Each and every Republican is completely and totally economically illiterate. They are dogmatic Hooveristas, as fanatical as the Taliban.

The only reason anyone should be listening to these idiots tell us what to do is so that we can do the opposite.

The GOP should stop Hijacking the Stimulus Package and holding it Hostage because the way George Bush and the GOP spent our money will be characterized by an Era of Irresponsibility and Neglect, while Obama wants to spend our money wisely and on rebuillding Americsa, if the GOP lets him. The awful truth is that One Party has destroyed America while the other Party the Democratic Party wants to restore it.

For instance: If you have a home in which you used your money to spend on alcohol, good times and neglected your roof, your bills, and now your roof is in danger of collapsing because you used your money on good times instead of the upkeep of your home and now the Argument is you are unable to borrow money to fix your roof before it caves in because you used your money foolishly in the past is also recklesslness and neglect on the part of the lender, so they let the roof collapse.

In the Bush years 30 billion was spent in Afghanistan -- 50 billion in Iraq and now Congress wants to say we cannot spend necessary money at home which has so long been neglected? States were given no money in the Bush years and now they still want to keep money out of the States on a fraudulent theory.

It is now time to for Congress to put money back in to the United States and to spend money wisely and not fraudulently, irresponsibly and in the dark as in the Bush years. Obama believes in transparancey, hence you can find the Stimulus package on line for all to see.

GOP say this money will be more of the same. It will not be more of the same. This money will be used for Americans, for jobs, to rebuild for improvement and innovations to improve life not on wars and countries which have nothing to do with American people or on big business who do not need the money.

Bush and the Republicans inherited a Surplus from the Democrats and yet the GOP has created the worst economic crisis ever. The GOP should stop hijacking the Stimulus and do the right thing and let money flow back into America again, instead of holding the Democrats hostage from their quest of bringing help to the people and restoring American again.

i hate going all jesuit or zoroasterian about america today, but can we just go ahead and designate the democrats as the smart-but-whimpy-sane party and the republicans as the stupid-arrogant-and-certifiably-insane party. that way we can all select our partisanship in the way it was meant by the founding fathers -- except washington, of course. (and the steele mess musta made you mess up that second to last paragraph, steve)

Steele is trying to redefine "job" the way Bush redefined "torture". He might have made an argument that private sector jobs are a better indication of a healthy economy than are government jobs. But what a clumsy way to go about it, assuming that was even what he wanted to argue.

Another thing that's bizarre about what Steele said is that many private firms operate contract to contract. My husband's home remodeling business makes money from a series of individuals and businesses which hire him.

Every contractor operates that way, as do many other companies. So, for them, every bit of work is, in Steele's terms, just "work" and no one who works in those companies has a job.

I guess we should also not take into consideration all the suppliers and subcontractors who make money from those firms, since they do not produce anything economically valuable.

Sounds like he listens to Limbaugh!

This guy might be too lame even for the RNC. I wonder how long before he starts whining that Stephacropolis was picking on him ala Palin about Couric.

Has Steele ever worked in the private sector? He's unaware of freelance work that is project by project, or construction work, or homebuilding, or.... millions of other jobs too numerous to name. What an idiot this guy is.

Steele isn't the only idiot. The Cato Institute rounded up a bunch of economists who were willing to repeat right-wing talking points and sign their name to a full page Wall Street Journal advertisement.

Okay, he's an idiot. What else is new?

Amy said:
. . . many private firms operate contract to contract. My husband's home remodeling business makes money from a series of individuals and businesses which hire him.

It's not just small businesses that a contractors. For years it's been common for corporations to fire all their workers and hire them back as "independent contractors". They do the same work, but they have no benefits, they can be fired with 10 seconds notice and they have to pay their own FICA taxes. Just more Republican "class warfare".

What's new here? The only thing a republican will argue is whatever might sound good at the moment. The problem is twofold right now. Events are unfolding too fast for what they said at the last moment to have faded from memory, and they've got nothing to say that actually makes any sense in the present moment.

