Economic stimulus package summary

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 8:16am

Here is the House Appropriations Committee summary of the dollar amounts to be funded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (HR1). The summary does not cover proposed tax cuts.

Republicans and fiscal conservatives like Rep. Jim Cooper have criticized the bill for having too much spending and not enough stimulus. The general feeling among opposition is that Obama proposed a targeted bill, and Congress loaded it down with unrelated spending. Republicans proposed an alternative measure that consisted mainly of tax cuts.

I was reading through HR1 yesterday, and the amounts are staggering. A couple of things occurred to me.

It appears that the House has included every proposal on their wish list, asking for everything they can think of and assuming the Senate will pare it down and Democrats will take whatever they can get.

It also appears that the bill includes funding for infrastructure and basic maintenance that was neglected for many years. In other words, some of this is money we should have already been spending just to maintain the status quo. For example, why are we still waiting to fund new and improved VA hospitals after the Walter Reed scandal?

The actual "stimulus" parts of the bill appear to be focused on education, health care, alternative energy and conservation, small business loans, and also environmental and public infrastructure repairs that have also been neglected.

There are also provisions that are emergency first aid for an economy in triage, such as extension of employment benefits, help with COBRA payments, job training, even help for homeless shelters.

There are concerns that some of the one-time spending proposals create or expand programs that are not funded for the long term. Perhaps the thinking is that taken as a whole, the package will get our economy moving again and this will generate future, sustainable funding.

It will be an interesting exercise for the Senate and the public to go through the proposals to see what could be eliminated or deferred, and what the funding priorities should be.

I'll be out for a while. Discuss...

Topics:

R. Neal's blog

vote

This is not going to be

Submitted by KC on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 8:36am.

This is not going to be solved with one stimulus bill. This is the first step.

Tax cuts do not produce the economic stimulus that some claim they do.

For every dollar of taxes cut, the amount of spending in the economy is LESS than one dollar. Plus, the amount of money freed up to spend because of tax cuts take longer to affect the economy, unless the taxes being cut are payroll taxes.

Government spending of a dollar usually produces
MORE than a dollar in the economy. To return the country back to a "saving" country is vitally important in the long run, but will have a detrimental effect on trying to grow the economy at this time.

There are no good choices.

Taxes

Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 2:28pm.

So what is wrong with a payroll tax cut. Puts money instantly into our hands. Probably the cheapest fix for this mess.

That is some interesting economic theory there, Gary

Submitted by James Calloway (not verified) on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 4:48pm.

Whose tinfoil hat did you get it off of ?

This bill sounds absurd, and I especially like that they have loaded it with crap like green energy, $50 billion for the NEA, $400 billion for global warming, and more crap to clutter the national mall.

This is playing real well in households that weren't reaching for the hankerchiefs on Jan 20th. Not as damning to Obama as throwing Hillary's face on TV every five seconds was for Bill in 94, but I'll take it.

Seriously, if you can defend this bill have at it.

In the words of the

Submitted by metulj on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 6:10pm.

In the words of the irrelevant GOP: "No."

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

It good to know that James

Submitted by Sarge on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 5:18pm.

It good to know that James has advance knowledge of the final bill and has read the whole bill to extract such info as $50 billion for NEA and $400 billion for global warming and more crap to clutter the national mall. I was really anticipating perusing the final bill. I really appreciate the time you save me. Also, we won and from the tone of your post I bet your hankies are still needing drying.

Has not the House passed a

Submitted by robtbanks on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 9:45pm.

Has not the House passed a bill? What "final bill" are you referring to?

Typical

Submitted by metulj on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 10:37am.

So you don't know how a bill becomes a law?

"If the House and Senate pass different bills they are sent to Conference Committee. Most major legislation goes to a Conference Committee."

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Sarge you have to understand

Submitted by KC on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 7:46pm.

Sarge you have to understand that the talking points are being rushed out and the plants are being asked to call C-Span and all the other shows that host phone callers.

Their supporters are dwindling in number as each day brings more bad economic news, and they are still using the strategy of "the great lie," because it worked once, and it's all they have left.

The content of R. Neal's

Submitted by robtbanks on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 7:49pm.

