« Comments on Unemployment Figures | Main | CBO blows the whistle on "Spendulus" »

Scary Barry and the Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the "Stimulus" Plan

Some of the liberal commenters at Wizbang are furious at Republicans for daring to oppose Spendulus. They say it is because Republicans are playing politics at the expense of the country and they should do what Dems want because Dems won. Some are really mad -- in spittle mode. Yesterday Mr. Hopey Changey turned into Scary Barry. I am not buying the indignant outrage or the idea that Obama is reaching out to Republicans out of the goodness of his heart. Democrats just don't want to own this. It is that simple. They should be happy because they won. They can have all the pork and government takeover of private sector and STD prevention and Frisbee parks they want. BECAUSE THEY WON. But they know that win was three months ago and we all know how long that is in politics and the winds have shifted quite a bit since then. They know when the public finds out this is not a magic bullet and hears more about what is in the bill they are going to be pissed. It might even occur to them that the current economy is a result of all the spending we have done over the past eight years and more of the same on an even bigger scale will only make it worse.

There are many reasons to oppose this bill. Here are a few from Freedom Works

Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus

As with medicine, the first rule of law making should be first, do no harm. The "stimulus" bill fails this test spectacularly. Among so many other reasons to tell your U.S. Representative and Senators in Washington to oppose the stimulus, the Top 10 are:

1. The Stimulus Will Not Work

Our history is replete with examples of "stimulus" spending failing to move our economy toward prosperity--Bush just tried it, Ford tried it. Even Christina Romer, Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers agrees. Romer wrote in a study, "Our estimates suggest that fiscal actions contributed only moderately to recoveries." The New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and Obama's stimulus package won't end this recession. In fact, two UCLA economists published a study in 2004 finding FDR's similar New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression by seven years.

It fails because you don't increase economic output by taking a dollar from one person and giving to another. The idea of "stimulus" spending falls for the " broken window fallacy"--the allure of what is seen versus what is not seen. We will see the jobs created by the government spending. What we won't see are the jobs lost because consumers have less money to spend because the government got the money its spending from us--the only place it can get money.

2. The Stimulus follows the same plan that ruined Japan's economy

Japan, after a dramatic market crash and a drop in real estate prices responded with government spending not unlike what the US Congress is considering today. In fact, they had 10 stimulus bills between 1992 and 2000, spending billions on infrastructure construction, building bridges, roads, and airports as well as pouring money into biotech and telecommunications. While many countries enjoyed booming economies and falling unemployment during this time, Japan had a lost decade, seeing its unemployment more than double. They spent double the US level of GDP on infrastructure, and now have a lousy economy and have one of the highest national debts in the world.

After 10 stimulus packages, Japan has gone from having the second biggest economy in the world by a long shot, to being well behind the new number two, China, and is close to falling behind India. We do not want to follow their lead.

3. The Stimulus is full of Wasteful Projects

While we were told the stimulus bill would focus on rebuilding America's infrastructure--mainly the roads and bridges--only 5% of the current bill goes to such projects. The rest of the bill goes to pet projects like:
* $400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
* $200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
* $34,000,000.00 to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
* $75,000,000.00 for a program to end smoking which, if successful will bankrupt the State Children's Health Program Democrats are about to pass (SCHIP) that is paid for by cigarette taxes
* $650,000,000.00 for digital TV coupons
* $50,000,000.00 for the National Endowment for the Arts

These programs are just the 2008 version of the " midnight basketball" program that derailed Bill Clinton's attempt to ram through a "stimulus" bill in 1992. Despite that bill failing, the economy quickly recovered and the economic boom of the 1990s began.

4. The Government Can't Afford the Stimulus

President Bush pushed the government deep into a $1.2 trillion deficit this year, the third time he has set a record for biggest deficit ever, and President Obama's stimulus bill follows his lead, piling on more debt. The deficit in 2008 amounted to about 8 percent of GDP. The entire debt is about 35 percent of GDP.

Even for those who do still believe in Keynesianism, it is important to remember his theory didn't start with the government already over a trillion dollars in the hole, he was generally operating from balanced budgets.

