, and awkwardly, progressives are doing the same thing here. And admitting it. When the economy is humming, we need to spend billions more on transit and education and health care. And when the economy is sputtering we need… to do the exact same thing. Strange, that.
Some people are trying to distinguish, with good reason, which of these proposals are aimed at stimulating the economy, and which are aimed at pushing through decades-old pet projects. Which of course will not be temporary at all.
So the question becomes, again, whether any of these things actually “create” anything at all. You can all pat yourselves on the back and bust out a Sharpie every time you see a picture of Dick Cheney, so as better to draw hilarious eye-patches on him. But that does not a serious discourse make.
Yes. A Democrat won the White House. Which I guess is a good time to get together and cram through spending increases. Just like the GOP crammed through the tax cuts.
And that worked out well.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
But generally speaking, had the government not taxed people to build those things and hire those people, there is a very low probability that the people would have burned the money. They would have spent it on something else that would have required different workers.
So, in other words, who wouldn’t want to trade the Internet for a couple of new yachts and a nice diamond tiara?
The tragedy of those poor unemployed yachtwrights rends my heart, but I still maintain that public goods are useful.
Bush, famously or in-, slashed taxes to levels undreamt of even by Reagan. How’s that private spending on something that would require different workers coming along?
Obviously breaking a window doesn’t create a job for the window maker (at least, unless someone chooses to replace it) – but building a new building with windows does, and the job created is the same regardless of whether the underlying construction project is a school, a McDonalds, or a McMansion.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
this clearly demonstrates what a bunch of IDIOTS these guys are, I swear.. true IDIOTS.. these guys are simply INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT… so a job is not a job if the paycheck comes from the public sector… gee, let’s tell that to all govt workers (incl local and state) across the country, doctors and nurses in public hospitals, etc..
but then again, what do you expect from a political party whose de facto leader is nothing but a neanderthal rabble-rouser, namely NEANDERTHAL LIMBAUGH???
February 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
If it can’t be traded on Wall Street it isn’t a job. C’mon guys, you can’t drive down wages, eliminate benefits, and make the workplace less safe by creating “jobs” in the public sector. The only real jobs create more wealth for the wealthy.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
In the discussion about the how to kick start the economy and whether a stimulus package should include more government spending, bigger tax cuts and finding the right combination, many people seem to be missing the issue that matters most – having people work.
The action governments decide to take will only be successful if in the end people are working. That’s because they only way any wealth is generated is if people are being paid for their labour.
Yes, there are those who make a living off of interest on investments, but those investments are in funds, companies, stocks, etc., that are successful when people are working. No income is ever generated that is not connected to labour by someone – whether that labour is very physical or completely mental in nature.
The idea that government spending does not result in additional jobs is false. Whether the distribution of your spending is done through government (via taxes) services and products or through privately owned ones, it is redistributed to people who are providing labour. That you have a choice in which privately-owned businesses help redistribute your income when you choose to spend, while the government is taking your money based on legal authority is a different debate. How different is the income redistribution through taxes much different than your own spending on the goods and services produced by the private sector? In end, it is people getting paid for their work – and the more people you have doing more work, the greater economic benefit for everyone.
You can argue about the appropriateness and efficiency of government spending, but arguing that it is does not add to the economy is foolish. Government spending is only possible when they tax the population – who earn the money. Businesses can only exist and pay their employees when you purchase their products or services.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Sam M, let me add to my alter ego DTM here: you’re confusing two completely different things.
the official republican party position for a long time now has been that it’s important to cut taxes regardless of whether spending is cut or not. this is an insane position, and it’s why we make fun of the gop.
what progressives want is a redirection of government spending, a keynesian approach to fiscal sobriety (meaning budgets in balance across the business cycle, not year-by-year), and, if necessary (which many progressives, including me, believe is) higher taxes.
there is no comparison between the two.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
He is correct and you are looking to pick a fight. He didn’t say you can’t have a job if you work for the government. He is stating that the handout government job to stimulate the economy and help you support your family is not a job in the career sense. It will end because it is finite. He is correct.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Bob: police officers, teachers, and those in the military all have careers.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Bob, do you truly not understand the private economy? would you mind telling me what jobs outside of university professorships (with tenure) are not “finite?”
honest to god, steele said something dumb, but he’s a paid apparatchik, but watching people here try to claim it was something intelligent is just amazing.
and this is before we get to the all-important function of government in establishing a system in which private business can happen: roads. the internet. the court system. the police. and on and on and on. without government doing these kinds of things, the private sector would be much worse off.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I work for a small business that does R&D for the government. So am I unemployed too?