As the country spirals deeper into crisis, the repub position seems to have crystalized as, "Is not my job, man."

Fucking Idiot- Thats all, too stupid to think about what he is saying. I'll just slip them a couple of talking points, that'll do er. I do hope he is mortified when he watches the tape.

Steele was also wearing a purple suit that looked like something the Joker would wear. That didn't help the overall impression.

I'm just so disgusted that the GOP stooped to the cynical low of appointing a horrid shill like Steele in the first place that I won't ever listen to him.
How can they think that having a black man repeat the talking points that have always disproportionately served whites will make other blacks vote Republican? I hope Steele screws up so bad that Rove and co will have to replace him and admit it was all a PR stunt to compensate their image as the racist party.

Funny, I always thought police, fire and education demanded jobs, and damn good people to fill such jobs! I wonder what the illustrious Mr. Steele has to say about such fellow Americans - the way he parses his words, your law enforcement, fire protection and child's classroom are not job creators!

The Republican party is becoming a pariah among us sane, economically in need, Americans. While they pay little attention, 2010 looms big as the moment of final political demise for their kind. -Kevo

The fact that Steele is only the latest in a long line of GOP loons is irrelevant as long as the Dems have the peerless King of Flaccid Harry Reid in charge of getting Obama's legislative initiatives through the Senate. All the Rethuglicans have to do is barely even hint at the tiniest possibility of maybe they'll think about perhaps considering a filibuster, and Reid will crap his pants and start frantically figuring out how to make the GOP happy, instead of doing the obvious thing and make the GOP—for once—actually mount a real, honest-to-goddamn filibuster.

I watched the interview with Steele and I was completely blown away, after the McCain Campaign, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber - NOW this guy? How can they continue to outdo themselves?

My work has been freelance contracts for years and now this guy is telling me I basically never had a job. Next thing, Steele will be saying that only a job where you work fifty years and get a gold watch is a real job.

so when the rnv fires steele, is he eligible for unemployment? he doesn't seem to have a job according to his own brilliant insight.

never admitting you're wrong, even when it'd be obvious to dead people. it's the republican way.

"Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."

I don't see what's so stupid about this statement.

As everyone knows, the massive New Deal projects -- LaGuardia Airport, the Lincoln Tunnel, Camp David, the Tennessee Valley Authority, etc. etc. -- were all built by volunteers from the neighborhood, just getting together and rolling up their sleeves in their off-hours.

And the military, the entire federal government, local police departments and fire departments, public schools, sanitation departments, and all those other creators of "government jobs" are entirely funded by General Motors.

Did anyone see the beginning of the interview when George qouted Larry Summers and said the rebups have no credibiltiy oof the economy- Steele said that was laughable because the bush OK was great up until this crash. Is it too much to ask for George to have some follow up to that? How about income disparity increasing during bush 8 years? or real wages decreasing under bush? Steel just gets to make stuff up and George let's him? Steele actually said the bush economy was great and George just sits there with nothing to say?

Would someone please tell Mr. Steele to change his name? Given all the "steel" jobs that went away, never to return (i.e., Bethlehem, PA; Allentown, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Youngstown, OH; Warren, OH; Cleveland, OH; Mansfield, OH; Wheeling, WV) the man shouldn't be allowed to call himself Steele any more. Let's just call him Roadkill (i.e., Dead Skunk, Middle-of-Road; Flat Cat, Ditch; Decapitated Squirrel, Your Neighbor's Street Lawn) and be done with it.

I also worked as a contractor for many years.

Not jobs? I did a considerable volume of work and got paid. Handsomely. If that's not a job, I don't know what is.

Or maybe it's the Repubs who don't know what a job is. Too many of them inherited their money and never had to earn it, I guess.

Next up, Steele will accuse liberals of over fluoridating our drinking water, making people only wanting to work in non-existent government jobs.

When Republicans say job growth under Bush was good before the current economic crisis, they are just plain wrong.

Depending on how you measure it, job growth through early 2008 was either the worst or 3rd worst of any presidential term since WWII.

