Republicans: Hackneyed Political Theater?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Most economists argue that the size and scope is correct, but there is disagreement over composition.

What is this statement based on?[/quote]

Basically paying attention. While organizations like Cato point out that they disagree with “spending,” I’ve not seen many argue that the stimulus should be smaller. Many economists argue the plan should be larger.

Do you disagree? Feel free to find economists who disagree with size and scope and post their thoughts here. I’ve posted articles from the economist, IMF, Krugman, and Sachs.

62

Here are some more articles:

[i]IMF Outlines Dire Consequences if World Fails to Act on Banks

IMF Survey online

February 7, 2009

* Restoring confidence key to recovery
* Governments must intervene to cleanse bank balance sheets
* Further action needed to restore demand, revive trade[/i]

Here’s an excellent PDF: http://www.imf.org/external/np/g20/pdf/020509.pdf
Read the executive summary and pg17 onward for fiscal issues.

I found this interesting (doesn’t format well)

Fiscal Multipliers
…Lower Bound… Upper Bound
Tax cuts… 0.3… 0.6
Infrastructure Investment… 0.5 …1.8
Other 1/… 0.3 …1.0

1/ Includes additional spending on safety nets,
transfers to state and local governements, assistance
to small and medium enterprises, and support for
housing markets.

Notice the difference in multipliers between tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and “other” spending? This is why so many believe spending to be so important.

63

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
you dumbfuck before you speakout of turn.

You are making a fool of yourself…like your messiah.

Are you being paid by the post or on a retainer?

This is the kind of shit the country can do without. We’re in a crisis and you two are calling names.

Care to try to put together a coherent argument? How about reading/posting/thinking-about what some of the experts think? (psst…blogs don’t count).

[edit] posting the actual CBO article was good. [/quote]

Thank you Moderator Gambit.

The post that I made with the CBO report linked and the comment to draw your own conclusions caused the pissing match with your fellow democrat 100M.

I’ll take issue with blog’s don’t count. Many experts write blogs and many blogs collect writings from experts and post them without edit. They may feature comment but simply because something is posted on a blog doesn’t make it false. In fact in today’s media environment the credibility of some blogs is surpassing that of the MSM.

Yes the country can do without shit but debate is important and disagreement shouldn’t be dismissed because it comes from the other side. The Democrats (Obama, Schumer) seem to take great pride in pointing out because they “won” this time they can do what they want w/o regard for dissent or reasonable and often better alternatives. Such arrogance always leads to contempt by the voters. Much as the Republicans saw in November the coming backlash to the Democrats will be far more severe.

64

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Do you disagree? Feel free to find economists who disagree with size and scope and post their thoughts here. I’ve posted articles from the economist, IMF, Krugman, and Sachs.
[/quote]

Last I heard, they had over 300 signatures, including 3 Nobel laureates. They might have even more as I type this.

65

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Do you disagree? Feel free to find economists who disagree with size and scope and post their thoughts here. I’ve posted articles from the economist, IMF, Krugman, and Sachs.

Last I heard, they had over 300 signatures, including 3 Nobel laureates. They might have even more as I type this.[/quote]

This is one of the strangest posts I’ve seen in a while, why did you cut out the part of mine that spoke, exactly, about what you point out?

Once again:

[quote] Gambit_Lost said:

While organizations like Cato point out that they disagree with “spending,” I’ve not seen many argue that the stimulus should be smaller. Many economists argue the plan should be larger.[/quote]

Specifically from you link:
we the undersigned do not believe that more government [u]spending[/u]…

66

[quote]hedo wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
you dumbfuck before you speakout of turn.

You are making a fool of yourself…like your messiah.

Are you being paid by the post or on a retainer?

This is the kind of shit the country can do without. We’re in a crisis and you two are calling names.

Care to try to put together a coherent argument? How about reading/posting/thinking-about what some of the experts think? (psst…blogs don’t count).

[edit] posting the actual CBO article was good.

Thank you Moderator Gambit.

The post that I made with the CBO report linked and the comment to draw your own conclusions caused the pissing match with your fellow democrat 100M.

