Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
The bi-partisan cooperation of the Obamacrats is truly stunning.What hath this election wrought?
Congress is rioting, looting the nation. They’re breaking the windows, stealing the TVs and Nikes, running out with arms full of merchandise.Tell me what is related to the crisis - is it the things that are already funded in the normal budget, like smoking cessation and birth control? Analog Tv conversion boxes are going to restore someone’s 401K - exactly HOW?This is insanity.This is like saying you are giving money to Katrina victims to rebuild their lives and fix their homes and then taking that money and using it build a skatepark in Denver.Does anyone really believe painting a bridge somewhere is going to fix anything?You’ll be at 4 trillion before this orgy is over.Family planning is already in the national budget. Or does the REGULAR already huge budget count for NOTHING?This is supposed to be money being spent and invested to FIX the mess - that means making the credit markets open up, it ought to mean restoring 401K funds, making people whole again, NOT a massive free for all give away to god knows who.NO ONE has stopped to THINK about what they are doing. In a drunken orgy - our legislators are throwing pizza at the walls.“Infrastructure” birth control, no white guys, PORK, PORK, PORK!Nobody stopping to think, or reason. Just throw that money out the door as fast as we possibly can.You will wake up tomorrow to the scene of the devastation, windows broken, drapes pulled down, guacamole, semen and feces ground into the carpet and pizza stuck to the ceiling.In the meantime, the person whose retirement funds were just evaporated by half or worse gets no help. The business who can’t get his usual line of credit closes. No help, no restoration, not even any consideration, lost to the world, invisible to the legislators who only want to do what looks like they are solving the problem.They’ll happily impose higher fees, taxes and restrictions in the name of “solutions” and the libs’ll drink that latest batch of kool-aid like it is the finest champagne.It is sickening.
On second thought, when aChiTown politican says 'Whack me..." you have to wonder if he's just trying to seem as if he's been attacked by those bad old Dittoheads and the Limbaugh who stole christmas. Does he really want sympathy for steamrolling a Trillion dollars to his friends? This guy is talented.
The way he said that, oh, I could only think of the way the worst things said about Palin made me feel about her. But the dagger isn't coming from a third party and I doubt I will ever be able to see him in a good light again. I wont even be able to hope for it. He killed hope for me right then and there.
11 Democrats voted no on H.R. 1 as well.
Harndon neglects to mention that the honor of eleven brave souls of the House Democratic Party lived to fight another day: kudos to Reps. Boyd, Bright, Cooper, Ellsworth, Griffith, Kanjorski, Kratovil, Minnick, Peterson, Shuler, and Taylor for standing against this boondoggle.
It'll be interesting to watch a president with the reputation of a smarmy prick.
If Obama and the Democrats would have needed Republican votes, would this be the bill that was written?If they would have needed the Blue Dog Dems, is this the bill they would have written?We all know the answer is "no". So what does that tell us?
Well, sure, why would you compromise on tax cuts?There's no way you could stimulate the economy by NOT taking money from people, is there?
There's no way you could stimulate the economy by NOT taking money from people, is there?Of course not! You have to take money AWAY from people, then give it BACK to people. That's very stimulating!I know I certainly feel stimulated after doing my taxes each year. Hoo boy do I feel stimulated.
Overheard this week while riding the L.A. Metro:I'm tired of this private sector thing--I wish I had a government job.
Good evening everyone.How are we doing?What a day.I am super, thanks for asking.
Smarmy's a good word. So is arrogant. Insufferable works, too. Pompous. Condescending. I'm sure there are others.
Of course not! You have to take money AWAY from people, then give it BACK to people. That's very stimulating!and ultimately that means taking it from those who earn money and giving it to favored interest groups to buy votes.Like one of those Greeks said around 400 BC."Democracy can survive until the majority discover they can steal from the few, by passing laws"
chickenlittle said..."Overheard this week while riding the L.A. Metro: I'm tired of this private sector thing--I wish I had a government job."Wow. That's worrying. To me, a stimulus package can be done in one page. Step one: the personal income tax is abolished; non-defense federal spending (including entitlements) will be cut until the budget balances. There is no step two.