5. We Can't afford the Stimulus

How much is $825 billion? The Heritage Foundation has calculated that that comes to over $10,000 per American family. To further put that in context, on average, families annually spend:
* $2,230 on apparel and services
* $3,595 on health care
* $4,322 on food at home
* $11,657 on shelter

6. The Stimulus is Bigger Than the Economic Output of Most Countries

If this bill were a country, it'd be the 15th largest country in world, ranking between Australia and Mexico. It is bigger than the economies of Saudi Arabia and Iran combined. In fact, the $875 billion it calls for is more than all the cash in the United States.

7. Central Planning like the Stimulus Doesn't Work, Ask the USSR

If centrally planned government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War. If government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth we would be in the middle of the Bush Boom right now. It doesn't. Working, saving, and investing leads to economic output and increases in productivity lead to growth.

As economics professor Steven Horwitz said, "The stimulus plans assume consumption is the source of growth. It is not. It is the consequence of said growth."

8. Remember the $750 Billion Bailout from this Fall?

It was just a couple months ago when we were told if we would just quickly hand over $750 billion to the Treasury Secretary to bailout his friends on Wall Street, he would make the economy all better. That didn't work, and neither will an additional $825 billion.

9. This Money Doesn't Grow on Trees

And this has nothing to do with paper money being made of cotton and linen. The only way the government gets money is through taxing, borrowing, or printing--that is, it has to take it out of the economy in order to put it back into the economy. If government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If it raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul - probably with interest. If it prints the money, inflation decreases the value of the dollar for every American - robbing Paul to pay Paul.

10. Economists do NOT Agree this is a Good Idea

No matter how many times supporters of the bill say it, economists do not all agree this bill is a good idea. In fact, hundreds of economists have come out against it, including Noble Laureates, who signed a letter the Cato Institute ran as a full page ad in several major newspapers opposing the stimulus. Still more economists submitted statements to the US House of Representatives opposing the stimulus proposal.

And this only scratches the surface, there are so many more reasons to oppose the stimulus.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34242.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Scary Barry and the Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the "Stimulus" Plan:

» walls of the city linked with in perspective

Comments (36)

E PORKIBUS UNUM... (Below threshold)
914:

E PORKIBUS UNUM

This stimulus isn't a magic... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

This stimulus isn't a magic bullet, unless the bullet you put into a revolver to play Russian Roulette is 'magic'.

I think we'd be better off doing nothing than passing this monstrosity. (By the way, it's supposed to create 600,000 jobs, right? $900 billion divided by 600k comes out to $1.5 million thrown out to create each job. Anything seem a trifle excessive about that to you?)

It fails because y... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
It fails because you don't increase economic output by taking a dollar from one person and giving to another

It's worse than that. Not only does the action not have a positive economic effect, it actually has a negative economic effect.

The government takes one dollar from one person, runs it through a huge, inefficient bureaucracy then gives what's remaining of that dollar to another person and calls it "government stimulus". That is, some number of government employees had to be paid (out of that $1) for the service of simply redirecting where that $1 was going.

I submit that every $1 of stimulus via government spending costs more than $1 from the economy.

All of this "Vote no on the... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

All of this "Vote no on the Stimulus Bill" rhetoric is for the benefit of Republicans. If even one Republican votes "for" it then it will become an issue in the Republican primaries. That's what scares the Republicans the most.

meant to say . . .... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

meant to say

. . . for the benefit of the Republicans already in office. It doesn't have anything to do with what is contained in the bill.

Yeah, Adrian, especially wh... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Yeah, Adrian, especially when it looks like something that'll crash and burn the economy. Who wouldn't want a piece of that?

Hey Adrian, pull your head ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey Adrian, pull your head out of your ass. Obama wants Republican votes for one reason, to cover his ass when it fails. The Democrats have the votes to pass this piece of crap. WELL THEN, PASS IT!

"We gather because we ha... (Below threshold)
Clay:

"We gather because we have chosen hope over fear..."
-- President Obama, Jan. 21

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."
-- President Obama, Feb. 4

The worst president ever.

From Krauthammer's piece <i... (Below threshold)
Clay:

From Krauthammer's piece The Fierce Urgency of Pork:

"After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

JLawsonHow very un... (Below threshold)
DSL:

JLawson

How very unpatriotic of you to stand in the way of 3.6 mill people. Didn't you hear the "One" speak moments ago? I agree, I rather do nothing about it because I still don't understand how all this is going to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Although, bam bam just created a new committee! I guess we can consider that job creation?

