Vote 'No" on stimulus package and sign the petition

[Anonymous Political Junky]

Originally Posted by skoro

Are you angry at all?



I'm not an idiot. I think the stimulus will create jobs and help get the economy moving in the right direction. Lots of professional economists agree. Please explain why you're so adamantly opposed to it. What welfare? Is creating infrastructure jobs your idea of welfare? Are you upset by the GOP lie that giving tax breaks to those who earn less than 50K amounts to welfare because "those people don't pay taxes?" I earn right at $50K and I certainly pay taxes. Haven't gotten a tax refund in over a decade. And why is STD prevention a bad idea? In health issues, prevention is always less costly than treatment.

Sounds to me like you're blinded by partisan rhetoric and unwilling to look at the facts.

Whatever you say! LOLOLOLOL Lots of economists also say that it is wasteful spending and all it will do is to prolong the recession into a depression, much like what FDR did. Read real history and then get back to me.

[saganista]

No, you mean lots of "economists". Just like the lots of "scientists" who believe that the world is 6,000 years old and that global warming is a rumor. There isn't any real debate among economists at all. The people you refer to are a bunch of impostors who hang out at the Heritage Foundation, Hillsdale College, and other such places of ill repute...

[skoro]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Political Junky

Whatever you say! LOLOLOLOL Lots of economists also say that it is wasteful spending and all it will do is to prolong the recession into a depression, much like what FDR did. Read real history and then get back to me.

Ok! I'm getting back to you.

Like you, I've heard the ridiculous assertions that FDR "prolonged the depression."

So, please feel free to cite a few of these respected economists you claim are saying this about FDR and the depression. School me with some "real history."

Thing is, it's only coming from whackaloon talking heads who never mentioned anything of the sort until it looked like a good daily talking point in the past month to get the lemmings in motion.

If you read "real" history, you'll learn a few things that may not be in the dittohead handbook.

Things like:

1. The depression plunged to its lowest depths when president Hoover made the decision to "let the markets decide" and took a hands off approach. Hoover held the view that government spending wasn't effective in addressing the problem. He was then soundly trounced by FDR in the following election. And the GOP sat on the political sidelines for the next couple of decades.

What's that old saying about history repeating itself?

2. Even though the depression was persistent, FDR's policies did lower unemployment considerably over his first two terms. There are economists who also say that the depression lasted so long because FDR was too timid in his spending and that if he'd loosened up the purse strings even more, it would have been beneficial.

3. The US (and most of the rest of the world) emerged from the depression with entry into WWII. And that little event resulted in an unprecedented increase in federal spending.

OK, ball's on your side of the court, professor.

[wade52]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Political Junky

Whatever you say! LOLOLOLOL Lots of economists also say that it is wasteful spending and all it will do is to prolong the recession into a depression, much like what FDR did. Read real history and then get back to me.

Would you please be so kind as to provide a few links to statements these economists made that will confirm your post?

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Dd714

I like some of his spending projects - selected education programs (although I don't trust the government to spend it right) and alternative energy sources. But his program does indeed increase entitlements - food stamps, unemployment, and medicare is indeed increased. That's an ideological issue as you said, out of scope on this topic, but it is prominent in his bill.

If you agree on stimulus via rebate check (with the idea that it be spent not to pay debt but to buy stuff, as intended), then you can't complain about food stamps, UI etc. They have a much more real ripple effect than, say, tax cuts to corporations or the rich.

But I just don't see the job increase here. Yes he's talking about infrastructure jobs and that's fine. But that's just temporary. And again, a government cannot create self sustaining jobs.

Wrong again. You've a very narrow point of view, and have failed to look at the bigger picture. Stimulus by definition is never meant to be permanent. Have you ever jump started a car? That is what a stimulus is expected to do. However, unlike the $726 billion tax cut stimulus to create 1.4 million jobs over ten year that Bush and most Republicans wanted in 2003, much of it is pretty much designed to do so, directly, as opposed to faith based TARP-like assumption where you expect others to do what you want them to.