Mitt Romney and his campaign aides strongly believe policymakers can "help the American people" by laying off school teachers, police officers, and firefighters. The vast majority of the American mainstream doesn't seem to agree, but Romney has apparently convinced Rush Limbaugh.
"Nobody's opposed to cops or firefighters or teachers -- but they aren't private sector jobs," Limbaugh said. "They do not contribute to economic growth. Their purpose is otherwise. They have an entirely different purpose: public safety, public education, this kind of thing. But there's no growth in the economy. "If you add those jobs -- and if there aren't other types of private sector jobs added while at the same time we're adding to the fire rolls and the cop rolls and teachers -- we are reducing the size of the private sector. This is Marxism 101. It's also Ignorance and Sophistry 101."
There was no reason to think Limbaugh was kidding.
Look, I can't say with any confidence whether Romney and Limbaugh actually believe this stuff. Romney, in particular, has occasionally dropped hints that he's a closet Keynesian, but he can't admit it because his party has become too radical to tolerate the same economic model both parties have accepted for several decades.
But if Romney and Limbaugh actually, sincerely believe what they're saying, I'd just ask them to consider one question: do they believe teachers, police officers, and firefighters spend money?
I mean, really. Limbaugh argued with a straight face today that cops, firefighters, and teachers may work and contribute to society, "but there's no growth in the economy" as a result of their jobs. In other words, there are hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders, but they never buy things and they never invest, so when they get laid off en masse, there are no economic consequences whatsoever.
Seriously, who's going to believe this? Exactly how many voters are going to hear this and think, "Yep, that makes sense"?
Leave a Comment:
As opposed to those very productive private sector jobs like hedge fund managers, mortgage bankers and private equity guys.
exactly, and they benefit who? themselves and their wealthy business partners/investors. What have they done for society? Nothing but steal money from the masses. Bankrupt our economy, steal pensions, suck up bailout money from the government...you know, that entity that produces nothing, and buy elections. Oh, and these are the God squad folks who try (in vain) to Right the freedoms we've bestowed on all...equally. Oh, and we can't forget who's creating jobs....not the job creators, they're sitting on cash and paying for lemming legislators who will make them wealthier. Sorry, but this philosophy doesn't fly for any thinking American. Unfortunately, the non-thinkers believe Rush, Trump, Romney, Fox News, Norquist, and the rest of the tax evaders.
Hey Rush, police, teachers and firefighters might not be private sector jobs, but where do you think the money they earn goes? They are part of the real job creators, not the wealthy who are job killers. They hire if they think there's enough need, but that's not creating a job. That job was created by consumer demand. They lay off or fire either because there is not enough demand or they think they need more money in their pockets. Just shut up and talk about what you know. Oh, that's right. You would no longer have a show because the only thing you know is how to be and sound like an ass.
Like anything else wasted on "takers" (as distinct from Job Creators) money given to them is just wasted. That's why the best thing for the economy is to have as much as possible go to the Job Creators -- they put it to productive use rather than wasting it like the Takers do.
And right wing talk radio "personalities"
Not that Rush figured out that the military are public sector workers. DoD is a government job. Then again he flunked out of Southeast Missouri State University.
Funny Mittens wants a government job, where's the outrage over that Rush?
Half hit, half miss here, Rachel. Sure firefighters spend their earnings and that adds to economic activity. But by the same token, someone else paid taxes to fund that paycheck, and that taxpayer therefore spent less and subtracted from economic activity. That is a zero sum game, and as such does not contradict Rush's original comments. That's the half miss.
But the argument about teachers is a complete bull's-eye. To think that educating our youth does not promote economic advancement is idiotic. If anything, Rush is violating a central tenet of Republican conservatism: make smart choices -- primarily stay in school, get educated, and get and stay married -- and you, too, will partake of the American dream. It is entirely reasonable that making those choices boosts one's chances in life, but how is that going to happen if we have gutted the schools?
Wrong. By that logic, everything's a zero-sum game and the private sector would subtract from economic activity, also. There is nothing special about the private sector except that the decisions are made by completely profit-motivating factors with the hope that the Invisible Hand exists. And that works. Sometimes. But it also gives us presents from time to time. Like Great Recessions when the Invisible Hand turned into a giant baseball bat pounding on the head of everybody not at fault and relying on those not at fault to make the criminals whole.