Even with a still-fawning p... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Even with a still-fawning press, Obama's mistakes and horrible judgement are being revealed.

He campaigned on his oh, so superior judgement Remember on of his slogans: 'Judgement to Lead'? But he has made lobbyists and tax cheats common in the White House, and now he wants one of the most incompetent Governors to assume a spot in the government or worse, the Supreme Court.

He is clueless about what is actually in the 'stimulus' bill, and how provisions will harm trade with the rest of the world, and the enormous deficit. He is clueless about the consequences of releasing Gitmo terrorists, stopping the tribunals, or dropping charges against them, and decides to study the matter AFTER ordering it to be shut down.

Of course, when he faces actual opposition, immediately like a spoiled child he shouts and denounces those who differ with him and claims 'doom and gloom' if they don't let him have his way.

It might work in Chicago and Illinois, where you have no opposition Barry, but doesn't play here in the rest of the real world.

hopeandchange...hopeandchange

How much is $825 billion?</... (Below threshold)
Marc:

How much is $825 billion?

Saw a piece that claimed if that amount in dollar bills were stacked one upon the other the pile would be 32,000 miles high.

I have no reason to doubt it, I also believe many people have lost all perspective on just how much cash this is.

How much is $825 b... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
How much is $825 billion?

The size of a dollar bill is 6.6294 cm wide, by 15.5956 cm long, and 0.010922 cm in thickness

So, if my calc is right, it should be about 56,000 miles high.

Or tied end to end (long ways) would be enough to cover the distance from the earth to the moon - 334 times.

http://www.google.com/search?q=15.5956+cm+*+825%2C000%2C000%2C000+to+miles

Or... [Senate Minority Lead... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Or... [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell] To give the proposed economic stimulus plan some perspective, "if you started the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million every day since then, you still wouldn't have spent $1 trillion."

The Stimulus Bill will "wor... (Below threshold)
Bob:

The Stimulus Bill will "work" because its real goal is to grow government and hence government dependency, which is the Democrats main aim. President Obama promised a line-by-line review of the federal budge to eliminate unnecessary programs, but his first legislative priority is to push for $800 Billion+ in "emergency" spending with no meaningful attention to detail. I want it BIG and I want it NOW. The recession will end with or without government spending money it will have to recoup by borrowing, taxing or printing. All we'll really get is, as Tennessee Ernie used to sing: "Another day older and deeper in debt."

DSL - "How very... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

DSL -

"How very unpatriotic of you to stand in the way of 3.6 mill people."

Dude - you ever see well-flattened roadkill? Imagine something 3.6 million people have stomped on.

I ain't standing in THEIR way!

I am completly sick of all ... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I am completly sick of all this Republic, Anti-Obama crap. Is this package full of pork, yes. If it wasn't NEITHER PARTY would consider it.

Here are some Logic Lessons:

1. 600,000 new jobs is not 1.5 million per job - While you're at work do you use materials, like a computer. Or better yet, if you are working in construction do you build with steel, concrete, etc? The key is that the extra money on materials must be spent in the US, as oppossed to I dunno, in Iraq (~$600 bln).

2. Get $1.00 payback less, or about the same - You and your wife each get $1 from the government today, which we'll say costs $3 due to pork. You have 2.5 kids cause you're good Americans. They have to pay back for your misdeeds (voting for G.W. twice) in 20 years. At 5% interest they owe about $8 in 20 years from now money which is worth half that of money now (3.5% inflation). So your kids each pay $1.60, same as a loan with 2.4% interest, man I wish I could have one of those. If we eliminate pork your 2.5 kids owe $1.06 each. If you don't have kids you have more money to spend anyway, Double Income No Kids help drive the luxery side of the economy, so spend spend spend!

3. Government Pork or Corporate Mismanagement - Both suck guys. You get one evil or another. Dems have Union support, Reps have Corporate (if we have to be simple about it), which means NEITHER PARTY WILL EVER FIX THIS PROBLEM. So quit complaining on both sides, cause you're both wrong.