I can't stop farting this evening.
So Althouse, how you feeling about that pragmatic leadership of hope and change? A spending spree, "just cause we can". 10's and hundreds of bilions on pork and pet democratic constituencies, like 80 billion for teacher pay.Do you thnk that Nasty mean McCain ould have siged a trillion dollar pork bill, on top of the previous 700 billion dollar bailout, on to of an 800 billion deficit, and when there is talk about another bill later this year for another 500 billion?I have no kids but I do have nieces and nephews and an extra 2-3 billion long term debt for them in 12 months is bit much. especially when itabsolutely isnt for anything like an infrastructure investment, except as an investmnt in permanent big government
The government can't take away my farts.
blake said..."There's no way you could stimulate the economy by NOT taking money from people, is there?"One of the advantages of tax and distribute, from the perspective of the man who wants to increase the ambit of federal regulation, is the attachment of strings. The spending power is unlimited, and the government can indisputably condition receipt of federal funds on compliance with particular directives (that's the point of things such as the Solomon Amendment); if the government likes, it can tax you you entire income and grant it back to you with strings attached that go far beyond Congress direct powers. While the outer extremities of that proposition have never been tested, you really see it at work in things like the drinking age, national speed limit, solomon amendment, etc., where states and other grantees have gotten so inured of federal money that they have no option in practice but to comply.
Rose is my new hero.Well stated.
Titus - Hold on to that as long as you can. Let them try to pry it from your cold dead, er ... hands.You are a conservative, you know.
TitusPuttinOnTheRitz said..."The government can't take away my farts."No, but under the theory of federal jurisdiction advanced by the CAA, they could tax your methane footprint.
"Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era."It was always weird that the most partisan Sejator of them all was supposedly going to be somehow "post partisan". It is no longer a mystery. He is going to try to act like the other party and the views and interests it represents does not exist and has no legitimacy, no validity and no voice. Obama's post-partisanship is "I won" and unconditional surrender by the other side. As he told NARAL, any opposition to abortion is "so '90s". On that subject or any subject, the hip, groovy, now, happenin' place to be is wherever Barack is. Otherwise you are "partisan" (which is bad for some reason) and a loony toonz righty like Rush Limbaugh. Everyone who is COOL has one of those t-shirts that say HOPE on them.Let's see how far he gets with that approach.
I like Obama's humor, but will he and his party still be laughing a year from now? Why should a Republican vote for this mess when its passage is a done deal? The Dems owns it now. Or, they own us, as Maxine Waters put it so eloquently a whiles back.Even if this were a sincere effort at stimulus and not empire building, it contains so many soft targets that the opposition can ridicule it into the next election cycle. And they will. The fear is gone; now we're just mad. No to the stimulus!
Rose has said it well. Tonight is the night when Nero began playing his tune in Washington.
so you rabid right wing dogs just stop biting each other, let me get this straight...the republicans tell Obama its their way or the highway. Obama goes to the hill and talks to them. They come out and say no to him. The vote comes and its lockstep...and its Obama being pompous?Just didn't understand that logic but I get it now. Republicans show that they are bipartisan and in this to help by voting in lockstep.You can understand why some of us might be confused...let me turn up Faux Noise...can't seem to hear as their appears to be a rally with stormtroopers marching a silly goose step outside.Thank God we have a majority.
Man, he's got a bug up his butt about Limbaugh and Fox, dun'ne? Fox, the network that must be denounced at every opportunity, and when opportunities fail to present themselves, they're created. Speaking of Fox, have you noticed on Special Report each person, even Mara Liasson, opens to their point then immediately follows with the word, "Look." That is so annoying. Look, I don't have a problem with people doing that, but I have a problem with them doing it predictably every single time. Also, since I never get the opportunity I'll create it, I'd like to meet Mort Kondracke's stylist. He always has the most amazing shirt/tie/jacket combinations.