I’ll take issue with blog’s don’t count. Many experts write blogs and many blogs collect writings from experts and post them without edit. They may feature comment but simply because something is posted on a blog doesn’t make it false. In fact in today’s media environment the credibility of some blogs is surpassing that of the MSM.[/quote]

Fine. Please post quality blogs like the ones you are now describing then. The one you posted last week that (purposefully?) mis-represented the IMF’s statements isn’t worth looking at (based upon what you posted).

No debate has been dismissed. As a matter of fact, great pains have been gone to to bring that disagreement to the ears of Obama. Further, this bill demonstrates compromise. As it stands I believe tax cuts are 44% of the bill.

However, if you do have “better alternatives” please, bring them to the fore. I’d like to hear, specifically, what you think. If you’re going to argue against spending, please comment, specifically, on the IMF’s statements posted here. I’d like to hear your HONEST thoughts…not political bickering .

67

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Do you disagree? Feel free to find economists who disagree with size and scope and post their thoughts here. I’ve posted articles from the economist, IMF, Krugman, and Sachs.

Last I heard, they had over 300 signatures, including 3 Nobel laureates. They might have even more as I type this.

This is one of the strangest posts I’ve seen in a while, why did you cut out the part of mine that spoke, exactly, about what you point out?

Once again:
Gambit_Lost said:

While organizations like Cato point out that they disagree with “spending,” I’ve not seen many argue that the stimulus should be smaller. Many economists argue the plan should be larger.

Specifically from you link:
we the undersigned do not believe that more government [u]spending[/u]…
[/quote]

How in the hell does that not translate into opposing the size and scope of the plan…

Anyone with english as their first language can see that this is a disagreement with both the size and scope of the spendulus plan.

68

“Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan?s ?lost decade? in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

This supposedly doesn’t not challenge the size and scope of a big spending government spendulus plan. How? I have no clue.

69

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan?s ?lost decade? in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

This supposedly doesn’t not challenge the size and scope of a big spending government spendulus plan. How? I have no clue.[/quote]

They’re arguing for greater tax cuts and less spending. Remember the bill is 44% tax cuts. Cato is arguing that that percentage should be greater. Again, this is an argument about composition.

70

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
“Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan?s ?lost decade? in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

This supposedly doesn’t not challenge the size and scope of a big spending government spendulus plan. How? I have no clue.

They’re arguing for greater tax cuts and less spending. Remember the bill is 44% tax cuts. Cato is arguing that that percentage should be greater. Again, this is an argument about composition. [/quote]

It is so fundamentally different, that the size and scope aren’t remotely the same. The Obama “stimulus” is a Frankenstein’s monster of government spending and government programs. It’s a spendulus program. The undersigned have signed onto the idea of…get this…here we go…shrinking government spending (relative to Obama’s plan. In fact, they don’t want any more government spending), size, and daily intervention, to get out of the way of the free market. Bigger government on one hand. Smaller government on the other. Notice a size difference? Notice a different scope?

The size, scope, direction, is completely different. This isn’t a disagreement about “composition.” It is a fundamental disagreement about the size and scope of government and how it will harm or help our recovery. Conceede the point. If republicans are participating in theater, so are you big government types. If not more so.

71

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
“Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan?s ?lost decade? in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

This supposedly doesn’t not challenge the size and scope of a big spending government spendulus plan. How? I have no clue.

They’re arguing for greater tax cuts and less spending. Remember the bill is 44% tax cuts. Cato is arguing that that percentage should be greater. Again, this is an argument about composition.

It is so fundamentally different, that the size and scope aren’t remotely the same. The Obama “stimulus” is a Frankenstein’s monster of government spending and government programs. It’s a spendulus program. The undersigned have signed onto the idea of…get this…here we go…shrinking government spending (relative to Obama’s plan. In fact, they don’t want any more government spending), size, and daily intervention, to get out of the way of the free market. Bigger government on one hand. Smaller government on the other. Notice a size difference? Notice a different scope?

The size, scope, direction, is completely different. This isn’t a disagreement about “composition.” It is a fundamental disagreement about the size and scope of government and how it will harm or help our recovery. Conceede the point. If republicans are participating in theater, so are you big government types. If not more so.[/quote]

You are speaking of the size and scope of government, not the size and scope of the stimulus bill. I’ve been talking of the size and scope of the stimulus bill. There is a difference.

