02-04-2009, 10:38 PM | #41 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Washington Times reports:
Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand, it explains this: Quote:
And finally, just for fun: Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||||
02-05-2009, 02:34 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Barack Obama in the WaPo today:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020403174.html
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
02-05-2009, 02:42 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Stick with posting highlights from other articles, Tex. When you try to editorialize, you get completely lost and confused. |
|
02-05-2009, 02:49 PM | #44 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
The Obama admin is lost and in over its head. Read politico.
|
02-05-2009, 03:24 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
I don't think it will stimulate much other than key Democrat constituencies. The long-term harm part comes from your Democrat-run CBO.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
02-05-2009, 04:10 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Like I said, stick to posting clips from other sources. You are less likely to get confused. |
|
02-05-2009, 05:40 PM | #47 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
You never answered my questions nor have you expressed your qualms.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
02-06-2009, 10:20 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Now here's the right kind of stimulus ...
Quote:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...M2MGZiZGUwMjE=
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
02-06-2009, 10:26 PM | #49 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
|
|
02-07-2009, 04:07 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Look at these figures from Moody's for some help. http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...lan_012109.pdf The numbers below represent the increase in the GDP for every dollar spent: Tax cuts:$1.01 Food stamps: $1.73 Infrastructure spending: $1.59 Extending Unemployment Insurance Benefits: $1.63 General aid to state governments: $1.38 The LEAST stimulative action listed above is tax cuts. You spend a dollar, you get back basically a dollar. Not a great program, as far as efficiency goes. There may be other arguments for tax cuts, but economic stimulus isn't one of them (by a long shot). This is my biggest beef with the Senate version. They are eliminating spending that actually WILL stimulate the economy in favor of other actions that will have a far lesser impact on the economy. If this bill is a stimulus bill, it ought to actually be designed to accomplish that purpose (that was Tex's complaint on the first page of this thread- he just didn't understand the issue enough to realize he was arguing against tax cuts and for the items he listed as "pork"). Spending money keeps people employed. Employed people have money to spend. Poor people must spend money (they can't save), so the best stimulus involves money directed towards them. If that makes you feel bad, take it up with principles of economics, or spend money on infrastructure, or something OTHER THAN tax cuts. I also wish more of the money in the bill was allocated for immediate spending, rather than so much being reserved for spending more than 18 months down the road. But, many of the long-term allocations are second phases to projects also being funded for immediate spending, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to fund 1/5 of a dam, for example, but leave the state to guess about whether it will ever see the remaining 4/5 or if the state will have to pay for it later (which they can't see fitting in their budget right now). |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|