The content of R. Neal's posting reveals the cynicism and irresponsibility that has marked the stimulus effort. This has included a crude campaign to steamroller this mess through Congress and over the public. Speaking of "mess," see Jesse Walker's short article in today's reasononline: "How to Sell a Mess--What Stimulus Advocates Learned from the Push for War in Iraq." The Congress and the executive branch have failed yet to comprehend the U.S.A.'s economic situation. The Congress, especially, has been both lazy and greedy, the excutive branch merely mindless. The stimulus bill is wasting important resources (using up the U.S.A.'s credit) that will be needed later if the government should decide to truly address the collapse of the U.S.A. economy. Calling people, who happen to have sincere concerns on this issue, "Republicans" or worse, will not correct the ills of the current legislative shenanigans.

Some thoughts

Submitted by bill young on Fri, 2009/01/30 - 10:59pm.

President Kennedy felt civil rights were important but having the right to eat at a lunch counter was worthless if one couldn't afford to eat there.

Kennedy introduced programs to allivate unemployment & though the economy was robust during his presidency he felt 4 million unemployed in '61-'63 intolerable.

On November 15,1963 speaking to the AFL-CIO on those that opposed his employment legislation:

"They talk loudly of deficits & socialism.But they do not have a single constructive job creating program of their own."

Times are very different today but the vocal opposition is still shouting the same tired rhetoric.Deficits & socialism & the best I can figure do not have one constructive job creating program of their own.

For example,on a long post on another thread about the package passed by the House there is a whole bunch of economist articulating in very wonderful acdemic terms why this is bad for the country.

But unemployment is headed toward catastrophic numbers.To not act would be criminal.

Much is said of Kennedy's tax cuts.But Obama is for tax cuts too as evident in the bill passed by the House.

Fact is I think the Senate will put in more tax cuts along the lines of what Grassley wants & the bill that comes out of conference will pass the House with or without Republican votes & may even lose a few Democratic votes but will gain Republican votes in the Senate & go to the Presidents desk.

President Obama will sign it into law by mid Feb.

I'm on the fence as to the

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 6:13am.

I'm on the fence as to the "stimulus package". What will stop this downward trend? Wish I knew.

I do wonder if "tax cuts" will be that beneficial. Haven't they been doing that for two or so years with the stimulus check, etc.? Doesn't seem to be working.

Tax cuts now cannot really be compared to the Kennedy years. Kennedy cut the highest tax rate of 91% down to 77%. Currently the highest tax rate is 35%, I believe.

Individuals have a horrid savings rate in this country. Now they are saving and they are urged to spend.

It seems to me the most important thing is to get employment back up again.

Is it possible there needs to be a redistribution of employment? Were some of these layoffs necessary and there needs to be growth in other areas to compensate?

I don't know. Just thinking out loud.

There's a lot of proposed

Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 9:48am.

There's a lot of proposed spending in this bill, and some of it you could argue one way or another as to whether it's stimulus or whether it should be deferred.

But I really would like to see some specific examples of "pork" that conservatives keep talking about.

R. Neal you apparently would

Submitted by robtbanks on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 6:42pm.

R. Neal you apparently would not know pork if you were being eaten alive by a hog.

I know you won't read to the end, so I will make this point up front--the stimulus bill is not designed to focus on and address the underlying dysfunctions of the U.S.A. economy, rather, it is just a classic congressional money hemmorage. It is old fashioned government waste that this once-rich country can no longer afford.

Nevertheless, see: WSJ, REVIEW & OUTLOOK JANUARY 28, 2009 "A 40-Year Wish List--You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill."

And try this(yes it is from another website, so do not panic):

The $850 billion Phony Stimulus Plan slated for a House vote later this week will exceed more than $1.1 trillion when adding in the interest ($300 plus billion) between 2009-2019 to pay for it.

The Capitol Hill Democrats' plan includes funding for contraceptives, regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funded contraception, there is no question that it has NOTHING to do with the economy. (Since Monday this idiocy has been removed -- due to bi-partisan outcry!)

The Phony Stimulus Plan could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been accused of voter fraud, is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the housing meltdown. (NOTE: we have discovered that ACORN will recieve over 4 billion dollars!)

Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats' proposal:

$650 million for digital TV coupons;

$600 million for new cars for the federal government;

$6 billion for colleges/universities;

$50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts;

$44 million to repair the U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters;

$200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod!

The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion. That means more than a third of this plan's spending provisions are dedicated to creating new government programs.

The plan provides spending in at least 150 different federal programs, ranging from Amtrak to the Transportation Security Administration. Is this the "targeted" plan Democratic leaders promised?

Even though the legislation contains at least 152 separate spending proposals, the authors of the plan can only say that 34 have any chance at keeping or growing jobs.

Just one in seven dollars of an $18.5 billion expenditure on "energy efficiency" and "renewable energy programs" would be spent within the next 18 months.

The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

House Democrats' plan will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

The plan provides enough spending – $825 billion – to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.

$825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000.

Although the House Democrats' proposal has been pitched as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the plan – or three percent – is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion.

Much of the funding within the House Democrats' proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the plan provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – a program that already has $16 billion on hand. States also are sitting on some $9 billion in unused highway funds – funds that Congress is prepared to rescind later this year.

All board members of the "Accountability and Transparency Board" created by this legislation are appointees of the President; none will be appointed by Congress.

A scant 2.7 percent, or $22.3 billion of the overall package, is dedicated to small business tax relief.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the legislation increases by seven million the number of people who get a check back from the IRS that exceeds what they paid in payroll and income taxes.

The "Making Work Pay" tax credit at the center of the plan amounts to $1.37 a day, or about the price of a cup of coffee.

Almost one-third of the so-called "tax relief" in the House Democrats' plan is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package – not the 40 percent that President Obama had requested.

$825 billion is just the beginning – many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their "stimulus" plan. In fact, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), told Roll Call earlier this month, "I would not be surprised to see us go further on some of these programs down the line."

R. Neal you apparently would

Submitted by R. Neal on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 10:10am.

R. Neal you apparently would not know pork if you were being eaten alive by a hog.

Your ability to copy and paste is well established. But it is common courtesy and proper internet etiquette to cite your sources and provide a link, both for the original author's benefit and for the benefit of readers so they can evaluate the source for themselves (and not be confused into thinking you did the original work).

Anyway, with one exception the dollar amounts you mentioned represent less than one fifth of one percent of the bill if my math is correct. But let's break them down.

$650 million for digital TV coupons: This is sort of on the Bush administration for underfunding and underpromoting the cutover, meaning poor people will wake up with no local tv or broadcast network news. For the benefit of a handful of wealthy broadcast companies, the GOP blocked a delay that would have given more people time to prepare. There is a public trust involved in turning over the public's airwaves to the government for complete control and regulation. It's a two way street. This is a massive, once in a generation change. $650 million to move it along and honor the public trust is chump change.

$600 million for new cars for the federal government: The federal government is one of if not the largest single customer for many companies, including car companies. The federal government can't make consumers buy new cars, but the federal government certainly can buy new cars. Not only will this help auto manufacturers, it will save taxpayers money on fuel costs in the long term, reduce emissions, and set an example for state and local governments. Again, it's chump change given the benefits.

$50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts: Yes, anyone can argue this is a waste of money in tough economic times. But arts are part of a vibrant, enlightened culture and inform us and the world who we are. Perhaps you haven't noticed that arts programs are usually the first to be cut in our schools in tough times. Perhaps you also haven't noticed that charitable and philanthropic giving is down when the stock market tanks. Without arts, we are a nation of soulless robotrons. What would we do without American Idol? It's not a pretty picture. By the way, Ireland is way ahead of most cultures on this. Artists and musicians are exempt from income tax over there. That probably costs them a lot more than $50 million per year, just on U2 album sales.

$44 million to repair the U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters; So what? We should just let government office buildings crumble and lose all our investment and spend more to rebuild them later? Plus you fail to mention that some of it is for security improvements, and the section this is in is mostly about upgrading outdated IT infrastructure including security upgrades. Why single out the USDA? Perhaps you weren't aware that the safety of America's food supply is a serious public health issue and also a homeland security issue in terms of being a terrorist target. The question should be, why after all the talk about homeland security and the war on terror following 9/11, the Bush administration has allowed the State Department and USDA offices and IT systems to fall so far behind and become vulnerable because of a lack of funding? That's a disgrace bordering on criminal negligence. Again, chump change.