Think of it like two pie charts. Both charts have “STIMULUS $850B” over the top of them. Cato’s pie chart would be comprised primarily of tax cuts, including payroll and capital gains taxes. Obama’s pie chart is only 44% tax cuts, with spending of various sorts covering the rest. BOTH are arguing for action (re: stimulus), but what they’re arguing for is different (re: composition).

There is a major philosophical difference, this is undeniable. Obama believes government has a role to play. Cato believes the role government should play is, essentially, to shrink. But both Cato and Obama have been arguing for government action.

Here’s Cato’s take: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9816

72

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
“Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan?s ?lost decade? in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

This supposedly doesn’t not challenge the size and scope of a big spending government spendulus plan. How? I have no clue.

They’re arguing for greater tax cuts and less spending. Remember the bill is 44% tax cuts. Cato is arguing that that percentage should be greater. Again, this is an argument about composition.

It is so fundamentally different, that the size and scope aren’t remotely the same. The Obama “stimulus” is a Frankenstein’s monster of government spending and government programs. It’s a spendulus program. The undersigned have signed onto the idea of…get this…here we go…shrinking government spending (relative to Obama’s plan. In fact, they don’t want any more government spending), size, and daily intervention, to get out of the way of the free market. Bigger government on one hand. Smaller government on the other. Notice a size difference? Notice a different scope?

The size, scope, direction, is completely different. This isn’t a disagreement about “composition.” It is a fundamental disagreement about the size and scope of government and how it will harm or help our recovery. Conceede the point. If republicans are participating in theater, so are you big government types. If not more so.

You are speaking of the size and scope of government, not the size and scope of the stimulus bill. I’ve been talking of the size and scope of the stimulus bill. There is a difference.

Think of it like two pie charts. Both charts have “STIMULUS $850B” over the top of them. Cato’s pie chart would be comprised primarily of tax cuts, including payroll and capital gains taxes. Obama’s pie chart is only 44% tax cuts, with spending of various sorts covering the rest. BOTH are arguing for action (re: stimulus), but what they’re arguing for is different (re: composition).

There is a major philosophical difference, this is undeniable. Obama believes government has a role to play. Cato believes the role government should play is, essentially, to shrink. But both Cato and Obama have been arguing for government action.

Here’s Cato’s take: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9816 [/quote]

The size of the stimulus is the number of words the bill contains. The size that matters is it’s very real impact (possibly permanetly) on the size and scope of government, and it’s interventionism into something beyond it’s control.

One is for government action. That is, government being oh so wise now, can supposedly take control and direct the economy to calm waters. This time, they’ll get it right, by gosh.

One is for getting the government out of the way of free market action.

Even if both pie charts had 850 billion attached to them, one is borrowing and taxing that money to spend as it sees fit. The other is leaving that money with the people and the market. Which one is actually direct governmnet action? Which one is the bigger scope of government action?
Which one is centered around free market action with the government taking a seat on the bench to watch the pros get it done?

73

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Where did you learn that a bust is a “return to normal”? a “correction of the boom”? nice. well at least you got the “boom” right.
[/quote]
Von Mises, Hayak, Smith, Rothbard, Friedman, Murray, ect. Oh yeah, and logic.

Deflate is a relative. You do understand at least this don’t you? Or do you think that home prices should have continue to appreciat at the rate they were during the boom? How about tech stocks in the late 90s? Or maybe you just beleive that there is some magical point, rate, or price that must be protected at any cost?

What defies logic is that this or any artificial stimulous can possibly produce good greater then the long term damage it will inflict. As I said, you can argue one side of any policy. It’s worth as much as a shit sandwitch if you don’t weigh any perceived positives to short term and long term negatives. Simple enough for you?

[quote]
Honestly dhickey, I think you’ve got a shot at arguing with me intelligently. I think you’re smart and have a different philosophy than I have. But if you don’t bother to take the time to understand the arguments of the best in the field, you’re doing yourself a disservice and simply blowing smoke. [/quote]
First off, if your reality is different from my reality, there is no point in having a discussion. If in your reality there is no long term consequence to spending money you don’t have on needs not supported by the populace, there is no point in continuing.