Obama said yesterday he did not feel he had ownership of the bill.Did he really? I missed that, which is surprising, as it lines up perfectly with my expectation that Obama would be a wee sleekit cowerin' timorous President, with little or no role in shaping policy. This is the biggest spending bill ever, I think, and will cast a long shadow over the whole of his Presidency and he doesn't feel any ownership?
I'm not sure that there can be an upside for Obama, here.Right now, at this moment, things aren't that bad for the average American. Unemployment is still pretty low, interest rates are low, gas prices are low, etc. Granted, things are probably about to go straight to hell in a handbasket.But that's just it. They're going to go to hell in a handbasket -- while Obama's President, and AFTER his nation-saving stimulus package has passed. And Americans always, without fail, blame the current President when things go bad. They blamed Bush for the downturn that started under Clinton, they blamed Carter for the downturn that started under Nixon, etc.We have between zero and one examples of a massive spending spree fighting off a depression. The one possible example is FDR's spending spree of the 30s. The United States didn't actually exit the Depression until sometime during WW2, in Roosevelt's third term of office. Roosevelt had the advantage of the depression having started well before he took office. It will start *while* Obama's in office. I wouldn't place good odds on the American people patiently waiting ten years for the Democrats to fix an economic catastrophe that, so far as most Americans are concerned, happened on Obama's watch with an Democratic Congress.For the record, I'm not blaming Obama (or any other politician or group of politicians) for the mess we're in. I do blame him for blowing over a trillion dollars (with interest included) on a "stimulus" package that isn't going to do jack shit but enrich his supporters at the expense of the rest of us. But I think most Americans are no going to accept "don't blame me, Bush caused this depression" as an excuse, especially not for four or eight years.
11 Democrats voted no on H.R. 1 as well.Thank GOD for them! If only there were more.There absolutely should be NO Democrat, and NO Republican in this mess. Obama should not be meeting with the Republicans as if they are a separate nation. We are one nation, betrayed by partisan monsters, who care about their party regaining powers they thought were lost more than they care about anything else - and yes I do mean DEMOCRATS.Surely they are not all as stupid - surely there are more than ELEVEN with brains.
look at this:Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a “B”) for a “carbon-capturing contest”Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities.P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.” ATV owners, rejoice.P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living — or dead — Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.$81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax.Do you really want the feds wasting money on things like TV, smoking, and sex-ed? Don’t they have more important things to do?This is insanity of the highest order, done in a rush, with no thought or investigation.We can only hope Obama plans to ride in on a white horse and veto this POS. He could be quite the hero, and win over even his detractors.Where’s Mr. Buffet and Mr. Soros? With brainpower like that we’re throwing pizza at the ceiling and have a tax cheat as the only man qualified in all of America to head up the Treasury?This is a giant welfare giveaway, this is a massive income redistribution and the printing presses will melt before you are done.
This is the biggest spending bill ever, I think, and will cast a long shadow over the whole of his Presidency and he doesn't feel any ownership?What do you expect? Reid's been in Congress since Obama was a coke-sniffin' undergrade at Columbia, and he had a good 15+ years of legislative and executive political experience before THAT. Pelosi's a relative newbie compared to Reid, but she's still been in Washington 20 years.Are we supposed to be surprised that they ran circles around the jumped-up community organizer we elected President? The moral of this story is he should have gotten a couple more decades' experience under his belt before he tried playing in the big leagues.
"...I'll watch Fox news and feel bad about myself."That's harsh. It's meant to be charming and it IS charming. But it's also harsh as hell.It's the sort of thing I say when I know I'm being a bastard to someone and I want to be.
I generally think Obama is doomed and the stimulus bill will not have any significant positive effect. However, the question of how long Obama can get away with blaming Bush is very interesting because the slobbering media will do all they can to help perpetuate that myth and protect Obama. So, while a republican could get away with blaming the predecessor for about three weeks, and the typical democrat for a year or two, Obama actually could get away with it for four years with a supportive media.
