The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Thanks Mike

Re: Thanks Mike

nancy — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:47:52 -0000

I saw Steele on an episode of Black Enterprise television before the election. Three black Republicans were being interviewed. Though I feel that Democrats take the black vote for granted, I am not sure what benefit it is to people of color to support a party that has used a "Southern Strategy" to maintain power.

I saw the ABC interview. I was dumbfounded by the jobs versus work argument. Also, I do not know much about the Washington Post story about Steele's campaign finance irregularities. That being said, I felt his answers and reactions were a bit too BLAGOvian for my taste.

Re: Thanks Mike

SJB — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:55:00 -0000

As soon as I heard this comment, I jumped up from the couch and started pacing. . .I couldn't think of what else to do with such blatant idiocy. Then, I wondered: does he really, truly believe this-making him woefully ignorant--or does he think the American people are this studid? Then, my next reaction: Why doesn't Wolf call him on that???!!!

I have been contemplating writing an editorial for our local paper calling him out on this. I live in Missouri--more and more a purple state, but still enough red to fall for such nonsense.

If I could speak to Mr. Steele, I would clearly informed him that I could find historical precedents for governments being the ONLY creator of jobs since civilization began up until the rise of the commerical revolution in Europe. Not only were governments the only creator of jobs, they were EXPECTED to create jobs.

I won't bore everyone with the details, but I will offer one interesting example.

In the 6th c. BCE, Athens, already experimenting with democracy and its institutions, was overtaken by a tyrant. Today's definition is a little more prejorative than it was then, but the original definition was one who grabbed power unconsitutionally, or by bypassing the institutions and rules set forth. This tyrant, Peisistratus, ruled Athens intermittently for around 15 years. However, during those times, even though he was kicked out and had to take power by force, he was still TOLERATED by the people. The reason: he began an era of economic prosperity. He started a monumental building project, providing many Athenians with jobs. He encouraged the trade and production of the olive tree and olive oil, opening trade routes and passing more laws to protect olive tree crops. He encouraged more production of pottery, providing more opportunities for artisans to engage in pottery instead of farming which boosted pottery production, making Athens THE place for the production of pottery. Athens grew economically more prosperous. This increasing prosperity fostered the belief that ALL people should have access to political offices and the government as a whole. This, in turn, furthered the development of democracy and led to Athenian Direct Democracy which we study today. The government 'stimulus' of more jobs not only led to more economic opportunity for the lower groups, but it helped foster in more democratic development.

I don't know--call me crazy--but I think that was a good thing.

Re: Thanks Mike

Catherine — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:59:37 -0000

It's so much fun watching George S. try and take this guy seriously. The barely restrained incredulity is fantastic.

Re: Thanks Mike

B-Rob — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:49:50 -0000

The GOP is getting stupider and stupider (is that a word?). Take the "tax cuts and Reagan" argument. Tax cuts create stimulus, so they say. but how do they create stimulus? Well, let's say the government is set to spend $100 and the tax revenues are $100. If you cut taxes to $90, then "the people" have an extra $10 to spend. But, you ask "How much is government going to spend now that there are only $90 in tax revenues?" Well they will spend the same $100. They will just borrow the extra $10. But Dems, instead, would spend $110, take the $100 in tax revenues, and borrow another $10. What's the f*cking difference?

That is one thing no one points out: the "Reagan boom" was paid for with borrowed money. Everyone can live high on the hog if you are living on credit!

Re: Thanks Mike

Robert M — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:12:56 -0000

The only thing you have in common w/ Michael Steele as far as clulessness goes is.... wait for it... still waiting...

Re: Thanks Mike

abiodun — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:01:02 -0000

And this coming from a guy who paid his sister for "non-work", while his senate campaign was tanking! He sure knows the difference between a job and work.

Re: Thanks Mike

brucds — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:26:40 -0000

Michael Steele was born in a hospital on a military base and his stepfather worked as a truck driver for the Defense Department.

I don't want to come off as a hater or enemy of equal opportunity, but I would be far more comfortable with a crazy, ignorant white man as head of the GOP, rather than a crazy, ignorant black man. This just feels wrong.

Re: Thanks Mike

jackson93 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:17:32 -0000

on top of this stupidity, Steele also told Politico that the stimulus "is just a wish list from a lot of people who have been on the sidelines for years ... to get a little bling, bling."

A comment like this not only belittles the very real suffering people are experiencing and reveals a complete lack of understanding of what most Americans are experiencing and the vastness of the economic crisis, it also is strangely racial.

Re: Thanks Mike

k1 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:38:33 -0000

IDK, seems Palin-esque in it's delivery.

Point 1: Only douchey mba's consultants, i-bankers or politicians who know not what they speak, argue value ONLY equals dollar return.

Point 2: Pelle grants WILL help create jobs or at the very least stem their loss. It's really easy. More kids going to college mean more caf workers, more professors, more custodians and or at the very least keeps it static for the next year. This is where the D's have lost a very winnable debate.

k1

ryanculver.blogspot.com

Re: Thanks Mike

Kathie — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:13:50 -0000

Oh man! After serving 20 in the navy and working another 7 with a defense contractor it turns out at 45 years old, I've never held down a job in my life. I'm so ashamed. I never realized I was such a loser.

Re: Thanks Mike

Tel — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:31:01 -0000

Total nonsense.

Just the other day, I was watching "Mark and Olly," a show about these two British guys who go around living with indigenous people in New Guinea to learn about them. The episode I saw, the tribe had run out of potatoes (or yams, or whatever it was they were eating). The chief's wife tells him that they need to make a bridge across a huge river, to get to the other tribe and more easily get some potatoes. The chief gathers everybody up, tells them to build a bridge, and within a couple days they'd cut down about a hundred feet worth of vines and strung it across the gorge.

