Leave a Reply
Snack Food
Politico parodies itself (via): The Senate, once the chamber of deliberation and reason, is getting its own extreme makeover. Moderates such as Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Democrat Ben Nelson are bolting an institution that barely resembles the one they entered as idealistic deal makers. Ben Nelson? Idealistic dealmaker? These are words that should not be in the ... (1 comments)Despicable Quote of the Day - Icky Gay Sexytime Is A Threat To National Security
“Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.” Bryan Fischer, Nutbag (0 comments)Newsweek Hearts America. Seriously. They Really F*cking Mean It.
I guess a cover featuring Uncle Sam hungrily masturbating to a painting of Jesus wearing an American flag was deemed to be insufficiently patriotic.
[Embiggen]
(1 comments)Paul Ryan Suddenly Realizes That Ayn Rand Was A Rabid Atheist
Republicans Cave Again: Student Loans Edition
Mississippi: A Shining Example Of Limited Government
Ah, the land of Mississippi – that shining bastion of God-fearing, limited-government conservatism. Well, unless you want to father illegitimate babies — then the government will throw you in jail. (5 comments)Over in the UK, Labour is now up big over the ruling Tories. Part of that is almost certainly a stalled, ailing economy, but what’s sort of interesting because a big part of their drop is due to implementing a cap on charitable deductions, which is essentially what Obama wanted to do here to cut ... (0 comments)Death Penalty Loses Another One
Connecticut ends the practice. I have to say, this is one of those social movements that is regularly winning big victories, but almost nobody seems to be paying attention. Which is fine by me–under the wire is probably the best way for this thing to go for now. (0 comments)Look, Mitt, I know you want to get women back on your side, but the notion that women have lost 92.3% of jobs in the recession may be technically correct in some manipulated and spun context, but it’s not correct, and it’s not even a good bullshit statistic. You might have been able to get ... (0 comments)What Do You Want Schwarzenegger To Write About In His Memoirs?
The Santorum Has Officially Been Mopped Up In The 2012 Race
I think this gets it right. Additionally, though, while I find Rick Santorum’s beliefs to be pretty risible, and his inability to accept that his ideas had some less-than-ideal results during the ’00s is a personal failing, but at the very least he seemed to possess some sense of personal honor and integrity. Not as good as ... (0 comments)I hadn’t used Instagram because I’m not so much a pictures sort of guy, but an article in the SF Chronicle article makes an interesting point that they were a much bigger threat to Zuckerburg’s empire than the other commonly named competitors. (0 comments)Fun Friday: Robocop Is Filmed In Front Of A Live Studio Audience
(THE GRAPEVINE
Let's be intellectually honest here. Bush had 51 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest in this nation's history, after inheriting a recession from the tail-end of the Clinton administration and after 9/11. This was ended by the housing bubble, created in large part by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two governmentally backed institutions, that were encouraged largely by Democrats, to give risky sub-prime mortgages to unqualified buyers.
How can you deny tax cuts, allowing people to keep more of their own money, does not stimulate the economy? It doesn't matter what they do with it, whether they store it away in a bank (then hey we don't need to bail out the banks do we) or whether they spend it, then it is providing economic stimulus for someone in the private sector, and generating taxable revenue anyway. This is how you stimulate an economy.
You don't stimulate an economy with a wasteful trillion dollar spending package. Especially when the bipartisan vote in the House was against this package with 11 Democrats agreeing with all of the Republicans. The more people learn about this spending package, the more the public support for it has evaporated.
You said: "How can you deny tax cuts, allowing people to keep more of their own money, does not stimulate the economy?"
Who's denying that? Did you notice that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts in the stimulus bill? The argument from a majority of economists is that direct spending is at least twice as stimulative as tax cuts.
You said: "You don't stimulate an economy with a wasteful trillion dollar spending package."
Leaving aside the "wasteful" part (which is in the eye of the beholder), spending is exactly how you stimulate the economy. In normal times, the economy is "stimulated" by consumer spending. In horrid economic times such as we're in now, consumer spending has dropped off a cliff and is no longer driving the economy. At times like this, we need need government spending to right the ship so that consumer spending has the time to pick back up.
Agreed, but we better make sure the spending that comes from the government is the right kind of spending. Lower income taxes will generate more private income spending which is part of the issue now.
Direct spending by the government is twice as stimulative as tax cuts? If that is true for any government spending, it certainly isn't automatically true for all of it. What they spend it on matters. Taxpayers are paying for any government spending. It comes out of our paychecks.
The complaint is about the wasteful part. I'm not arguing there should be no spending, and I'm encouraged by the tax cuts that are included, but the wasteful part has the potential to negate the good parts of the bill.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/c…
You said: "Direct spending by the government is twice as stimulative as tax cuts? If that is true for any government spending, it certainly isn't automatically true for all of it. What they spend it on matters. Taxpayers are paying for any government spending. It comes out of our paychecks."
I agree the proposition isn't 100% true. One reason why many economists find tax cuts to be less stimulative than direct government spending is the Paradox of Thrift ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift). Generally, if we cut people's tax in a recession, consumers will squirrel away a huge amount of they receive for a rainy day rather than actually put it back into the economy. Not so with government spending outlays.
You said: "The complaint is about the wasteful part. I'm not arguing there should be no spending, and I'm encouraged by the tax cuts that are included, but the wasteful part has the potential to negate the good parts of the bill."
I agree with the general proposition that waste is bad. However, with a bill this big (and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress being all-too-often mind-numbingly corrupt), some waste is going to creep in. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we think the bill should be somewhat overly big or somewhat overly small? If the bill is too small and doesn't do enough to stimulate the economy, millions more will be/remain out of work and the recession will last for a much longer time than if we did the right thing. I am okay with paying off some waste when we're back on our feet. I am not ok with dithering about $250 million here and $50 million there until the cows come home, if the end result is that families are ruined by a recession that went on too long.