RNC Chair Michael Steele today with Wolf Blitzer on CNN:
"Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
Um...
The Pentagon
The CIA
The FBI
NASA
Washington DC
The Army
The Navy
The Airforce
The Marines
The Coast Guard
NIH
Park rangers
Homeland Security
And that's without really thinking...
Wow. What was HE thinking when he said that dumb thing?
Well...he certainly WASN'T thinking. How embarrassing.
30 comments:
What did I say this guy would do. He will say all the right wing mumbo jumbo that Limbaugh and other right wingers want to hear. It's still not as good as when US Chamber of Commerce president said outsourcing was good for America though.
TRUTH101,
You were right. This guy's trying to ingratiate himself with the extreme right.
The radical right actually believes that America supports their vision of where this country wants to go. They have yet to internalize the fact that America rejected their concept of America TWICE.
Do they need a third time?
What will they need for them to understand that America doesn't like their ideas of conservatism?
This country voted for Barack Obama who had one of the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
And not just that. Some states that haven't voted for a Democrat in GENERATIONS went for Obama. I mean what aren't they getting?
It's like they're looking at the west and insisting the sun is rising instead of setting.
And now this guy, Steele, insists that the GOP doesn't have to change, that it message is just fine.
Huh?
Nuts.
Truth: " It's still not as good as when US Chamber of Commerce president said outsourcing was good for America though."
I don't see a big problem with hiring the best people for the job. Even if sometimes it might be one of those brown-skinned foreigners that Pat Buchanan so hates.
"And now this guy, Steele, insists that the GOP doesn't have to change, that it message is just fine."
Consider that if it had gone a little over 3% the other way, Obama would have lost. And this difference might have gone the other way if the Republicans hadn't chosen to put a tired old man with a disorganized campaign against Barack Obama.
Dmarks,
It would have taken more like 7% for the republican candidate to have won the last election...which then does not take into consideration that it was a black guy who did not have all the support of the democrats because of Hillary.
It also does not take into consideration the 2006 congressional elections nor the 2008 elections.
Whether you want to accept the fact now or wait till it becomes real obvious...
This election represents a transformation....think back to 1960 and Kennedy against Nixon....and then realize that that was just the beginning of the empowerment of the masses which brought on the radicalness of the 60's.
Quit looking at elections as just political events and realize every now and then we have an election that represents not only political change but social change....those are transformational elections.
FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, and now Obama....
Its like believing that this 'recession' will end in a few months and we will just go back to business as usual by the end of 2009.
Tao said: "It would have taken more like 7% for the republican candidate to have won the last election"
From Wikipedia:
Percentage:
52.9% Obama
45.7% McCain
------
Adding to 7% McCain's total would have, as you said, put him even with Obama's total, resulting in:
52.9% Obama
52.7% McCain
Which is fine and dandy, until you add the two together and see that it makes a 105.6% vote total.
And then you realize that if McCain gains in the percentage, Obama loses. So the real difference is as I said: 3.5% more for McCain would have put him even with or over Obama. A small difference.
Some One is forgetting that many who voted for Obama had never or seldom voted before, and would never vote for McCain/Palin.
As to the topic, jobs created by the government include teachers. Maybe Steele needs one.
My parents worked for the CCC when they got out of college. A lot of kids now getting out of school into the job market of today would be much better off with a WPA or CCC program.
"Some One is forgetting that many who voted for Obama had never or seldom voted before, and would never vote for McCain/Palin."
Just as many who voted for McCain would had never or seldem voted before, and would never vote for Obama/Biden.
Might I remind you all of the Palin factor. She turned many McCain supporters off. I'm one of them.
"Might I remind you all of the Palin factor"
If true, that even further blunts the idea that Obama won because a decisive sea-change, a tremendous victory in the war of ideas.
The old man who wanders around on the stage at debates, and the VP candidate who says "I can see Russia from my house" on SNL made Obama's victory due to (at least partially) his commanding and smooth presence.
dmarks, you are remarkably always right. And clearly smitten with the pitbull from AK. Dare I say something sooooo very sexist? Would the rightwingers be so vexed by her if she were .... oh, I don't know.... ugly???? I think not. In fact, absolutely not.
Shaw, Shaw. All of the embarassment over Obama's cabinet disaster must be affecting your hearing, or your eyesight. Because I'm sure you wouldn't take a quote out of context in the way you did, if you weren't suffering from something.
The full quote: "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."
You're an idiot. He meant REAL jobs. Jobs that don't involve running the government. NON-GOV'T jobs is exactly what Obama and Congress seem to think they can create out of nowhere.
* The Pentagon = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* The CIA = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* The FBI = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* NASA = should be an international scientific org instead
* Washington DC = jobs here only exist due to the rampant government spending, does NOTHING for the rest of the country for the most part. I live here, trust me... this area is a joke.
* The Army = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* The Navy = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* The Airforce = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* The Marines = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* The Coast Guard = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* NIH = shouldn't exist, government doesn't need to get involved in the things NIH does, this can be privatized and be much more influential and successful to the country.
* Park rangers = part of gov't operations, doesn't count
* Homeland Security = empower the people to protect their own country and this wouldn't be needed. could you imagine how many planes would have hit the WTC if there were gun carrying citizens on those planes? ZERO!
When the government gets into private industry, we slide from capitalism to socialism. Plain and simple.
Businesses outsource for cheaper labor Dmarks. Not better.