$200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod!: Allowing our symbols of U.S. history, strength and prosperity to crumble is a disgrace. Chump change.

Regardless, all of these items are hardly "pork." I don't think you and other conservatives even know what that means any more. Any spending you don't agree with is now "pork." The definition of "pork" is specific money earmarked by someone in Congress for the benefit of a local pet project or supporter back home for political advantage. None of these expenditures fall in that category. All of these expenditures are for the benefit of all Americans, nationwide to, you know, "promote the general welfare" and stuff.

Moving on to "$6 billion for colleges/universities," are you seriously arguing that this is "pork?" Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't fund higher education, even in tough economic times? Perhaps you haven't heard that the University of Tennessee is slashing academic programs and may have to lay off 600 people? This is a lot of money, but still chump change given how critical higher education is. If we don't train and educate the next generation of scientists, doctors, engineers, teachers, accountants, lawyers, public servants, etc., who will figure out how to get us out of the next economic crisis, much less run our government or do all the jobs necessary for a civilized society?

The rest of it is a lot of pseudo-intellectual fear mongering gibberish. I especially like the part about how much we could give each person in Ohio instead. How is that relevant to anything? We all know it's a big number. So what if it's equal to one year's discretionary spending? It took eight years to dig ourselves into a deep hole. If we can climb out in one year that would be fantastic.

It should also be pointed out that the ill advised, unnecessary, and probably illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost us a lot more than that. If we had spent that money on these programs we'd be in a lot better shape and thousands upon thousands of people would still be alive and millions more would still have jobs and health care.

So feel free to copy and past this response on your favorite right wing websites as an example of elitist, twisted liberal logic that will lead us down the path to socialism. Meanwhile the rest of us will still be talking about ways to fix the mess your guys left us and get millions of people back to work.

Based on your statement re:

Submitted by robtbanks on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 9:07pm.

Based on your statement re: Iraq, perhaps you can convince Obama to forego his promised Afghanistan war.

Unfortunately the Democrats voted for the Iraq war and when we returned control of Congress to you based on your representations that you would nevertheless end it, you failed and refused to do so. And now that you also have the presidency, you are, by all indications, continuing in substance the Bush foreign policy. Perhaps you should stay clear of this topic, as it makes you appear either uninformed or hypocritical.

You still do not get it. The stimulus bill is just what the NYT called it--a 40 year wish list. It is not a bill directed at addressing the U.S.A. economic collapse, which Congress and the President are apparently content to allow to remain in free fall.

Just because you are a Democrat, does not mean you have to support the party even when it is wrong. And you should not assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a Republican.

I think you should go back

Submitted by R. Neal on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 9:08pm.

I think you should go back and read my original post on this topic.

ok

Submitted by bill young on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 12:47pm.

I was going to google Kennedy/Reagan et al tax cuts but I dont understand the may harm your computer deal so I didnt.

Therefore I'm not going to be able to post specific references to Republicans JFK & tax cuts so I'm going to wing it.

There are two rules of politics that I will site:

1.The perception is the reality.

The fact is,from Reagan to McCain,the Republicans have hammered JFK's support of tax cuts to stimulate the economy.Which is true.

The Republicans then say:

So you Democrats believe tax cuts to stimulate the economy is the way to go when your Democratic icon JFK pushed a tax cut stimulus bill thru Congress but when a Republican does the same thing you tax & spend Democrats oppose tax cuts.Double standard.

The elite main stream media,the ivory tower economic liberals & the tax & spend Democrats know how to spend your money better than you do.

These liberals & if the truth be told these folks are really socialist ignore the fact that their icon JFK was a tax cutter.It's hypocracy.

The percepton becomes the reality.

However,IMO Bizgrrl points out correctly that comparing the economic environment of 2009 to 1961-1963 is apples to oranges.

When we Democrats try to debunk the apples to oranges fallacy of the JFK tax cut comparsion to the economic environment of today or for that matter the last 30 years we lose the voters because frankly our arguement does not fit into a 30 second sound bit.

