[quote]Aragorn wrote:
100meters wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
100meters wrote:
It’s easy enough to see that even bills back then would have been full of the same legalese that would’ve made them difficult to digest. That’s what staffs and committees are for apparently.
I mean I think you’re just making stuff up here if you really think that not reading legislation word for word is a contemporary concept.
SteelyD wrote:
OK, it all makes sense now-- you’ve never read any history.
100meters wrote:
Are we still talking about the stimulus bill? This is getting strange.
Now that we’ve established that you’re a partisan hack with no sense of history, sure we can get back to stimulus.
Here’s an article from that right-wing, free-market rag Investor’s Business Daily-- not that they have an interest in a strong economy or strong markets…
Is It Any Wonder The Market Continues To Sink?
[i]Last Oct. 13, in trying to explain why the market had sold off 30% in six weeks, we acknowledged that the freeze-up of the financial system was a big concern. But we cited three other factors as well:
The imminent election of “the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party.”
The possibility of “a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal.”
A “media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises.”
No wonder, we said then, that panic had set in.
Today, as the market continues to sell off and we plumb 12-year lows, we wish we had a different explanation. But it still looks, as we said four months ago, “like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible.”[/i]
…
A stimulus bill laden with huge amounts of spending on pork and special interests is the best our Congress can come up with to get the economy back on track. Economists broadly agree that the legislation has little stimulative power, and in fact will be a drag on economic growth for years to come.
Full Article:
http://beta.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=469313
OK? This is an opinion piece, I obviously disagree.
Right. But the kicker is you’ve never supplied any sort of rationale for WHY you disagree that the stimulus will harm the economy, or at minimum has little stimulative power, as the article suggests. All I hear is you attacking other posters for using sources that “lie” or are “partisan” and shrill cries that they are ignorant. Yet you place all your faith in bureaucrats with a track record that is the most dismal of all possible experts to put your economic faith in.
Yes, you obviously disagree with him and many others. But I’m still waiting for you to supply any sort of cogent rationale to your opinion in place of implicit or explicit attacks against other posters. So, if you will kindly do so, I am looking forward to hearing your rationale, in detail if you please, about why you believe this stimulus is a very good thing. At least the writers of these opinion pieces of journalism have gone far enough to supply reasons for their opinions. Please do the same.
And if you’re going to make insinuations against me, don’t even bother replying to my post. Either answer my question directly and on subject, or please STFU.[/quote]
Ok, you get the “Acorn in stimulus” was a lie.
“4 billion dollar mouse” was a lie.
“health provisions in stimulus thread” was a lie.
“new deal didn’t work” was a lie
etc.
those were all lies. See? Those weren’t reasons, they were made up. Notice I didn’t say IBD’s opinion was a lie, I just don’t agree.
My feeling is that we have 2-3 trillion dollar hole to fill, a massive, massive wound if you will. That’s why we need to fill the hole with a large stimulus, logically larger than the one passed. Because of the way multipliers work (you get $100, but you then spend $125, etc.,etc.), we’ll be getting a pretty big bang for the buck, but it should have been bigger. That said this should go a long way in stopping the bleeding, obviously prevent and create job loss/jobs, and get the economy sort of kind of going again. This assumes we deal with the housing and banking, which they will (though I wish we’d just eat the big banks already, clean house and start spitting them back out). The stimulus takes the patient off the operating table, and puts them into intensive care. Eventually, eventually things will get better.
The problem in here is the refusal to admit the severity of the problem/and the casual lie telling/passing on. The problem being for the Republican party is that success for the country means further disaster for the party. The result is you have to enrage the base with silly lies to turn them off the stimulus. Hence, you get “acorn in the stimulus” “$4 trillion for mouse”, etc. It’s just annoying, like the socialist fear mongering is, like the flag pin was, like the muslim thing was, etc. Just seems like perpetual silly season in here, while the President tries to fix a mess given to him by the previous party.