Secondly, I understand the argument for the stimulus. Unlike you, I cannot read one side of a policy and declare it good. Some economists will argue the one side or the other. They cannot be faulted for this. They may in fact address different sides or consequences of a policy or action in different articles. What drives me absolutely nuts is someone simply posting an article in support of short term benefits without even acknowledging the long term consequences.

This is why I may not be able to argue with you intelligently.

74

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
[i] Why I Support the Stimulus

By Arlen Specter
Monday, February 9, 2009; Page A17

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

…
The legislation known as the “moderates” bill, hammered out over two days by Sens. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and myself, preserves the job-creating and tax relief goals of President Obama’s stimulus plan while cutting less-essential provisions – many of them worthy in themselves – that are better left to the regular appropriations process.

…
“In politics,” John Kennedy used to say, “nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something.” My colleagues and I have tried to balance the concerns of both left and right with the need to act quickly for the sake of our country. The moderates’ compromise, which faces a cloture vote today, is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate.

The writer is a Republican senator from Pennsylvania.
[/i]

Arlen specter? great economic mind that one. You are absolutely brilliant. Posting some politician’s take.

My brilliance has little to do with copying an article from Mr. Specter. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’d already posted some of the greatest economic minds.

Also, if you hadn’t noticed, this thread is about the hackneyed political theater the republicans are “playing” (or were). This article would be an example of one who didn’t play that game. Come on dhickey, think, then post. I expect more of you. [/quote]

you don’t think breaking with the party is political theater? You don’t think Specter has someting to gain politically? If not, he is an idiot.

75

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Dr_Razor wrote:
How about the governement spend less money on stupid social programs, pet projects, and ‘entitlement programs’ (that one kills me - what exactly are they entitled to exactly?).

Combine that with a tax cut to encourage businesses to hire more people and buy more equipment.

Then you would have a better package.

I understand that you don’t like the composition of the bill. This is a just argument. However, can we agree that there is a need for a stimulus bill? Most economists argue that the size and scope is correct, but there is disagreement over composition. Do you agree with them?

Politico reported yesterday that the current composition of the senate package was 44% tax cuts… how much more would you like to see? Compromise is the hallmark of a democracy, can support a bill that, while it doesn’t have everything you want, does have a lot of what you want? (Including size and tax cuts)[/quote]

Compromise is the blackest evil of politics. There is the best solution calculated from the best information, and then there is compromise. Compromise cannot be as efficient and the right answer.

Grow a nutsack and defend what is right. If you beleive any artificial stimulus is harmful, don’t compromise. If you believe the gov’t can spend it’s way out a recession it created, then don’t compromise. If you do otherwise despite all the information available, you are doing a disservice to your country. If you do so becaue you can’t be bothered with information and logic…you’ll probalby keep your elected seat for quite some time.

76

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
[i] Why I Support the Stimulus

By Arlen Specter
Monday, February 9, 2009; Page A17

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

…
The legislation known as the “moderates” bill, hammered out over two days by Sens. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and myself, preserves the job-creating and tax relief goals of President Obama’s stimulus plan while cutting less-essential provisions – many of them worthy in themselves – that are better left to the regular appropriations process.

…
“In politics,” John Kennedy used to say, “nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something.” My colleagues and I have tried to balance the concerns of both left and right with the need to act quickly for the sake of our country. The moderates’ compromise, which faces a cloture vote today, is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate.

The writer is a Republican senator from Pennsylvania.
[/i]

Arlen specter? great economic mind that one. You are absolutely brilliant. Posting some politician’s take.[/quote]

Nevermind that great economic minds obviously supporting the stimulus, and those responsible for screwing up the economy, don’t. Moving on…

77

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Dr_Razor wrote:
How about the governement spend less money on stupid social programs, pet projects, and ‘entitlement programs’ (that one kills me - what exactly are they entitled to exactly?).

Combine that with a tax cut to encourage businesses to hire more people and buy more equipment.

Then you would have a better package.

I understand that you don’t like the composition of the bill. This is a just argument. However, can we agree that there is a need for a stimulus bill? Most economists argue that the size and scope is correct, but there is disagreement over composition. Do you agree with them?