2.Use oppositions quotes to tear down their arguement.

There are tons of JFK quotes on the need for tax cuts & his push pass tax cuts in Congress.

Democrats say x..GOP quotes JFK.
Democrats say y..GOP quotes JFK.

We get flustered..GOP quotes JFK.

We get mad..say they dont understand the apples to oranges comparision of 50 years ago.

They say..see I told these elite socialist..er I mean librerals thought we real Americans were stupid.

More than likely the Senate bill will be closer to the the bill that comes out conference & passes than the House bill.

Not sure of how the partisan divide will come down in the House on the bill that comes out of conference but it will pass the House & will become law with some bi partisan support in the Senate.

JFK tax cuts vs the GOP tax cuts

Submitted by bill young on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 8:58pm.

This sums up what I was saying concerning the GOP using JFK to argue their tax cut position.

http://www.slate.com/id/2093947

Good points, bill. I

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 6:03am.

Good points, bill. I understand what you are saying.

It's too bad the Rush Limbaughs of the world can get their points across to the right so well and the listeners refuse to listen to reason.

I learned one thing in all this

Submitted by bill young on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 2:30pm.

I learned,according to the Slate story,it was LBJ & not JFK that passed the tax cut bill JFK proposed.

So even I,a fellow that's read everything I could get my hands on about JFK,believed the GOP line & assumed JFK passed a tax cut bill.

Like so much of JFK's agenda LBJ's the one that got it done.

I presume Senate Republicans

Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 1:21pm.

I presume Senate Republicans won't dare filibuster if they don't get their compromises, because the only thing worse than passing a perceived bad bill would be doing nothing?

Really? In 1993 Clinton got

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 3:23pm.

Really? In 1993 Clinton got his tax increase but his "stimulus bill" (you know, to pull us out of the worst economy of the past 50 years) was killed. IIRC, the economy recovered nicely from that economic "disaster" just fine without it.

Of course, the "worst economy of the past 50 years" might have been hyperbole.

I don't see a

Submitted by KC on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 1:35pm.

I don't see a filibuster.

It's like a number of economists have pointed out, even if it's too much, at this point doing nothing is not an option.

Republicans will curse it right after they get off their knees thanking God that somebody passed it.

That's true about perception, but I think a pink slip fits in a short sound bite.

For the non-Charles Fourier thinker

Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 2:05pm.

Like Keynesian economics? Think again,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD28vNVovow

Don't break the window. It won't make things better.

Keynes refuted chapter by chapter. Read it if you dare.

http://www.mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf

Why anyone would try a Keynesian strategy now is beyond comprehension. How many times does it have to be proved invalid? This is the last place and time for another experiment in socialism.

Cue the butterfly...but Fourier thought...

We all can't be collectivist. Thank God.

Keynesian economics are not

Submitted by metulj on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 10:14am.

Keynesian economics are not socialist so your argument fails on the invalidity of the major premise.

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Really?

Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 10:56am.

Keynesian economics are not socialist...

http://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2008/12/keynesian-economics-socialism-lit...

Wow. An anti-socialism blog

Submitted by metulj on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 11:04am.

Wow. An anti-socialism blog that says that Keynesian economics is socialism. You do know that you would get an "F" for citing that anywhere serious, but I guess it is OK when you do it kind-of anonymously on a blog you from which you are technically banned.

It is so nice to have the adults in charge in Washington and Rush Limbaugh running the GOP, especially with undereducated fools like you playing foot soldier for an empirically and morally flawed ideology.

{Insert #9 slur against me as a Third Way fascist who wants to set up death camps for free market capitalists and, especially, him}

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Wow indeed...

Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 11:48am.

Wow. An anti-socialism blog that says that Keynesian economics is socialism.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.moz...

A common fallacy. Declare anything that speaks to the issue to be an "anti-socialism blog". Of course there would also be "anti-socialism" newspapers, magazines, television shows, wingnut radio shows, and so on.

Anything or anyone who would dare think the great John Maynard Keynes was a socialist thinker must be "anti-socialism".

Actually, I am "anti-socialism". That is the normal position for a capitalist.

I am waiting for more FDR pablum from President Obama. Will he form a new wind power type of TVA controlled and run by big government? And a new WPA? So as to create jobs and such?

What could be done is to cut corporate income taxes. Provide direct stimulus to the taxpayers with no middleman. Don’t go porkulus. We cannot pork our way out of this mess President Obama. Require the banks that got bailouts to loan money to businesses and individuals. Cut the amount of this bailout in half. It is too big and not directed.

Or maintain the current course over the edge of the water fall.

"Actually, I am

Submitted by metulj on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 12:23pm.

"Actually, I am "anti-socialism". That is the normal position for a capitalist."

You are assuming something. As usual. You have never, in all of the years you have drooled into the Intarweb, once provided an appropriate definition of any of the things you are "anti" other than to state that you define them as that which you are against. This is why you are not taken seriously and, also, the firmament under the only stable thing about you: The trustworthiness of the Number9 law. To wit, any position taken by #9 is the inverse of the actual outcome.

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Yeah, yawn

Submitted by gonzone on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 12:39pm.

Ideologues and fundamentalist acolytes of Milton Friedman are just so enlightened and are so certain of the fallacy of Keynesian economics. Meanwhile in the real world, pragmatic and sensible people are seeing the results of such fanatic adherence to failed policies worldwide. A miserable failure each and every time it has been implemented and taken to it's ideological extremes. Total unregulated corporatism with the great God of the Invisible Hand ruling over all.

Go back and do more reading. You need it. Nothing wrong with government stepping in where corporatism fails. Regulation is a good thing to minimize the negative results of zealous greed. Nothing wrong with spending on things that build up a country instead of on war machines that only tear down societies. The New Deal was a success story that the people of Knoxville still enjoy the benefits from. "Trickle-down", "supply-side", "Reaganomics", "Friedman economics", whatever you call it, is a failed theory, period. We are currently suffering from the results of de-regulation, tax cuts for only corporations and the very wealthy, and unending wars to promote multi-national corporate interests. We are now living the proof of the colossal failure.

Let me suggest you actually read a few books on the subject before repeating the tired, worn out, disproven talking points of Milton's minions. Since I'm sure you're interested in truth and balance, try something besides the one-sided sources you keep linking to. It may be enlightening and informing. Try Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine" for another view that is well researched, properly documented, and [gasp] factual.

Else, quit spewing tripe and STFU about things of which you exhibit such limited knowledge.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Is that a rational response?

Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 2:40pm.

Else, quit spewing tripe and STFU about things of which you exhibit such limited knowledge.

A more modern telling of the "broken window fallacy", similar concept but different outcome, and yet still a bad outcome. And only the government knows best? That's your story and you're sticking with it?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will102899.asp

In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.

I know, the source of the story makes it wrong. But it is difficult to cite socialist sources that are correct. I should just STFU, because as you allege only socialist know the truth. Now you good socialists go out there and create some jobs, mkay?

Ah, redbaiting. Randy, is

Submitted by metulj on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 3:07pm.

Ah, redbaiting. Randy, is there any way you can ban his IP? It's just a matter of time. This Obama thing has him unhinged. Intervention is a great way to help the addicted.

And, BTW, that's a George Will column from 10 years ago, when he was trying to get a Republican elected as presdident. See how that turned out? Not. So. Good. #9's law is still valid.

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Intervention? Addicted?

Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 6:13pm.

Intervention is a great way to help the addicted.

Got a mirror?

You stopped trying a long time ago metulj. That is incredibly lame to ask for a ban for a simple different point of view. Let's see if you get a second on your request.

When you decide to return this to some "reasonable discourse" you let us know. Even I am surprised at how your behavior has degraded. Are you afraid I convince people of the contra viewpoint? I.e., capitalism?

The word "contra" is

Submitted by metulj on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 8:27pm.

The word "contra" is apropos.

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Randy…I for one am

Submitted by TheLurker (not verified) on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 6:43pm.

Randy…I for one am enjoying the different mix of ideas. Why would you ban an IP for someone just because never gets to win an argument?

“Red-baiting is the act of accusing someone, or some group, of being communist, socialist or, in a broader sense, of being significantly more leftist at their core than they may appear at the outset.”

Ahhh….If the shoe fits!

There you go again

Submitted by gonzone on Mon, 2009/02/02 - 8:04am.

Nine,

If you knew jack about Keynes, instead of reading and believing the poisonous lies you do, you would know that the seminal book he wrote was, in his own words, to save capitalism and the western world from socialism. So get buggered, OK?

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Mises? As in Ludwig Von? No

Submitted by KC on Sat, 2009/01/31 - 2:58pm.

Mises? As in Ludwig Von?

No thanks, no need to bother with it.

As Galbraith once pointed out, the Austrian economy did much better once all the free market philosophers left.

Listening to Republicans

Submitted by KC on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 8:10pm.

Listening to Republicans argue about what needs to be done to save the economy is, ironically, like listening to the Soviet communists argue what needed to be done to save the Soviet Union.

Whether Republicans will ever admit to it or not, Republican ideology (including an over reliance on markets to regulate themselves, an apathetic stance on worsening income inequality, and a belief that government assistance only results in dependency and never in self-relaince, among many others)was the primary cause of the bubble and the resulting recession/depression.

Instead of offering any new ideas, or attempting to develop and create any new solutions, it's tax cuts and limited government, over and over and over.

Be my guest, waste away your time, and pray for President Obama's failure, because as Rush Limbaugh has loudly, although probably inadvertently, admitted, it is and will be the Republican's only hope.

"...new ideas, or attempting

Submitted by robtbanks on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 9:26pm.

"...new ideas, or attempting to develop and create any new solutions...."

But that is the problem with the Democrat legislative response...they have come up with nothing but cliched New Deal gimmicks and blind Keyensianism. Look at that bunch--do you seriouly thing a single one of them has ever had a new idea or come up with a creative solution to anything? The all look so tired, so dull, and so old.

Perhaps you should quit talking about the Republicans and deal with you own shortcomings. Every time you get challenged you start cussin' the Republicans. It is an inappropriate response, if you intend truly to be taken seriously as the majority party. You cannot run a government by just talking about your opposition.

Bobby and Mikey are getting

Submitted by metulj on Sun, 2009/02/01 - 10:12pm.

Bobby and Mikey are getting their talking points from the same Wikipedia links.

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Post new comment

Shortcuts

Discussing:

Have you had a TVA "Energy Right" audit done on your home? (12 replies)
Tea Party convention continues (20 replies)
Question: Why can't the Knox County Democrats come up with one viable candidate? (33 replies)
Led Zeppelin coming to Bonnaroo? (16 replies)
Open letter to MPC commissioners regarding the Midway Road Business Park (17 replies)
HHS calls for Anthem Blue Cross to justify rate increases (1 reply)
Toyota announces voluntary recall for ABS software update (1 reply)
John Murtha RIP (4 replies)
Missing Phil Hamby (1 reply)
8th District School Board Vacancy (6 replies)
Dueling KNS headlines (2 replies)
Tort Reform Facts (1 reply)

Upcoming events:

Third Annual Knoxville Mardi Growl Parade
Feb 13 2010 - 11:00am (3 days 19 hours from now)
TN College Goal Sunday: enrollment and financial aid assistance
Feb 14 2010 - 2:00pm (4 days 22 hours from now)
Drive By Truckers
Feb 14 2010 - 8:00pm (5 days 4 hours from now)
Lily Tomlin
Feb 19 2010 - 8:00pm (1 week 3 days from now)
East Tennessee Quality Growth to be featured on Feb. 22
Feb 22 2010 - 6:30pm (1 week 6 days from now)
Jonah Goldberg
Mar 2 2010 - 7:30pm (3 weeks 3 hours from now)
Robert Earl Keen
Mar 24 2010 - 8:00pm (6 weeks 1 day from now)

User login

Navigation

Blog-O-Rama

Media Blogs

Local Paper

TV News

Wire Reports

About KnoxViews

Syndicate

Comment viewing options

Post new comment

Shortcuts

Discussing:

Upcoming events:

User login

Navigation

Blog-O-Rama

Media Blogs

Local Paper

TV News

Wire Reports

About KnoxViews

Search

TN Progressive All-Stars

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Government:

Media: