Story Comments
Posted by: buckncindykill 10 months, 3 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
36%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's a fraud. If what Obama, Pelosi and Reid want is defined as success and economic stimulus:
Reply
* Swimming Pools
* Arts funding
* Contraception programs
* Sports stadiums
* Parking garages
Then I hope they fail too.
The quickest way to stimulate our economy right now would be to allow the people who earn the money to keep it and spend it on what they want, not what politicians want. That means tax cuts.
Democrats want nothing but spending ... no tax cuts. Pelosi says she'll judge ideas by ability to create jobs. Bull-cocky! She'll judge the ideas based on their ability to grow government
Let's take the birth control bit. There's about hundreds of millions in the "stimulus bill" for birth control funding. The aging hollow-eyed hippie has an explanation. We are supposed to stop having children in order to reduce costs. Stopping women from having children will "help states meet their financial needs." Yeah .. they have all those expenses from health care and education. New human beings are bad for the economy.-
89%
GWHayduke10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, those Bush tax cuts had a wildly positive affect on the economy.......assuming you're among the top 2% wealthiest Americans.
Reply
Democrats want nothing but spending.........HAHAHA!
Take a look at the budget from the past 8 years bucky.
The greatest spending spree in history; all at the hands of the "fiscal conservatives".
Right into an unaccountable trillion dollar deficit, and the largest increase in the size of governmental bureaucracy ever!!!
Saying it doesnt make it so, but apparently it DOES make you believe the crap you parrot.
Funny stuff.-
29%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The greatest spending spree in history; all at the hands of the "fiscal conservatives"."
Reply
"Right into an unaccountable trillion dollar deficit, and the largest increase in the size of governmental bureaucracy ever!!!"
And it pales in comparison to what Obama is suggesting. More of the same as you so rightly pointed out is not the solution. If the last 8 years taught us anything, we cannot spend our way out of this. Think about it, $1 trillion dollars. He makes Bush look like a miser!-
-
100%
GWHayduke10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nor was Bush spending the money on domestic matters.
Reply
Quite the contrary; infrastructure was neglected in favor of nation building in Iraq.
Whatever happened to those pallet loads of free money printed up by the treasury that disappeared in Iraq?
Now THATS some sound fiscal policy!-
33%
beavith110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
with all due respect, what about Bush and the democratic leaderships so-called 'stimulus' expenditure of $150B last spring and summer?
Reply
it caused a temporary 1% uptick in the economic growth for the MONTHS that the money was mailed.
the money that was spent ON iraq over 6 years doesn't equal what we've plowed into TARP and "stimulus" over the last year.
GWH. i know our political views don't line up. i accept that. what i don't understand is your slavish attempt to justify this financial spending train wreck. if $150B was *****ed down a rathole, won't $825B be going in the same direction?
let me be clear: i don't want to see Obama fail.
unfortunately, if Krugman's lousy arguments in this op-ed are what's used to justify this expenditure, i would argue we stop and rethink what we are about to do.
i don't really care if he's a nobel prize winner. clearly, his ship has sailed...-
-
Neutral
GWHayduke10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have not justified any spending package - ever.
Reply
I opposed the bailout of the financial sector.
I still oppose financial support of domestic automakers.
Giving public money to private corporations with no oversight is idiotic.
I do, however believe that investing in the public sector must happen to prevent complete collapse.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, look, buck: you have no reason to believe that Obama's plan is the same as Pelosi's and Reid's, other than that they're members of the same political party. I will agree in that I'm not happy with the way this legislation appears to be shaping up so far. (The process is not finished, however.)
Reply
Spending on those bulleted projects you enumerate accounts for a tiny portion of the entire bill.
Tax cuts in fact made up a significant portion of the package as introduced in Congress, --more than I'd recommend, in fact, as they really don't do anything to stimulate the economy or job creation. (We've already had tax cuts for the top income brackets and for employers over the past eight years, and it didn't prevent the current crisis, nor did it create many jobs.)