Politico reported yesterday that the current composition of the senate package was 44% tax cuts… how much more would you like to see? Compromise is the hallmark of a democracy, can support a bill that, while it doesn’t have everything you want, does have a lot of what you want? (Including size and tax cuts)[/quote]

I’d contend that consensus would say an even bigger stimulus is needed, we’re trying to fill 2-3 trillion dollar hole with 800 billion, and obviously with multipliers etc, we need to be closer to a trillion.

78

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Here is the much talked about letter from the CBO to congress. Draw your own conclusions.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-02/cboletter.pdf

Draw your own conclusions:

“would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.”

The actual CBO report:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=199

hedo, you don’t know what you’re talking about, hence moronic statements like “Obama will NEVER win Pennsylvania” (actual quote from a PA resident!) You have no credibility. None.

But if we’re going by the CBO, let’s go by their actual full report that says yes the spending/stimulus (same you dolt) will have the intended effect.

Yes and you called the election for Kerry in 2004. (actual quote from a MA resident). Fucking loser.

You need to actually read the report you dumbfuck before you speakout of turn.

The silly part is the letter the CBO is posted so anyone else here can read it too.

Try again, although the comedy you think passes for arguments are priceless. Almost as funny as Obama’s cabinet picks.

Never called the election for Kerry. Never. So next lie…

Again, if you’re basis for supporting/not supporting the stimulus is the CBO, they are for it. READ THE ACTUAL REPORT. Then come back apologize, and declare your support for the stimulus,or move on to a new made up reason.

Sure you did you’re just lying again…typical behavior. You have called every election for a democrat since you have been posting here…under your current screen name as well as your sock puppets.

I read it. You highlighted one sentence. Anyone else can read. Go away. You are making a fool of yourself…like your messiah.

Are you being paid by the post or on a retainer?
[/quote]
Uh, no, I never called the election for Kerry. Never. You made that up. Out of thin air.

But to the CBO, where does the actual CBO report contradict the stated goals of the stimulus? (It doesn’t, but I just wanna see what you make up)

79

[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
[i] Why I Support the Stimulus

By Arlen Specter
Monday, February 9, 2009; Page A17

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

…
The legislation known as the “moderates” bill, hammered out over two days by Sens. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and myself, preserves the job-creating and tax relief goals of President Obama’s stimulus plan while cutting less-essential provisions – many of them worthy in themselves – that are better left to the regular appropriations process.

…
“In politics,” John Kennedy used to say, “nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something.” My colleagues and I have tried to balance the concerns of both left and right with the need to act quickly for the sake of our country. The moderates’ compromise, which faces a cloture vote today, is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate.

The writer is a Republican senator from Pennsylvania.
[/i]

Arlen specter? great economic mind that one. You are absolutely brilliant. Posting some politician’s take.

Nevermind that great economic minds obviously supporting the stimulus, and those responsible for screwing up the economy, don’t. Moving on…[/quote]

You do know that Karl Marx was considered a great economic mind. Don’t you? Moving on…

80

[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
[i] Why I Support the Stimulus

By Arlen Specter
Monday, February 9, 2009; Page A17

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

…
The legislation known as the “moderates” bill, hammered out over two days by Sens. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and myself, preserves the job-creating and tax relief goals of President Obama’s stimulus plan while cutting less-essential provisions – many of them worthy in themselves – that are better left to the regular appropriations process.

…
“In politics,” John Kennedy used to say, “nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something.” My colleagues and I have tried to balance the concerns of both left and right with the need to act quickly for the sake of our country. The moderates’ compromise, which faces a cloture vote today, is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate.

The writer is a Republican senator from Pennsylvania.
[/i]

Arlen specter? great economic mind that one. You are absolutely brilliant. Posting some politician’s take.

Nevermind that great economic minds obviously supporting the stimulus, and those responsible for screwing up the economy, don’t. Moving on…

You do know that Karl Marx was considered a great economic mind. Don’t you? Moving on…[/quote]

Ok, there’s a giant credible consensus of not Karl Marx economists, and economic advisors, the CBO, the IMF, etc who say we need a stimulus.

On the other side is a political party, you, hedo, and right wing talkers, who’ve been totally wrong on economic matters in general and specifically responsible for the hole we are currently in.

Obviously, sensible people are going to seriously consider the one side (expert fact-based consensus) and ignore the other (insane/moronic)