February 9th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Every job I have worked at post my employment at BOCES for NY State has been “at-will” employment. I could be let go at any time for any reason. It is certainly finate, though my future is indefinate.
Steele is a moron, and so are his supporters.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Bob is right and you are missing his point. Teachers, police, soldiers, etc. have careers in government. We always need to educate our children, we always need to protect and secure our citizens, and we always have interests to defend and people to defend against. moreover, the skills here can be transferred. There are only a limited number of highways, and buildings to be built, for example. Spending money just to employ people is not a model of progress or efficiency. The private sector would fail if they operated like this (enter your comments here, but the private sector may be down now, but it certainly hasn’t failed). I am confident that most people here are WFP elitists or have never ran or had a small business. While the handouts from the government may be necessary right now, more stability and long term work/jobs or whatever you want to call it is the answer.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:22 am
no, adam, bob is not “right.” he is defending the indefensible.
i have no idea what you mean about transferable skills: jobs come and go in the private sector. careers that once looked promising turn out not to be; economic circumstances change; technology evolves; the big employers of 50 years ago are not the big employers of today.
what does any of that have to do with government’s role in a mixed economy?
February 10th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Yes, Howard, Bob is “right.” First of all people are getting their panties in a bind over what is at worst an overstatement by Steele, but likely an overreaction by people like you. He is not claiming if you work for the government you are less or you do not have a job or career. He never said that or said if you are a teacher or police officer you do not have a job. He is referring to the work that people will obtain as a result of the stimulus. Those jobs are not long term jobs. The government is giving handouts to people who can’t find jobs. The government is creating opportunities for people to earn a living even if we normally would not as a nation spend the money on a particular project or at least right now. These “jobs” are just temporary work. When they are done…then what? Will these people have developed a marketable skill? Will they have their hand out? Will they lose the incentive to do something else?
Government does not work. It is the model of ineptness and rewards the lazy by permmiting them to keep the jobs they have. Go to your local DMV, court, etc. and take it all in. If it was your business you would fire half of those people. Instead, what the government is doing is creating more of the same in the bail out.
Back to your blindness, Howard, re: transferable skills. The sky is not falling. Whether or not a career that looked promising yesterday no longer looks promising is not the point. As technology changes for example, those with applicable skills change with it. The computer of today is not the computer of tomorrow. The car of today is not the car of tomorrow. However, those people making the cars know the basics and can be further trained to adapt and change. The guy who is in the military is trained beyond shooting a rifle and is marketable beyond the military. or at least within the military. Skills transfer.
What does this have to do with government’s role? Don’t saddle us and the next 5 generations with trillions in debt and take hundreds of thousands of people and make them wards of the state by giving them work with no future. Don’t make them dependent on the government. The government should not be the “tit” (pardon the expression). Help business instead. Tax breaks and incentives (as well as government works – it is necessary too to an extent) so that there is an incentive to grow, invest in new technologies, etc. Don’t make a welfare state with people relying on the government for their next “job.”
Bob is right.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:58 am
this is what I might call shucking and jiving in prime time.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Adam, you are giving new life to the wit and wisdom of Ronald Reagan. You’ve got all the correct hot buttons in place: the welfare state (new Medicare bill by Bush), government doesn’t work (Bush has proved that so well), the government “tit” (for Abramoff and no-bid contracts), massive debt (whoops Ronnie and George exploded gov’t debt). So coincidentally you’ve also described the last 8 years under Bush. re: Howard’s blindness. Hmmm. Can’t see out of one eye and blind in the other. Factoid: budget deficit went from 6 trillion to 12 trillion under Bush’s watchful eye. Wards of the state relying on government for their next “job” sort of like defense contractors huh (F22 and lockheed-martin). Back to your blindness Adam? You might want to think twice. As far as becoming a welfare state. We could only be so lucky.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:17 am
adam, nonsense. steele isn’t saying anything of the sort: he’s repeating right-wing claptrap without thinking about it in the slightest.