Steve was completely right. You are the one that is half hit, half miss.
I take it all the flag wavers think that the military is just a big waste of money also , this is the exact same thing , you poseur patriots need to go up to our troops and inform them of this too their faces , then do the same to the teachers and fire fighters , none of you have the balls to actually do that tho , but you can hide behind romney and say it
How about you tell all the people whose property and homes are catching on fire out west what a waste of money it is to put out the forest fires next ? But if it is YOUR PROPERTY that is in danger , you would be screaming for help , HYPOCRITES!!!!!!
This military is Socialism!!! Wingnuts really enjoy that one. Hahahahahahahaha...
That's why it's much better to privatize the wasteful uniformed services (Halliburton, Blackwater.) That transforms wasteful Government jobs (which don't contribute to the economy) into private sector jobs, which do.
There you go again, D.C. Didn't get me this time, though. :-)
But your point is one I was going to make on the first page, and decided, ah, I'm tired. Yeah, another way to show a wingnut they're wrong about this is that they're perfectly willing to magically transform economically killing services into economically beneficial services by simply privatizing it.
Then again, considering the granite heads we're dealing with, they might not see that as necessarily a contradiction.
The right-wing in America is a rapidly spreading cancer that threatens the very core of our democracy. And that is why I say THANK GOD FOR OBAMA.
Let me tell you exactly what happens when you have less police. Our neighborhood has not had regular police patrols in over eight years because we're a 'split' neighborhood - half incorporated, half unincorporated. No one bothers to police our area because they can't agree who should. Now our county wants to outsource police protection of the unincorporated section - causing those families to pay twice for coverage, once through county property taxes and once for contracting services locally. And in the meantime the crooks have figured this all out and crime is up 100% and everyone is paying private companies for security systems. Taxpayers lose all around.
How do some, rather, many people listen and believe what this person has to offer???
Rachel, in response to your last question "Exactly how many voters are going to hear this and think, "Yep, that makes sense"?" ...The answer isssss...TNTC...Too Numerous To Count!
So education and that silly "living" thing, those don't contribute to the economic well being of our society?
Limpy, public sector employees get wages, pay taxes and they buy lots of stuff, which helps grow economy!!
If they are not working or getting less (furlough) wages, they can't buy as much stuff. Same goes for those people out there on the highways making roads wider and earthquake supports, etc. Making the public lives better, making commerce flow more efficiently.
Lies, they spread lies! Cutting jobs does not create jobs.
Does Rushbo think that teachers, firefighters and cops don't do grocery shopping? Do they not buy cars? Do they not buy homes? Is their money a separate economy that has no effect on the rest of us? Does he think that, when unemployed, they are not a drag on the economy? Does he think that, when unemployed, they don't lose their health coverage and end up in emergency rooms in larger numbers because they have no other option than this expensive measure of last resort?
Unless he espouses these things, he cannot make the case that they do not contribute to the economy and towards keeping the economic engines running. The sophistry is his alone.
What does he mean, "No growth in the economy with these jobs"? Will these newly employed teachers, policemen, firemen, and nurses not spend on groceries, school supplies, books, computers, appliances, cars, insurance, clothing, local produce and a thousand other items. That, Rush Limbaugh, is exactly what stimulates the economy, helps support small businesses, and creates demand, which in turn encourages job creation.
As a teacher, I find this laughable. We don't contribute to society? Rush, Mittens and others just magically acquired their wealth, ability to think [ well, sort of ] and profiteering spirit from a giant black hole of nothingness? [ Jesus? The Great Spirit of T-Rex? ] And those states on fire? They don't need firemen? Cause firemen don't really help or make stuff that they can sell on a street corner for nine ninety nine, eight if you bargain with them? And we don't need the police, cause...they're not job creators? And uh they're parasites who eat donuts on our tax dime? Value-less leeches who suck up tax dollars meant to go...to...where, exactly? Or to whom? [ Lobby folks? Cause they make earrings and farm tools, right? ]
What about politicians? Doctors? Nurses? Lawyers? Bosses? What do bosses do? They're not on the factory floor with the children making anything, they're not hands-on, they're pretty lazy. [ I can make assumptions and distort, too, about the haloed privateer sector. ] Services are needed.