Job growth from the bottom of the 2001 recession to the start of the 2008 recession was the worst of any business cycle since WWII.

Both of those records are before the economy started lowing 500,000+ jobs per month in September 2008.

You people know what he meant, stop acting stupid. He was accusing the Dems of just spending money on make-work, the proverbial Keynesian argument that burying a jar full of money and having people dig it up is stimulus. Now there's something to argue about, not the definition of what he thinks a job is versus what you think it is.

So, the only nine jobs in the US are on the SCOTUS? Oh wait, those too are govt "jobs."

Steele is stupid, which is OK for us.

Just so I understand where Steele is coming from: when I worked a few years ago as a full-time, classified-status employee for a state government agency, I did not have a job?

I had work, but not a job?

What on earth does that mean? It is literally incoherent. No honest, intelligent human being would say a thing like that.

The only person who would make that argument is someone who is:

• An idiot; or
• A liar

The chairman of the Republican Party is either an ideologue so dishonest that he will say literally anything, no matter how ridiculous, to advance his position.

Or, he is a complete moron. And I mean a complete moron. Somebody who can't get dressed in the morning without falling through a window or setting himself on fire.

Is this really what the GOP has become?

Each and every Republican is completely and totally economically illiterate. They are dogmatic Hooveristas, as fanatical as the Taliban.

The only reason anyone should be listening to these idiots tell us what to do is so that we can do the opposite.

Posted by: SteveT on February 9, 2009 at 8:06 AM

If I'm Obama, I tell the public that when it comes to Republicans, simply pull a George Costanza and do the opposite (citing a classic "Seinfeld" episode).

Irony alert: Red State Mike said to stop acting stupid.

And speaking of stupid, Mike, we know what the man said -- Steve quoted it and everything. Steele's argument is stupid because there is no difference between a government and a private sector job in terms of providing stimulus. i know what he said was so stupid that you'd like to pretend he meant something else, but it isn't our fault that the Republican philosophy you espouse is such a failure.

Steele is either not very smart at all and just the typical Republican say-whatever-you-hope-works-for-the-moment sophist, or perhaps the Republicans are having a change of heart and beginning to argue that there should be job protection for everyone: a company hires you, and they are obligated and responsible -- as their part of the arrangement, in exchange for your labor -- to keep you employed until you die.

Exit laughing, sadly.

The word "boxarocks" comes to mind.

One word: Wow!

OK, I actually watched the clip. The important quote was, "...create sustainable jobs, not make-work."

It is the difference between the Keynesian burying jars of money and having people dig it up as their job, versus creating jobs that will be long lasting.

George was playing stupid in not recognizing the distinction, but I don't agree with Steele completely either.

But no matter what, the last thing we want to do is to have the government hire more people. That flies in the face of Larry Summer's rule of stimulus: Targeted, Timely, and Temporary. Government jobs are the antithesis of temporary. Contract out to the small businesses if you must.

So if Steele is saying that work projects with definite end dates are not 'jobs' and should therefore not be funded, and if all the infrastructure improvement projects in the bill have definite end dates, then does that mean that he doesn't think we should fund any infrastructure improvements at all? I mean, regardless of whether a 'job' is permanent or not, doesn't the country badly require repair and maintenance of its roads, bridges, levees, etc?

I hope this becomes a big gop talking point- it can be countered with a ridiculously simple ad. A picture of teachers, firemen, police, etc. With a statement underneath, "the republican party does not believe that these people have real jobs."

Private sector jobs always come back? Tell that one to the folks in the Carolinas who used to be employed by the apparel sector. Tell that to the folks in Michigan who are losing their auto sector jobs!

So if Steele is saying that work projects with definite end dates are not 'jobs' and should therefore not be funded, and if all the infrastructure improvement projects in the bill have definite end dates, then does that mean that he doesn't think we should fund any infrastructure improvements at all?
Posted by: Dr. Morbius

It is pretty clear if you actually watch the clip (you obviously didn't) that he believes the entrepreneur is the ultimate engine of the economy, and wants to take the load off of them so they can create the real jobs that grow and expand over time, not the make-work.