4. Taxes & Tariffs - What we need is a tax on foreign cars, why? Because they tax ours heavily! It used to be you did not impose tariffs so other countries wouldn't impose them on you... well... anyone following yet. This type of thing could help the auto industry which faces heavy taxes in places like the Mid-East where they are considered luxery cars (hard to believe, right?).

So basically, what I am saying, is you're screwed either way. So quit being stupid and become a moderate because if you pick a side you are either stuck with someone who apoints people who try to avoid paying taxes or on the other side someone who creates contracts to his VPs company and his friends. Welcome to America!

Matt -If I'm screw... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Matt -

If I'm screwed either way, I'd rather be screwed WITHOUT this damn pork package yanking money out of my wallet.

Regardless of the past, we have to deal with what's in our faces NOW. Obama got elected, HE is the President, HE is proposing this gigantic sucking leech of a spending bill, and I want HIM to own the thing completely.

It's HIS time now. He got elected, apparently thinking he could propose we all eat shit sandwiches on a monthly basis and we'd all just fall all over ourselves for fresh, steaming servings.

And it's not going to happen.

This bloated monster of a bill is garbage - and if it DOESN'T get passed, I think we'll be a hell of a lot better off. Sorry if you disagree, but this bill really stinks of a scam.

Oh - and I completely forgo... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Oh - and I completely forgot about the technology plateau. In case you have been in any good history class you probably learned about tech advances that helped modernize the world. Anyway, as these come, giant leaps in GDP, quality of life, etc occur. The last leap we had was the launch of the tech/software sector, adding tons of points to the DOW and employing many Americans. Since then (Clinton Era - not that he created the tech sector) we have not had much.

So basically, some of this contraction is from the huge booming and perhaps other countries with over developed tech fields, umm, like, lets say, JAPAN are feeling similar affects. We need to invest money into a new sector, call it Green Energy, Flying Cars, Personal Robots, whatever. That is where the growth is.

That being said - Lorie, you're 10 reasons are pretty much wrong and here is why:

1. This is incorrect because some of the things covered in 3 (provided they are done in the US) and things like Green Energy initiatives.

2. I just covered that.

3. Well, as I said, the 90's boom was when a new sector was created. Unless you look at the markets and the economy closely, most forget the number of new businesses created. So your logic is flawed, though I would spend the money differently too.

4. No - We spend money we don't have all the time (see president G.W. Bush). We also don't spend money when we have it sometimes (see president Clinton).

5. Wrong - already covered.

6. Our GDP is also higher - so what's your point? I'm not working in the fields or a sweat shop.

7. You're right - that's why we should give money to the states to fix their problems individually since most can't pave a road or fill potholes anymore.

8. No, I don't remember the stimulus package - I only got $300 (enough to cover part of the student loans from years ago) despite making less than $20,000. Why because I made $800 on the side working as a little league baseball umpire. This eliminated me from the extra $300. But don't worry, my buddy with a BMW got the full $600, he bought a muffler - without a tariff on it. Thanks Republicans.

9. Umm - this is called a non-point. All you did was sum up things you already pointed out. I'd listen to George Carlin talk about the 10 commandments if I were you.

10. Such a blanket statement is always false. SOME economists don't agree. SOME DO AGREE. The questions is how to spend the money and where, and that always is the question. The only way all economists wouldn't agree is if they did not believe that the concept of anyone spending money helps the economy. Which is absurd - because that is the economy.

So I'll give you lets say 3/10, but that only passes nowadays because of No Child Left Behind. So unless you're getting your GED or playing baseball, 3/10 isn't good enough. Leave the economics and logic to people who have a clue. We'll call when we need useless banter.

PS - Sorry for the bad spelling.

JLawson -I agree w... (Below threshold)
Matt:

JLawson -

I agree with some of this being a scam, but then again, just about everything is, no matter how you wrap it up.

We never should have had big government. It should be the government regulating businesses. But then who gives money to the politicians? This is where the problem is.

There is one thing I know. 85% of Americans live in cities. Many cities (aside from capitals like DC) are running out of money or out of money. Some states are too. Money could be put towards these problems. The federal government should hand money back to the states and regulate how the states use it. The federal government should not do the majority of the projects themseleves. That is my thought.

