Michael Steele is an idiot: "Government jobs aren't jobs!"

[Lunar]

I don't have a problem with what Steele was trying to say except this contradiction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if there's going to be private sector jobs coming back when the contract expires, that would seem a persuasive argument FOR the Democratic plan.

[Lunar]

Wasn't this guy meant to be a good communicator?

He's probably better when  he's not speaking pure BS that he probably doesn't even believe in.

He's used to arguing his point of view and not a political platform created by the RNC's communications director

[Lunar]

What exactly is Steele's issue with this?

That in order to pay for these government jobs, you have to take money from the taxpayers.  You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

So am I still robbing Peter to pay for Paul my postman last year?

[Lunar]

Why is government spending "robbing" but tax-cuts that create the exact same cost to taxpayers in the long run (the deficit) not?

[Lunar]

Why is government spending "robbing" but tax-cuts that create the exact same cost to taxpayers in the long run (the deficit) not?

Because tax cuts allow people to keep their own money and decide for themselves what they want to do with it.  Since we're already $10 trillion in the red, why don't we curtail spending and allow current tax receipts to pay it down?  And besides, tax cuts don't always result in decreased revenue.

Are you not still stealing from future taxpayers to dole money out through artificially low tax rates?

By the way, the premise behind the spending plan is to generate long-term revenue greater than the deficit created as well, so I don't necessarily buy that as a reason why it doesn't also constitute "robbing."

If they both raise the deficit in equal amounts in order to distribute income to segments of the population, I just don't see the ethical difference.