We need teachers, cops, firemen, that's a, I thought anyway, a given. Cause otherwise, uh...burn, baby burn. It's hysterical that anyone would think those three groups are the ones taking down the American economy or whatever the latest fable is being touted to the great unwashed gullibles.
And dismissing so many people like this...I don't know...call me kooky...are they being executed so they don't glut the already saturated job-search industry? Are they hiring x amount suddenly at Wal-Mart? Is there any sort of program in place to help all these teachers, firemen, police, the military personel, politicians, lawyers, doctors, nurses, etc etc find REAL JOBS where you make stuff people can see with their very own two eyeballs? [ No, right, because anything that helps anyone else is not contributing to the bottom freaking line and that's evil. Did I get that right? Can I have a cookie now? ]
'How many?' ...too many, I fear.
I think the problem is with Republicans, it is not the economy but rich. If something makes one of their friends rich it is good for the economy if it doesn't no matter how many jobs growth etc. it creates it just is not good for the economy in their view. I see this everywhere.
A person with a job is a consumer. A consumer is a job creator. A private sector person with a job or a public sector person with a job is still a job creator. Read www.mybetteramericaplan.com and on the Current Events section is an explanation of this and more.
Last I checked teachers and fire fighters paid more of their incomes to taxes than the leaches romney and limbaugh do , that would make them the leaches
Actually, I (for one) am inclined to agree with Mr. Limbaugh. His point of view really -is- "ignorance and sophistry 101". And I applaud him for finally admitting the truth.
Is he effing serious?
Good grief, if these guys get elected, we're in serious trouble.
Wow, how stupid can they get?
OK, all this discourse about unions and the core purpose of capitalism misses the point.
There is a finite pool of money out there; some of it is in the hands of the 1%, some in the 'public sector', some in the private, and a little in the hands of the 99%. (I include all gov't in the 'public sector' category, of course)
The amount of money out there doesn't GROW, it just gets re-distributed; when more of it lands with the 1%, THEY consider that 'economic growth", because THEIR money-pot is growing. If it comes from the 99, or the public sector, into the 1% or elsewhere, it's still all the same money.
HINT: that doesn't truly equal 'economic growth'; true growth comes when the NUMBER of the 99% who share in the money grows! Hell, if the 1% get more of it, they TAKE IT OUT OF CIRCULATION AND HOARD IT! The 99 will SPEND it, spreading it around even more!
Pretentious pseudo-intellectuals...remember the KISS principle.
Who don't create jobs private or public with their Cayman Island billions anyway.
First up - the Public Sector exists to provide functions necessary for the harmonious functioning of society. These cost money to fund, which is paid for by taxation. The population consents to this arrangement in order to receive the benefits these services provide. We do this because these roles provide direct benefits to our society, not because they are a zero-sum game. A few simple examples:
a) Fire-fighters - Take the assessed value of a building affected by a fire, structure and contents. Subtract the cost of the damage caused by the fire before it is extinguished. The result is the direct economic benefit to that society, damage prevention is good for the economy...
b) Police/Judiciary - Take the cost of doing business in any society without a strong legal system or effective policing. Compare that to the cost of doing business in a modern, well-regulated, safe environment with a level playing field enforced by largely equitable laws. Enough said...
c) Teachers - Compare data taken from anywhere, ever, that looks at two societies, one with a largely well-educated literate populous and one with a largely under-educated or poorly literate population. Compare social/economic/health conditions between the two. See what I mean...
The only thing I find hard to understand - why are we even having this conversation?
We're having because the Republican party has one goal: to kill the government. And it will go to any length and any stupid argument to convince less-than-capable people that government, no matter what it's engaged in, is bad. Firefighters, teachers, ..., what have you. Public employee must be bad.
Remember that and everything Republicans do makes sense. Forget it and nothing they do makes sense. Hopefully you saw my argument about public and private sector employees on the 1st page.
So a teacher doesn't contribute to the economy but a cheese whiz manufacturing technician does. I guess it helps if you define the economy as what teachers don't do.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/31/long-term-unemployed-middle-class_n_942734.html
Laid off with Six other in Vineland NJ One Stop as federally funded job trainers