Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Fern, I don't know how to say this nicely, but your posting is really going downhill lately.
As has yours, too much condescension in almost every one of your posts for some time now. Poor form IMO.
I can't believe you're actually asking about half the questions you just posted.
1.) Spending is okay to combat a recession and depression because it is the opinion of an absolutely huge number of economists from across the ideological spectrum that deficit spending is a good idea for governments when facing economic problems. (hell, even Reagan's chief economist agrees) Deficit spending when it is not needed is still not a good idea. While you may disagree with these economists, that is the logical basis for it and you should be able to easily see that there is no disconnect.
No, I've often said the gov should save in good years and spend in bad. But we've only recently entered a recession and the rush to spend this type of absolutely huge and unprecendented amount, rammed through Congress and looking to be as poorly thought-out as the TARP, does not appear to be justified. And we all know that many economists in support of a stimulus bill aren't pleased with this effort.
BTW: I haven't heard any Repub leaders say we don't need or want a stimulus, just not this thing
[/b]
2.) See #1
Stimulus is for jobs right? See your own point #7 below.
So we didn't have any economic problems during Bush's 8 years? Is that why spending then was 'bad' and not 'stimulus'? That's getting to extremes in revisionism. IIRC, Bush's term started off with economic problem (recession inhereted form Clinton according to some - remember the March '00 tech bubble burting and poor stock market back then?) and the economic downturn following the 9/11 attackes
3.) See #1
I don't see how your remarks in #1 address my point unless we are to assume that huge deficits suddenly just became harmless. The whole issue of deficits and their resultant problems are just being swept away by you guys. Your not adressing them; your ignoring them. Do you think this $trillion dollar bill will result in strong inflationay pressure down the road? if so, why not acknowledge it?
4.) The bill is not complete. It still has to pass the senate, and then it has to pass the conference committee. So, it's not really possible to say what 'pork' will be in the bill at the end. It's safe to say that what you consider pork and what Obama considers pork will be two very different things however, so don't hold your breath on this one.
Yes, suddenly now nothing is considered pork.
But everyone should be able to admit this is not a stimulus bill. Too many other issues combined - welfare to states, welfare to individuals (c'mon income tax refunds to people who don't even pay income taxes, jobless benefits, and green energy provisions etc.
IMO, each of thses is important enough to merit their own focus. Instead we're getting a rushed bill done in far too short of time to do these vastly different issues justice
5.) The Democrats attempted to increase the amount spent on infrastructure, but it was defeated in a vote on party lines by the Republicans (needed 60 votes to pass).
Since they wrote it, they could have put it in originally. Doesn't it occur to you that given the stagggering amount of money some are reasonably reluctant to leave all the current crap in the bill and just focus on adding more, even if justifiable, spending?
Did the Dems offer to reduce other spending and replace it with infrastructure, or was it just 'let's pile on more spending'? I bet it was the latter.
6.) More money will not be spent in the 4th year than the first. In order to come to that conclusion you have to ignore the tax cuts, unemployment benefits, etc. that comprise the significant majority of the bill, and that would be extremely dishonest. On the whole more than 2/3rds of the money will be spent quickly.
Everything I've seen and heard says the complete opposite. You're the first person I've seen say that 2/3 wil be spent quickly. Not even the CBO agrees with that.
7.) Your analysis of money per job assumes that the jobs will be the only benefits of this bill, which is awfully silly.
[Yeah, silly me it's a stimulus bill and Pelsosi and Obama keep fear mongering about "jobs".[/b]
8.) I would have to look into this further, but that sounds like an unrealistic amendment. Bridges, roads, etc. can take months or years to build. Do you stop building a bridge halfway through because we came out of a recession?
Really? Seriously, no one is talking about half-finished roads and bridges. That's silly
9.) See #6.
It would appear that you have gotten some very bad information on this bill, or have not applied critical thinking to the information you have gotten.
Even the CBO says less than 25% spent in 2009. That includes the tax aspects, given that a good bunch of that is refundable credits, and credits for those who don't pay, I'd say that's optimistic as those credits will in large part not get handed out until around April 2010.
Facebook
Twitter