Why is it that statements by Republican officials in propaganda mode always need some sort of post hoc explication to make sense?

And why is it that the explication usually flatly contradicts the remark itself? And in this case, why does the explication contradict the official's amplification of his own remark? How many times when he was proven wrong did we hear "well, what Bush really meant was....?

It's almost like there is some sort of partisan language barrier that prevents Repeublicans from telling the truth. Just one more of life's mysteries.

At any rate, Steele is wildly incorrect: this country simply could not function without the millions of government jobs at the Federal, State, and local levels. He could argue the relative stimulative value of spending on some jobs over others, but he's not.

He could argue that the "make-work" projects like those of the CCC were worthless and not "real jobs" because they "went away:" but he'd be wrong. Not only did those projects keep people fed and clothed and spending money to stimulate the economy, they contributed crucial and valuable long-term infrastructure to the country, resulting in a framework that led to long-term employment in a number of industries.

There is simply no parsing of his actual remarks that moves beyond ideological positioning to reflect the reality of the underlying situation.

OK, I actually watched the clip. The important quote was, "...create sustainable jobs, not make-work."

It is the difference between the Keynesian burying jars of money and having people dig it up as their job, versus creating jobs that will be long lasting.

And who is suggesting that the government actually hire these people? The stimulus bill doesn't add to government employees, it provides money for private companies to do temporary work to restart things until the private sector comes back to life.

This makes no more sense than Steel.

Why is it that statements by Republican officials in propaganda mode always need some sort of post hoc explication to make sense?
Posted by: trex

The opposite. If you actually listen to his words, rather than have them filtered through Steve Benen, it makes sense.

And I don't hear him arguing about the value of government jobs versus private sector jobs either, so another strawman.

Always follow the link.

And who is suggesting that the government actually hire these people?
Posted by: JohnN

Just some of the people here.

This is the Republican "circle of logic":

1. Stimulus must be targeted and temporary
2. Stimulus must begin yesterday and end in two years.
3. Short term stimulus isn't real, because it ends.
4. Permanent tax cuts provide a real stimulus because people can count on them being there and make plans.
5. Road construction is not short term because people will use them for a long time.
6. Construction jobs are not stimulus because people finish the project too quickly and end up needing another job.

The key to Republican talking nonsense is that they use the definition of something Democrats want as proof it isn't good.

For instance: "If we give money to the states they will spend it, and that would be bad." "If we deny giving money to the states, they will cut their budgets, which would be good."

Somehow I think this is why Obama is going to a few townhalls this week: Politicians and the media don't seem able to comprehend the simplicity of the actual logic.

Always follow the link.

I did follow the link. Steele is arguing that if you work from contract to contract, it's not a real job, it's just work.

Nice to know that, as far as Steele is concerned, my brother is just an unemployed slacker since painting houses is something you do -- guess what? -- from contract to contract. Oh, and my brother who works in valuation is unemployed, too, since they are hired by individual clients who -- guess what? -- contract them to do the work that they do. And according to Steele, working from contract to contract isn't a real job. He actually says it several times, so it's hard to argue that we're taking it out of context.

The problem is that we understand very well what Steele said, Mike. You're the one trying to pretend he was saying something else.

And I don't hear him arguing about the value of government jobs versus private sector jobs either,

Then you weren't listening carefully enough. At timecode 2:00 he says, "...that's sustainable long-term growth, otherwise why do we need the small business community? Why don't we all just get a government job and call it a day?"

He makes the explicit argument right there that government jobs are not "long-term" or sustainable. I can understand why you might be a little confused, as he collapses the distinction between contract employment and permanent employment. But he has to, because he needs to take the Reaganesque position which asserts: government bad - business good!" and make sure that no one looks at the issue any more carefully.