As I've said all over Propeller in the past few days, Congress is a huge obstacle that Obama cannot surmount on his own--yes, that's both parties. Members on both sides load up important legislation with favored projects, so less important spending and other proposals (like electronic health-record databases) can be buried in it and voted on at once, with little public scrutiny, in massive packages like this stimulus.
You may have reason to complain about Pelosi and Reid. The fact is, the same thing was done when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House. But don't lump Obama into your complaint unless you can show he supports this ridiculous legislative process. And don't pretend it's something only one party does, either.-
100%
flyonthewallzz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My prime criticism is that it seems to lack bold creativity.
Reply
The status quo is crippled and I am not seeing new seeds.
I wonder if there is a way the government can encourage new companies to rise from the bottom and take out the industries that are "Too big to fail" instead of considering them entitled to their profits.
I have no faith in anti-trust laws and it seems that the bailout money is being used to create even bigger Juggernauts, that lay-off thousands of folks while they play with the billions.
I think large publicly owned corporations need to have a different set of rules than a small business. Maybe even treated like a foreign entity to tariff.-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree about what you call the bold creativity, though I have to admit I can't figure out a way to stimulate the economy either that would ever get through Congress. I'd like to see the government start up a WPA/CCC-type program, but I can't imagine how that's gonna happen--there'd be opposition from unions on the left and small-government types on the right. I'm very disappointed with the way Congress works these days, and I'm not sure how that's ever going to change...
Reply
More to your point about replacing the companies that are "too big to fail," I've come to the conclusion that the short-term thinking of large public corporations is also virtually impossible to surmount. It seems to me that the way the stock market works, boards of directors and company officers will always look to the short term--if they were to take losses in the short run in order to invest in R and strengthen their long-term prospects, stock prices will fall and shareholders will vote the directors and officers out. It seems an inherent problem with publicly run corporations.
But I know you're smart...any ideas?
-
-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To buckncindykill:
Reply
RTDA!
(Read the dang article)
Every thing you mention is addressed in the article.
And refuted as being wrong.
Write something about why Krugman is wrong - takes some quotes (heck, just one quote) from his article and research it and refute his point.
Otherwise, you're nothing but a shill.-
50%
beavith110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nothing is addressed by Krugman in the article. he brings up straw man arguments then knocks them down.
Reply
FTA:
"Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens."
WTF is he talking about?
he goes on to say that no one believes that a tax cut dollar spent is always better than a gov't dollars.
well 'duh.' but no one (heh) had said that.
his argument about school lunches is another example of misdirection. he would argue that the cost per meal served to a school kid is only the amount that they charge (or account for to) the kids, not taking into account he overhead that the program requires. duh. seeing that the program COSTS the total amount budgeted, that's what it COSTS. the difference between what gets charged and what it costs is the subsudy that goes into the program.
as time goes by, i'm forced to ask what planet Krugman comes from. it sure isn't earth.-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The air-traffic control argument addresses the common argument that the federal government does nothing better than the private sector. And many people on Propeller would say that a tax-cut sollar spent is always better than a government dollar. I'm also certain you've heard many politicians say that, though I'm sure no one with a brain actually thinks they believe it.
Reply
Your argument about Krugman's school-lunch argument is directed at a different issue than he's talking about. Krugman is saying that the complaint about the stimulus package is that the costs over many years are divided by the benefit for only one year. Overhead costs are a different matter entirely. If you want to talk about that, then the money in the stimulus package do include overhead (and most of the overhead spending comes from jobs created to set up programs, so any comparison you might make to Krugman's argument doesn't really address the stimulus. Maybe he used a bad analogy, but his fundamental point about the package is still not disproven.
-
-
-
loading ...
BBcamaro
nostalgia
Albmore
gwhiddon
vor
ForrestPhelps
fsev41
mesodude
DenCuddy
bushiesRbonkers
Progressive
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.