The better question is if government spending isn't helping how come the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the lowest jobless rates in December were in Washington DC (and surrounding areas) and several other state capitals?

I'm not saying its a cure all - but targetted properly it will help.

The better questio... (Below threshold)
The better question is if government spending isn't helping how come the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the lowest jobless rates in December were in Washington DC (and surrounding areas) and several other state capitals?

Well, duh, these are government jobs. According to this logic, the cure for unemployment is for the government to give everyone a government job.

I'll let others point out the flaws in this otherwise brilliant plan.

"85% of the people live in ... (Below threshold)
mountain Richie:

"85% of the people live in cities"???? WRONG!
Obama is not our boss...Obama is NOT the Senate's boss...WE ARE! And they are starting to see how pissed we are...Democrat and Republican...we are pissed. My retirement plans have been reduced by 48% after saving all my life! I did nothing wrong! Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the rest of the crooks make me sick.

OregonMuse -And th... (Below threshold)
Matt:

OregonMuse -

And then lobbyists which we all love so dearly. And then the people that build their houses and make them food. And the cars they drive... which is usually, on roads that have to be built and maintained... I believe this is what you republicans call the trickle down affect.

Seriously, if you aren't going to use your brain don't bother responding. Look at the army - for every one soilder in the field there are 12-14 supporting him/her. If 200 more people had money to put in a bank account, we'd need more bankers.

"DUH"

Richie - Educate yourself.<... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Richie - Educate yourself.

92% of the nation's economic growth - 86% of all jobs and 90% of income and our GDP. Over 85% of Americans live in cities.
www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/SPEECHNATIONALPRESSCLUB8408.pdf


Our economy mostly functions thanks to 361 metropolitan regions responsible for more than 85 percent of U.S. jobs, income and output.
http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=6669


If you want Census numbers - thats 80% in 2001.

Matt - "Government Pork... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Matt - "Government Pork or Corporate Mismanagement - Both suck guys. You get one evil or another. Dems have Union support, Reps have Corporate (if we have to be simple about it), which means NEITHER PARTY WILL EVER FIX THIS PROBLEM. So quit complaining on both sides, cause you're both wrong."

All will agree except for a few partisan hacks.

However as you point out both sides "being wrong" only leads to a single solution:

Force the D.C. nitwits of both parties to go back to the drawing board and start all over.

Matt, your "let's eliminate... (Below threshold)

Matt, your "let's eliminate unemployment by putting everyone on the government payroll" idea rests on the assumption that the government spends money more efficiently than the private sector.

And if you really believe that, even after all the crap and waste in the spendulus bill that has been pointed out on this blog and elsewhere, you're the one who needs to get a clue.

I love it when you guys can... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I love it when you guys can't even argue - you just rate my posts poorly.

Sorry for bursting everyone's bubble but quit being such poor losers. I don't agree with everything Obama is doing, but I don't ignore facts and decide to avoid logic in the face of disagreement.

By the way, I've voted Republican more than Democrat. People like you are the reason I stopped associating myself with the GOP.

But just so you know there is no hard feelings - statistics prove right to carry laws (allowing people to carry handguns) reduces crime rates, especially violent crimes and crimes against people. While overall rate drops and violent crime drops, property crime increases (this is actually an economic trend by definition - less risk). See statistics can be your friend too.

Oregon - Listen to Marc - M... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Oregon - Listen to Marc - Marc, 100% right.

I don't think the gov is any better than corporations. Both have missed their mark. I think parts of the package are misplaced, but I think some of the package is needed.

One thing I completly agree with is that nothing with get fixed the way the system is now - and if you read anything other than that from my argument (and that I support stimulus so much as it focuses on created NEW ECONOMIC SECTORS while preserving/creating the infrastructure to create and keep economic sectors) then you are over-reacting, because in reality I merely disagree with this article and the falsehoods it attempts to pass off.

The problem is Corporate Regulation (or lack their of) has lead to Government Pork. This is merely the political pendulum swinging the other way.

Hey Matt, I'll bet you thin... (Below threshold)

Hey Matt, I'll bet you think that we can stimulate the economy by breaking store windows, because it provides work for glaziers and repair services, right?