He follows it with the curious notion that "rules in the markets" have some how "frustrated the banking process" and led to problems with small businesses getting loans -- when in fact it was a result of deregulation and incredibly easy credit for businesses that led to the meltdown in the first place.

In this interview at least, Steele is mouthing empty platitudes about business that are incoherent. Perhaps he really believes only banks deserve government money not potential workers, perhaps he is afraid to upset constituencies by admitting that jobs programs work. Who's to say?

I did follow the link. Steele is arguing that if you work from contract to contract, it's not a real job, it's just work.
Posted by: Mnemosyne

Maybe you did follow the link, but you didn't listen. He said, "Those jobs come back." This, as opposed to someone who starts up a company to dig up jars of money, to borrow Keyne's metaphor. The jar digging up business will only last as long as the stimulus.

Frankly, I think the bill sucks, and it sucks due to both sides, repub and Dem.

Why did Obama let Pelosi write it anyway?

Then you weren't listening carefully enough. At timecode 2:00 he says, "...that's sustainable long-term growth, otherwise why do we need the small business community? Why don't we all just get a government job and call it a day?"

He makes the explicit argument right there that government jobs are not "long-term" or sustainable.

OK, I'll buy that. I'll also agree with him 100% on that one. The last thing we want to do is permanently expand the government. Private sector is the engine of our economy.

Private sector is the engine of our economy.

And right now the private sector is running out of fuel -- which is money -- in the form of revenue and capital investment.

Steele's solution: do nothing except provide tax relief and let the problem "weed" itself out.

http://tinyurl.com/ddwh9g

Obama's solution: provide fuel in the form of government stimulus spending.

Steele doesn't have a pragmatic objection to stimulus, just an ideological one.

Private sector is the engine of our economy

That may be, and it makes a nice sound bite, but when you look at the money, work and innovation flowing into our economy from millions of government employees you can see the economic power generated there is significant. Just as in any corporation, much of the necessary work of the country is in administration and management of resources and programs.

In fact, much of the recent growth in GDP under Bush came from government employment. In that case, government was the engine and not the private sector.

Maybe you did follow the link, but you didn't listen. He said, "Those jobs come back."

Which is another reason he's being mocked. When did our factory jobs come back? How about all of those auto worker jobs that moved to Mexico -- those must be coming back any day now, right? It's not like entire industries ever go under, which is why building horse-drawn wagons is such a growth industry today.

Steele is playing the typical Republican game: take an arguable point (like arguing that make-work jobs from the government will not be sustainable long-term and private sector jobs will have to be created, too) and take it to the point of insanity by claiming that not only are all government jobs by definition unsustainable, any job that works from a contract and not because you have ongoing work with a single client or group of clients isn't a "real" job.

Even Laffer agreed that cutting taxes past a certain point becomes counterproductive and you start bleeding money, but you'd never know that by listening to the tax cut true believers of the past few decades, who all claim that cutting taxes will always make revenues grow.

OK, so it's not a "job" if it ends. So, then, why the Republican objection to giving money to the states? That would have prevented the states from laying off firefighters and teachers. Don't those soon-to-be-laid-off state employees have "jobs?" And it's not as if a kindergarten teacher finishes up one year and then, OK, done, no more five-year-olds to educate in the world. She has a job even according to the peculiar Republican definition.

That may be, and it makes a nice sound bite, but when you look at the money, work and innovation flowing into our economy from millions of government employees you can see the economic power generated there is significant.
Posted by: trex

Hmmm, that one really doesn't make any sense to me. I know we need government, and therefore need government employees. As a part-time government employee myself, I know the taxes I pay do not offset the wages I earn. Same for all government employees. The difference comes from the private sector, obviously. I imagine someone could figure out how many private sector employees it takes to keep a government employee paid, but I haven't seen it.

...and take it to the point of insanity by claiming that not only are all government jobs by definition unsustainable...

He in no way claimed that.

Even Laffer agreed that cutting taxes past a certain point becomes counterproductive and you start bleeding money
Posted by: Mnemosyne

Increasing expenditures causes bleeding money too.

Why the knee-jerk hatred of tax cuts? Why not big cuts to middle class and bottom rung people that make the taxes more progressive? That ought to be a Dem's wet dream. A tax cut is instantaneous stimulus, the ultimate shovel-ready spending. Boom, tomorrow you have $1000 more per month in your pocket.

I can link to Barro and Mankiw, both top economists, who will argue with Krugman, and use Summers' arguments to do it.

OK, I have figured out why Steele is being allowed/encouraged to speak such ignorant blather: The Republicans want to demonstrate the unsuitability of a Black Man in any kind of major leadership role. Once Steele has absolutely proven himself to be incompetent, a White Man will be selected to replace him, thus proving the underlying meme of the Republican Party: Blacks are not smart enough or articulate enough to run this country. They have had their chance and failed the test.

Chew on this for awhile...

peace,
st john

Wow. That closing part was just the icing on the cake.

I'm enjoying envisioning Steele shouting from the top of an apartment building "IT WAS THE CRAAAAAAA!!!".

Why the knee-jerk hatred of tax cuts? Why not big cuts to middle class and bottom rung people that make the taxes more progressive? That ought to be a Dem's wet dream. A tax cut is instantaneous stimulus, the ultimate shovel-ready spending. Boom, tomorrow you have $1000 more per month in your pocket.

Progressive taxation is both socially just and economically wise, but it is not the solution to the current economic crisis. This is a situation which requires a "teach a man to fish" solution in the form of jobs. Giving someone $1000 in the current landscape of staggering household debt and employment instability let's them pay a few bills or stay in their house a month longer, it doesn't provide growth.

This was proven last year when Bush's rebates had no stimulative effect and the economy moved into freefall.

Why the knee-jerk hatred of tax cuts?

What knee-jerk hatred of tax cuts?

Why not big cuts to middle class and bottom rung people that make the taxes more progressive?

As I recall, the response here was generally positive to the payroll tax cut proposal, which is exactly that.

A tax cut is instantaneous stimulus, the ultimate shovel-ready spending.

No, its not, as a rule. Like spending, a tax cut takes money that would otherwise be one place and puts it somewhere else. Its only stimulus at all if the place it puts it is one where that money has a higher velocity within the domestic economy than the place from which it was taken.

For that reason, income tax cuts (which, because of the distribution of income taxes, tend to, no matter how structured, go to the middle and higher class individuals that have the lowest mean propensity to spend) have particularly little stimulative effect in a downturn when private investment is seen as risky and unattractive, and investment tends to be disproportionately invested into perceived risk-free investment like federal government debt instruments (driving their yields down where they are now, near zero for short-term instruments.)

Steele was picked because the Rethugs wanted another dark face to match the President's. This is the same knuckle-dragging "reasoning" used by McCain in choosing Sarah Palin -- pick a woman, any woman, they reasoned, and we'll coopt Hillary Clinton's support. It's stupid and it's pathetic and would embarrass a second-grader. But that's today Republican Party. Keep making these lamebrained choices, boys! You'll be wandering in the wildernes for DECADES.

Not in this interview, but very recently Steele said that government never created a job in the history of mankind.
I can only assume he has amnesia about his own employment history, and has never heard of the civil service--which is kinda scary considering he was a lieutenant governor.
Now here, I think the most ridiculous thing he said was that private sector jobs will "come back", which I guess is at least partially true but misleading. Everyone knows that many private sector jobs never come back. I think there are some folks in Pittsburgh who can attest to that.

Red State Mike! Man, you are working your ass off for this guy. Take a break. I can't think of a better example of an un-job. You don't need it.

PS. A $12,000 tax cut? For working people? Is someone seriously proposing eliminating every tax-- payroll, sales, property, tariffs, and income-- a typical working person pays? Right.

PPS. Shorter everybody else here; your side has had plenty of chances, look where it got us.

A tax cut is instantaneous stimulus... -red state mike

A targeted tax cut to the middle class may help them pay bills for a month or two, but it won't create jobs. It also won't build roads, update internet infrastructure, or anything else for the common good. Also, what good will a tax cut do for someone with no income? This is entirely why tax cuts are the worst form of stimulus and why you've lost the argument before you've even started it.

Starting the discussion from this point, as the right wing brain trust is wont to do, is like trying to explain to a three year old why 2+2 does not equal 5 just because they say it does.

Sounds like Steele has been smoking the same thing Peggy Noonan has been smoking before writing her columns lately.

I just don't get these people. I agree with the comment above that perhaps the democrats are the wimpy-but-sane party. I'm all for differing opinions (it's how we grow and learn, and hopefully become better), but, wow, the republicans lately are just way out on the Branch of Weirdness. Not only are their arguments fallacious, but, now it seems that they're into just making up stuff (definitions, for example: think torture, jobs, trying to make 'spending' the opposite of 'stimulus', etc.)

My only hope is that fewer and fewer people identify with such weirdness, and that the GOP wander the desert of Exile for many, many, many years to come.

A tax cut is instantaneous stimulus, the ultimate shovel-ready spending. Boom, tomorrow you have $1000 more per month in your pocket.

...and if the day after that, you stick that $1000 in the bank as savings or use it to pay down debt -- which, not coincidentally, happened with the last tax rebate -- that tax cut is a dud as stimulus.

Once again we see that what Red Stake Mike ironically refers to a "knee-jerk" response on the part of his betters turns out to be a reasoned position based on empirical data. All Mike has is Rush Limbaugh talking points and a misplaced faith in the Republican Party.

Shame on you, Mike.

Increasing expenditures causes bleeding money too.

If you do it wrong. Are you arguing that a business should never increase its expenditures in order to grow their business? Or is it only a problem when the government increases their expenditures in order to expand the tax base by putting more people to work who will then be able to pay taxes and get jobs or start new businesses in the revitalized private sector?

The market cannot fix everything. Sometimes it needs a little boost from non-market sectors of the economy. I know it's an article of faith with you guys that the Magical Market Fixes All, but that's not actually how real life works outside of the ivory tower that Mankiw and Barro make their pronouncements from.

Also, what good will a tax cut do for someone with no income?
Posted by: doubtful

Not sure what employment is today, but 10% would be considered severe. That means a tax cut impacts the remaining 90%, of which a majority could benefit from a progressive cut.

A targeted tax cut to the middle class may help them pay bills for a month or two, but it won't create jobs.

A targeted tax cut (not a one time lump sum like the goofy stimulus last year, which studies show people put into savings) will result in people having extra money, period. That is assuming not everyone is in debt to their eyeballs on credit cards.

If you do it wrong. Are you arguing that a business should never increase its expenditures in order to grow their business? Or is it only a problem when the government increases their expenditures in order to expand the tax base by putting more people to work who will then be able to pay taxes and get jobs or start new businesses in the revitalized private sector?

I think the idea of the government expanding the tax base by hiring more people into the government is lunacy. The increase in taxes brought in are far exceeded by the increase in outlay to pay their taxes. Duh.

Yea, need to pulse the economy with a job stimulus, but "government hiring" and "temporary" are two concepts usually distant from each other.

Personally, I like the idea of tax credits for purchases, which stimulates the marketplace. You only benefit by spending money. Pick the right domains (energy, etc.) to apply the credits to.

When the government "creates" a job, it has to pay the person who works in that job.

In order to pay them, it has to tax other people.

The people whom it taxes now do not have that money that was taken from them by taxation.

Since they don't have that tax money, they cannot create jobs, nor can they spend it on products or services that cause others to create jobs. Is that difficult to understand?

Because most private sector jobs must provide products or services that others want (or else they will go out of business), needs get met and the economy grows.

Because most government jobs must provide products or services that are politically mandated, needs are neglected, and the economy shrinks.

This is why, in the 1980's, food markets were overflowing in Hong Kong (a private economy) and barren in the USSR (a centrally planned economy). In fact, one can find abundant examples from throughout the world why private economies are better. Some folks simply seem, however, to prefer theory to practice - regardless of the suffering that results.

A targeted tax cut (not a one time lump sum like the goofy stimulus last year, which studies show people put into savings) will result in people having extra money, period. -red state mike

What kind of tax cut would actually make a difference? The absurd one you talked about earlier when you said 'Boom, tomorrow you have $1000 more per month in your pocket.' Again, when you start the discussion at 'completely absurd,' you can't expect reasonable people to try to, well, reason with you.

You really don't get the difference between government funded projects built with goods manufactured in America or a huge giveaway to foreign industry when people dump their meager tax savings into Wal-Mart imported junk.

Tax breaks will not work to stimulate the economy. Period. Anything short of that given and you're just not serious about fixing the problem.

I think the idea of the government expanding the tax base by hiring more people into the government is lunacy.

Yeah, that's why Scandinavian countries have such a shitty quality of life. If only they'd get on board with the tax breaks.

In the past five years or so, the public sector -- or "government," as it so deridedly called -- has accounted for one of the largest chunks of GDP. This is true in the U.S. and in Western Europe. As manufacturing has fled to cheap labor environments countries have transitioned to service economies to try and keep wages from falling and employment high.

People with government jobs spend money that stimulates the economy; you know, like entire towns that arise and flourish outside of military bases. People with government jobs provide services vital to the running of the country to get this money, jobs that need to be done and are often done more poorly at greater cost when outsourced to the private sector.

There are pros and cons government accounting for such a large percentage of GDP, but right now that money means the difference between hard recession and full blown depression -- and between people eating and not eating.

Tax breaks will not work to stimulate the economy. Period. Anything short of that given and you're just not serious about fixing the problem.

Word.

I think the idea of the government expanding the tax base by hiring more people into the government is lunacy.

Yeah? Until you got schooled in this thread, you thought the idea of tax cuts as a stimulus was a pretty neat idea. Even assuming you're arguing in good faith -- a mighty big stretch there, as many of us know -- why should the opinions of someone so manifestly ignorant and filled with talk radio bullshit matter a damn?

Tax breaks will not work to stimulate the economy. Period. Anything short of that given and you're just not serious about fixing the problem.
Posted by: doubtful

So says one Harvard Econ Prof, Greg Mankiw (google for his blog). Plenty of others feel similarly.

I would institute an immediate and permanent reduction in the payroll tax, financed by a gradual, permanent, and substantial increase in the gasoline tax. I would make the two tax changes equal in present value, so while the package results in a short-run budget deficit, there is no long-term budget impact. Call it the create-jobs, save-the-environment, reduce-traffic-congestion, budget-neutral tax shift.

Some traditional Keynesians would object on the grounds that government spending has a larger multiplier than tax cuts. Even though that is the prediction of standard Keynesian models, the evidence is not completely consistent with that conclusion, as I have discussed here in previous posts. In addition, given the lags inherent in large spending projects, and the risks inherent in hasty spending at the federal level, the case for taxes over spending as the fiscal instrument of choice is compelling. To me, at least.

Greg Mankiw is not anybody anybody should be listening to. Unlike Krugman, he had no idea the housing crisis was coming. In 2008 when the country country was already in recession he was on his blog saying there was no recession - mostly because Tradesports or Intrade or whatever the hell it is was betting against it.

He was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in 2003 and delivered their report to the president. In it they crowed about what a great thing it was people were pulling equity out of their homes and using it for other things. Seriously.

He is a public advocate of outsourcing American jobs abroad while at the same time bringing in skilled immigrants to take jobs here. He is a visiting scholar at the medieval AEI, was a shill for many of the policies that got us here, and at best provides a smorgasbord of incoherent theories.

People on this blog saw this crisis coming years before he even got around to weakly denying it.

And slightly contrarian/uninformed/unwillingness to take bold stands stance on his blog shows that he is the Glenn Reynolds of the econ world.

Appeals to authority are fun until someone does their homework.