as for the rest of your argument, you’ve got to be kidding – you can’t possibly mean the rest of your comments seriously.
i mean, when you get cause and affect confused as badly as you do (people don’t have jobs today because the job market is contracting), it’s hard to take the rest of what you write seriously, but let us at least make a half-hearted try.
let’s pick one of your examples: the government builds a road. let’s consider, just for a moment, what the various skill sets involved in building that road include: surveying; geotechnical engineering; traffic planning; civil engineering; graphic design; construction management; accounting; project management; safety planning; trucking; legal; and, of course, the heart of the matter, construction jobs themselves. every single one of these is a useful skill set and transferable to lots of things besides building a road.
and that’s at a very first pass, very first level discussion; one could easily go on.
as for efficiency, i mean, trot out some more cliches, why doncha? as a matter of fact, my DMV is a model of efficiency, and my transactions are conducted with far greater ease and customer service than my dealings with my phone provider, my cable provider, my broadband provider, a typical appliance delivery, my doctor, my dentist, and many, many others in the private sector.
this government that you think is so inefficient is, after all, the very same government that is training these military people whose transferable skills you think are so very special: i wonder how that happens?
as for long-term debt: first rule here is that unless you can demonstrate that you specifically opposed the bush administration’s funding of the iraq war through emergency appropriation (meaning borrowing) that has burdened us easily with $1T for nothing (such as, for example, supporting john kerry when he was “for it before he was against it”), i’m not interested in your crocodile tears about debt.
but let’s pretend that you were this mythical beast, a right-winger who nonetheless wanted the war in iraq paid for legitimately. even so, the points here are: a.) people are loaning us the money incredibly cheaply and as long as we can service the debt, we should take advantage; b.) this is precisely the time to be running a major deficit. it is not the fault of the obama administration that the bush administration and michael steele’s republican party ran enormous general fund deficits during a period of expansion – such irresponsibility has increasingly become the hallmark of the republican party (which has been forced to expunge reagan’s tax hikes from the historic record), and they should not be prevented from doing the right thing now by republicans who were busy enabling the wrong thing the last 8 years….
February 10th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Howard: your response is absolutely asinine. It seems that you contend that Adam MUST be a Bushie republican unless he proves otherwise, and therefore his opinion is automatically invalidated. I don’t see any reason to believe that he supports the Bush administration (quite the opposite), and even if he did that would hardly amount to an actual refutation. Why don’t you address the argument instead of just handing out personal attacks? Try to keep this a civilized debate, not playground fight.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Howard, you are awfully arrogant and condescending. It makes your incorrect arguments even worse. If you want a welfare state that is what you are going to get if people are employed solely for work and not for the long term. Who cares if Adam likes or liked Bush. Try to lose the attitude.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
If you want a welfare state that is what you are going to get if people are employed solely for work
Yep! When people are employed for work, that’s where the real trouble starts.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
dds: I know it may be difficult to articulate a legitimate argument when you are wrong, but is it your normal behavior to take something out of context and edit it to suit your needs? You left out a critical part to the statement – “…and not for the long term.” Have some integrity, buddy! Let me ask – are you going to modify Kennedy’s statement too? “Ask…what your country can do for you?” Don’t cut and paste in a deceitful fashion. It makes you (the generic of course) look like an incompetent putz.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
You made some good points here.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Interessante Informationen.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Great site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 8:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:10 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:22 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Nice blog. This is my second visit and was truly worth it. I have bookmarked your site for future reference!
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Good morning. Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today.
I am from Kosovo and now study English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Discounted unpublished airline tickets and web fares locate the best rates on airline tickets for travel in and around saint louis with areaguides.”
Regards
Nancy.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:54 am
GRDHaQ mcalgfovpuuk, [url=http://xbzgsaexwfed.com/]xbzgsaexwfed[/url], [link=http://uxwjvjkzdinr.com/]uxwjvjkzdinr[/link], http://ooxaehovieru.com/