Heard of Boeing and other defense contractors Mr. Blue. Companies that employ thousands thanks to government contracts. Ross Perot became a billionaire because of government contracts. We're all on the payroll to some degree or anohter Brother. Relax and enjoy the largesse and safety good government provides Brother.
Truth: Businesses outsource for better labor. Period. This can include hiring those who do the same job for a lower cost. This is a better deal.
AS an American Worker I do take offense at your statement Dmarks. There is nothing that can't be made with cheaper materials. I love my Country enough to want it's citizens to be paid a fair wage. If a dollar a day is good enough for you I suggest you move to China or Indonesia and try living on that Brother.
"AS an American Worker I do take offense at your statement Dmarks."
The only workers that should take offense are those who are pretty bad at what they do.
"I love my Country enough to want it's citizens to be paid a fair wage"
A fair wage is the meeting point between what the least a particular employer will offer and the most a particular employee demands for a particular job.
"If a dollar a day is good enough for you"
I prefer to gain skills to be paid more than that, thank you.
"I love my Country enough to want it's citizens to be paid a fair wage."
Want it endlessly. "Fair wage" is a meaningless abstraction. You can legislate any sort of wage you like, but every time you do, you're going to drive out businesses, or force them to automate processes. You get less jobs (other than government jobs, which increase).
You cannot legislate wealth creation. It can only be done by people finding a way to make a product or provide a service better or cheaper. You can erect trade barriers to protect jobs, but the result is poorer service, crappier products and an economy that declines relative to others. And when other countries respond by erecting their barriers, the whole world gets more poor.
Gordon,
Try telling the members of my family who made service to their country their "job" that they weren't working for Uncle Sam.
Gordon: See my above post about "Fair wage". It can be defined, and it is an amount that (like a living wage.. .something else entirely) differs with each individual involved. There's no one-size fits all. A wage is a type of deal, so a fair wage is like a fair deal. Something that two parties agree to; and if they don't agree to it, one party walks away and there is no deal.
'Better labor' isn't the same thing as 'cheaper labor'.
It's cheaper and capital always chases cheaper labor.
Always.
Which makes it work best for the folks lucky enough to be nearest the tip of the pyramid.
Arthur: There are several ways that a labor deal can be better. Costing less for the same work is certainly one way of "better labor" though.
"It's cheaper and capital always chases cheaper labor"
Of course everyone tends to look for the better deal.
I can see you at least support collective bargaining Dmarks. You may de deluded, but I'll tip my hat to you for that.
TRUTH101 typed:
'I can see you at least support collective bargaining Dmarks'
Is that meant to be a joke?
Shaw, I think your family members would understand the distinction, and I'm sure you do as well. ;-)
Truth: I support it only as long as those involved in it participate voluntarily. Why not?
dmarks typed:
" I support it only as long as those involved in it participate voluntarily."
Yes indeed.
Allow folks to reap the benefits Union members earned while not having the responsibility of joining the union.
Very much along the lines of 'something for nothing' and certainly along the lines of 'more pay for less work (sacrifice)'.
Arthur said: "Allow folks to reap the benefits Union members earned while not having the responsibility of joining the union."
That's silly. Why should non-union members be subject to the benefits and drawbacks of a union contract? I sure don't think they should be. Let them work out their own deal with the companies.
Making unions the voluntary choice of each worker improves the unions and makes them more accountable, too. Unions would be forced do more to attract workers, instead of the union bosses resting on their laurels because some slim majority in that workplace voted the union in decades ago, and the power structure is now so entrenched that there is no way anything is ever going to change.
(A union shop near me tried to decertify, and the workers were hit by a barrage of frivolous lawsuits, high powered attorneys that the union bosses brought in from all over the country, and other harassment. It's not only hard for workers to get out from under the boot of unions: it is also hard for workplaces to get out too.).
"Very much along the lines of 'something for nothing' "
Also, consider that 9 out of 10 American workers work without the benefits (or drawbacks) of unions and union contracts. Do they get something for nothing? No. They get something because they earn it. I would not "attack American workers" (to use someone else's words) and call the hard work of the vast majority of America's workforce "nothing".
By the way, what do you think of the Employee Free Choice Act? I actually like some parts of it, but the provision for getting rid of the secret ballot is a deal-killer for me.
dmarks typed:
"That's silly. Why should non-union members be subject to the benefits and drawbacks of a union contract? I sure don't think they should be. Let them work out their own deal with the companies."
When one considers pay, work rules, safety and health issues, work hours, etc. all are the result of collective bargaining it would be hard to come to any conclusion that those who choose not to join a union still would benefit from it. Nothing silly about it.
dmarks added;
"I would not "attack American workers" (to use someone else's words) and call the hard work of the vast majority of America's workforce "nothing"."
Not including union members right?
As for the EFCA I'm all for it. The current system is rigged for the owners and gives them way too much clout in these sorts of decisions. The secret ballot isn't a deal breaker for me. These elections are unlike any other we undertake. It's a management controlled system rather than an impartial one.
Mr. Blue said...
You're an idiot. He meant REAL jobs.
Tell the Marines they're not doing REAL jobs.
IDIOT.
arthur: "Not including union members right?"
Them too. I was just addressing the implication that anyone who is not in a union is getting something for nothing.
Thanks for a sensible and understandable explanation.
Shaw: You missed the big point that Steele had a high-profile government job from 2003 to 2007. Yes, it was a major gaffe by him.
Post a Comment