Oregon -That depen... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Oregon -

That depends if by Windows you mean Iraq and by Repair Services you mean US businesses going to Iraq to rebuild them, then I would say that was a Bush Administration Policy.

Does the person who owns the window have insurance? And to fully answer your question how old was the window? Was there good insulation in the window and frame? How many windows? What is the heat or AC costs of the building or room the windows are in?

ECON 100:
If the OVERALL costs (to the owner, the country, etc) of keeping the window are higher than costs of replacing it then PURE economics would insist the window be replaced. Maybe not broken, but replaced.

But since we work in an imperfect system; the owner of the window with bad insulation, who is increasing energy consumption, drives up the price of heat or AC for others. Though the owner pays lets say $25 more, since it's in a big room, the other 3 million people in the area have to pay .00001 cents more for energy totaling $30. The problem is there are 10 other people with bad windows meaning the people with bad windows are actually costing others $300 plus the $250 or $550. This means if the windows cost $49.99 to replace (or $549.89) the ECONOMY would be better with someone breaking them, though the owner's would not be.

I hope they have insurance.

One Last Thought:S... (Below threshold)
Matt:

One Last Thought:

Sorry to leave you all - but basically I wanted to leave one last note. The fact that many of you can not acknowledge any point of my argument is why this country will always be stuck in this way (or another equally messed up way). I have agreed with sever of you, even rated your posts positively. This is because I believe we have to acknowledge each other's points even if it makes part of our argument wrong. The kind of reactionary crap some of you shot back at me is the kind of crap that always gets us into trouble. I hope you learn to become more moderate and accepting or at least learn how to argue better.

To those who have had savings hurt in these economic times, I think you will see that the stimulus package offers SOME good news for you when it comes to the housing markets. I won't go into the economics of why other than driving market prices and equity.

But as a final reminder - deregulation of businesses got us to this sour point in history. Only working together to reform the government will we ever regain our economic strength. Government should focus on watching the large banks and companies that keep american in work and this country running and less time on issues such as Gay Marriage, Teen Driving, Pot, etc, those can be taken care of by the states (who aren't bankrupt).

Good Evening.

Phew! That's a big load of ... (Below threshold)

Phew! That's a big load of pungent fertilizer you got there, Matt, but unfortunately, for all your effort, the answer is, simply, no. We can't vandalize ourselves into prosperity. I refer you to the definitive refutation of the fallacious line of reasoning you're adopting:

http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html

But government spending is similar, no matter what it's spent on, and no matter how scary smart the government bureaucrats in charge of the spending are. Because government produces nothing, it simply takes money from productive citizens via taxes, and redistributes it elsewhere. This process wherein private productivity is diverted into channels the government approves of is inherently inefficient and wasteful and, despite any local gains, will result in a net loss in productivity, just as the broken window does.

Sorry Matt, the reason we d... (Below threshold)

Sorry Matt, the reason we did not acknowledge any of the points of your argument was because all your points basically sucked.

If you want more respect, come up with better arguments, not warmed over socialist slop.

And you are flat wrong about deregulation being the cause of all are economic woes. But since you're fleeing the field of battle, we'll leave that argument for another day.

I have never seen so much V... (Below threshold)
Jerry:

I have never seen so much VERBAL DIARRHEA in my life. The only thing I'm going to do is NOT pay my taxes. That will promote job growth!!! I will then apply to a Cabinet post.

on the contrary, i think th... (Below threshold)
Imee:

on the contrary, i think the stimulus plan does not have wasteful projects. if you look at each closely, you'll discover that each has a purpose (or maybe even two) that will definitely stimulate the economy.

800 bill/138 mill taxpayers... (Below threshold)
Dave:

800 bill/138 mill taxpayers = about $6000/10 years = $600 per taxpayer per year. However, the wealthiest 20% will burden the vast majority of the cost. The least wealthy (The few million without a job right now) Will not burden much cost at all.

If you are extremely wealthy, and are planning on buying a few solid gold humvees, then lobby your republican senator to oppose this plan. If, however, you oppose the continued concentration of wealth in America, lobby your democratic senator to support this plan.

Case in point: If you can afford to buy a $150,000 home, republicans want to give you $15,000, with no payback provision. If you have lost your job you will probably not be looking to take advantage of that particular element of the plan.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy