For the GOP to take an ideological tack that is the wrong economic tack at this point could be bad for the US and bad for the GOP (as it was in the 1930’s and 1940’s).
I support the theory, but right now Keynesian economics is the right move. The nuance of wanting to avoid wasteful spending and spending period is definitely lost on voters.
Moreover, as much as tax cuts sound like a good idea, the possibility that they would be spent (thus stimulating consumption and growth) as opposed to saved is a not 100% clear.
If there had been any doubt the bill would be passed, I doubt that the GOP would have managed unanimity. On the other hand, the message sent is both good and bad. It is good that the GOP is sticking to its principles. It is bad that at present the message was one of blocking as opposed to coming up with alternative solutions.
As for Pelosi - she is what she is. I don't feel the need to write that type of language here.
“There are not a few people that think trying to balance the budget in the mid 1930’s prolonged the Depression.”
They are wrong, because Hoover and FDR both ran up huge spending increases and deficits. What lengthened the depression was the tax hikes and the New Deal regulations that stifled employment and curbed productions. Stupidity like paying farmers not to plant hurt us.
“For the GOP to take an ideological tack that is the wrong economic tack at this point could be bad for the US and bad for the GOP (as it was in the 1930’s and 1940’s).”
Actually, it is the DEMOCRATS who are taking the wrong economic tack. They refuse to put in real stimulus elements, like tax rate reductions and business tax reductions. They have 3/4s of the spending AFTER 2009, ie after the recession is over - so even by Keynesian standards THIS BILL IS DESTINED TO FAIL.
and dont repeat the tired liberal lies about the GOP of the 1930s and 1940s. Fact is, hoover was an interventionist - higher tax rates, higher tariffs, big spending - it didnt work. FDRs New Deal failed. Failed so bad unemployment was still double digits in 1939 and the economy was smaller in 1939 than 1929. The failure of the New Deal is indeed what made it the Great Depression. UCLA economists have studied and determined how and why the New Deal lengthened the great depression.
“I support the theory, but right now Keynesian economics is the right move. The nuance of wanting to avoid wasteful spending and spending period is definitely lost on voters.”
Contradictory. Keynesian policies failed in Japan in the 1990s. Reaganomics worked in the 1980s. The payoff from lower tax rates, even just making the Bush tax cuts permanent and minor corporate tax rate reductions, would DO MORE GOOD at much less cost than this trillion dollar boondoggle.
Do the right thing now and spend the next 18 months explaining it to people. They will get it.
“Moreover, as much as tax cuts sound like a good idea, the possibility that they would be spent (thus stimulating consumption and growth) as opposed to saved is a not 100% clear.”
The mind boggles - you’ve been brainwashed by keynesian stupidity. you actually think spending is better than savings for the economy?!?! what happens to the money you save? It disappears? NOT! It becomes part of the capital basis of say a bank, who then can lend to someone who then SPENDS IT. That whole aspect of keynesianism is corrupted and wrong. savings recycle to investment, and in fact in recessions it is investment which leads us out of recessions.
They’re alternate solution was denied by the Rats.
Sorry, I disagree. Republicans have offered alternatives.
The majority of Americans disagree with the bailout crap.
They want tax cuts and they don’t want a Big Brother government. Hussein & Company are promoting both.
Once they create economic slaves of the American people, they’ll begin their agenda of dismantling our other liberties.
Disagree with your assesment.
Infrastructure spending can be important to the right degree, for instance, Ike’s Interstate Highway bill, as opposed to FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s great society.
The difference is in the degree and the outcome.
Goverment spending can work, partially, as long as the ultimate outcome is not increasing government itself.
In the end, free enterprise must have the incentives to thrive, lest we all become bean pickers and hamburger flippers.
There are not a few people that think trying to balance the budget in the mid 1930’s prolonged the Depression.
What are you talking about? "Balanced budgets" were the last thing on anyone's mind back in the '30s. The problem was NOT "balancing the budget". The problem was massive governmental intervention that sharply prolonged the Depression. Roosevelt and his cronies were economic idiots, and their efforts showed well during that agonizing decade. It took Hitler to pull us out of the doldrums.
To emphasize this point, let me remind you that at no point in the depression, from it's inception to our entry into the war, did unemployment fall below 14%. Not one month. How's that for the success for the success of the C's and the WPA?
For the GOP to take an ideological tack that is the wrong economic tack at this point could be bad for the US and bad for the GOP (as it was in the 1930’s and 1940’s).
Given the fact that the CPUSA Democratic party has an enormous Ministry of Propaganda (masquerading as the mainstream press) that FDR never had, you may have a point here. We'll just have to hope the alternative press works to our advantage this time around, though.
We'll see.
I support the theory, but right now Keynesian economics is the right move. The nuance of wanting to avoid wasteful spending and spending period is definitely lost on voters.
Huh? Keynesian economics still has adherents today?!? Nuance? Listen - these buffoons in office now, and the ones that preceded them, have given us a legacy of unbridled debt for as far as the eye can see. And these guys are just getting started. You think it's gonna end with this? If you do, I have a controlling interest in a large bridge you may be interested in purchasing....
Unless a way is found to fully repudiate that debt (and I'll leave that to your vivid imagination on how it can possibly be achieved), we will NEVER get out of this hole. Not us, not our kids, not our grandkids. This is the albatross that will drag this economy, this nation, and it's inhabitants, to the bottom of the sea.
You have no idea how much I fear for the future of this nation, and indeed, the Free World.
Moreover, as much as tax cuts sound like a good idea, the possibility that they would be spent (thus stimulating consumption and growth) as opposed to saved is a not 100% clear.
And what's the mechanism that's so desirable in this leviathan pork barrel? What do they hope to achieve with this, and how will they do it? What's the probability that this money will be spent in the most productive manner?
Here's a hint: Look at how the first part of the "bailout" package went, compared to what they said they were going to do, and then get back to me.
In the final analysis, it's our money, and we should be able to spend it as we see fit. After doing so for 200+ years, I don't really think the modus operendi will change.
If there had been any doubt the bill would be passed, I doubt that the GOP would have managed unanimity. On the other hand, the message sent is both good and bad. It is good that the GOP is sticking to its principles. It is bad that at present the message was one of blocking as opposed to coming up with alternative solutions.
First off, the Dems completely shut out the GOP in formulating this "bill" (well, actually "bill of goods"). For public consumption, ideas were bandied about, but the Republicans did not offer up a competing package because that's not the way they felt the problem should be approached!
Given that, the unanimous repudiation of this catastrophe can only be called good.
As for Pelosi - she is what she is. I don't feel the need to write that type of language here.
Heaven forfend - spare us any language or visuals that will give us nightmares!
CA....