Granted, the political organization of that tribe was about as simple as it can possibly get. But there is no way in the world those tribesmen would have made that bridge without the chief telling them to. If he hadn't, the tribe would have starved to death, and there'd be nothing left to be the government of. Either he, or somebody else (who would then have been the chief!) had to get them to do it. That bridge-building job was created by government.

Re: Thanks Mike

Pete Jones — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:07:56 -0000

It's pretty ridiculous he's making this argument. Perhaps he doesn't realize that government jobs overwhelmingly kept the black middle class afloat following the collapse of black owned businesses in urban areas in the 1960s-1980s. Yep, these are the very same members of the black middle class that are mostly likely to become that rare breed, a black Republican.

Re: Thanks Mike

LH — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:54:58 -0000

Unless Steele actually believes what he's saying, I actually feel some measure of pity for him.

As RNC chair, he and the people who are writing his talk points are in the position of having to retrofit Republican opposition to Obama's stimulus package with something resembling a reasonable, sensible argument. But there really isn't one, which is why Steele is splitting hairs between contracts and jobs.

Re: Thanks Mike

R.oB. — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:31:27 -0000

First having met the brother, I can say he is definitely not a douche bag. He's a real person with a real opinion. And I believe he's being honest and not playing a political game.

But having said that, I think Steele is a hard core ideologue and a person desperate to paint Obama as wrong. And he can't. So he tries to take the language of his ideology and stretch it to its breaking point in order to make a distinction that doesn't really exist. He forgets the basic economics of what he's talking about.

Steele is trying talk around the multiplier effect of government spending, i.e. a kick start to pump money into the economy. The starter doesn't keep an auto's engine running, but it is necessary to start it. The engine, our economy, runs on private investment. That's the whole point of "stimulus" in this case. Obama has made this case pretty well last night so Steele as the discussion continues will have less and less room to make his case that what Obama is proposing is wrong. It just doesn't make economic sense even by Steele's own ideology.

Re: Thanks Mike

Jim — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:29:45 -0000

"Star Wars Defense Program, that has a decades long record of failure, cost overrun, and absolute uselessess"

Well, not absolute uselessness, since it helped bankrupt the Soviet Union, but close enough. Close enough to bankrupting us.

The point we are missing is that government spending that does not go to contracts with KBR or Boeing or similar organizations is wasteful. That is the critical distinction we all are missing.

Re: Thanks Mike

Bruce — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:28:00 -0000

@BabylonSista

You touched on something important. This guy has been employed as a "worker" in meaningless, pointless non-jobs for his entire career, no wonder he's clueless.

On another point, his ignorance regarding capitalism is astounding. Replying to Steph's question about private sector jobs being lost, he says "...but they'll come back though". As if by magic, the private sector returns stronger than ever, spreading jobs and wealth all around. Is it willfull ignorance or is he playing the partisan game? Because i thought the point of a "stimulus", was to temporarily(!!!!!) stimulate the economy, so that the private sector can rebound. But that's just me, im one of those "non-employed workers" he's talking about.

Re: Thanks Mike

CitizenE — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:11:44 -0000

When I hear one single Republican complain about the all time government boondoggle, the Star Wars Defense Program, that has a decades long record of failure, cost overrun, and absolute uselessess, I'll begin to give them an opportunity to pronounce the first two syllables of "fiscal responsibility."

Re: Thanks Mike

leo — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:10:36 -0000

Embarrassing. Someone needs to make dude go away. His senseless douchebaggery is stinking up the whole place. Palin had more charm; when is she coming back?

Re: Thanks Mike

Scott II — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:08:43 -0000

That really was poorly stated. The argument from the fiscally conservative economic view is that the government creates jobs at the expense of creating wealth -- that there is a special cost involved when the government creates job that isn't the same when the private market creates it. The argument has never been that it's not a job.

This is what happens when you drive away the libertarians from your party. They don't know how to argue conservatively about economics anymore.

Re: Thanks Mike

hubcap — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:03:36 -0000

Hank Kingsley.

That was awesome.

I'm a Democrat living in the DC area, so I was thrilled when the RNC picked Steele. He must have some political skills to get where he is, but his ceiling should have been something like state senator or...lieutenant governor. But there's nothing that made me think he was ready for a national stage. He is just out of his league.

Though I did think it would take him more than one week to prove it.

Put it this way, he makes Bob Ehrlich look like The Smart One. That takes a special man.

Re: Thanks Mike

lebecka — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:55:54 -0000

The Republicans are so cute when they try to be modern.

Re: Thanks Mike

KevDog — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:38:47 -0000

Another question for brainiac Steele:

If I am on "contract" and I don't really have a job, can I collect unemployment?

Re: Thanks Mike

tom c — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:34:42 -0000

As clueless? Dude, you really owe yourself some better self esteem.

Re: Thanks Mike

laborlibert — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:31:12 -0000

KevDog:

Exactly. This is a pretty efficient way to lose your military and law enforcement support.

Re: Thanks Mike

Carla Girlpants — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:29:47 -0000

Perhaps I'm inviting a schooling myself, but how does giving people work on infrastructure projects - contract or not - negatively impact an economy that's circling the drain? Hmm. Putting money in pockets of unemployed in exchange for all the rusty shit falling down in our cities.

Yeah, that sounds terrible.

What am I missing? Besides a job - I'm also a contract-working unfortunate myself.