Obama wanted a bipartisan bill, he got... well, bipartisan opposition to it at least. It is wonderful when the parties can work together like that!
"I am glad that this vote demonstrated bipartisan opposition to the bill, instead of bipartisan support."Viginia Foxx - R NCSome get it...
You will wake up tomorrow to the scene of the devastation, windows broken, drapes pulled down, guacamole, semen and feces ground into the carpet and pizza stuck to the ceiling.I love the imagery, that's how I envisioned Trooper York's house after last year's Superbowl.
Rose said it's sickening.I say it's sickening and intentional.It's all about punishing the productive. The hatred for America in Obama & Co. cannot be overestimated.
>Congress is rioting, looting the nation. They’re breaking the windows, stealing the TVs and Nikes, running out with arms full of merchandise.Maybe they could grab me a new Ipod
"I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."I can't get over that Obama said this. Is this an admission that all the other news channels make him FEEL GOOD about himself?Kind of an admission, there, isn't it?
Why is Obama such a goober? This sounds like a little kid. Just be an adult for heavens sake!
Patm said...It's the sort of thing I say when I know I'm being a bastard to someone and I want to be.Ha! Yep. Not a good sign at all.
We are drifting toward another defining cataclysm, the pace made a little faster now by the Democratic bacchanal. The American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression were socioeconomic winters of fear, unrest, privation, and even savagery. Roosevelt said "There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."I believe this is true now. I don't believe BHO is another FDR, however, and so much the worse for us all.
"I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."Now read what seems to be Ms Althouse's favorite example of Obama's "humor"."If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, 'Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"The same contemptous skewering of his opponents masked by faux humility. Perfectly predictable.
Are there any mainstream economists who DON'T think we need a massive government stimulus right now?I don't know of any.
And the Republicans are now the party in FAVOR of STD's I guess . . .
"I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."He's going to have to control the snarkiness if he's going to be a real post-partisan. Statements like this and "I won" and "Ignore Rush" do nothing but show his contempt for the opposition, which although fewer than 10 years ago, still comprise a sizable part of the population.
Are there any mainstream economists who DON'T think we need a massive government stimulus right now?Stimulus and goody-bag of pork are two different things. Being in favour of one does not require you to be in favour of the other.
"Are there any mainstream economists who DON'T think we need a massive government stimulus right now?""The University of Chicago's Gary Becker, another Nobel laureate, warns that "the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies." Becker says that in that case, spending could do more harm than good.Some of Becker's colleagues are more emphatic. John Cochrane, a finance professor at the University of Chicago's business school, published a detailed paper this week on the topic. He sketches an argument for lower taxes right now - instead of higher spending - while simultaneously whittling down the budget deficit. New York University's Thomas Sargent says, according to the Chicago Tribune: "The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research."Becker:"Stimulating the economy when employment is falling requires rapid spending of this huge stimulus package, but it is impossible for either the private or public sectors to spend effectively a large amount in a short time period since good spending takes a lot of planning time.Of course, at some point new taxes in some form have to be collected to pay for infrastructure and other stimulus spending. The sizable adverse effects on incentives of these taxes also have to be weighted against any value produced by the infrastructure (and other) stimulus spending."
Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.That was no grin. Only the result of her latest face adjustment.Of course not! You have to take money AWAY from people, then give it BACK to people. That's very stimulating!No, you give it back to different people.re: Democrats who voted 'nay,' was that out of principle, were they expendable votes to make the party appear flexible and democratic or to protect seats? Well we had the circuses, now here comes the bread! When will come the coliseum with politicians fed to hungry lions? Stimulus does not come from government spending but by private investment in product creation and sales of goods.What happens when you hire people to paint that bridge who then turn around and spend the money on products made in China? How does that create a nations wealth?
It'll be interesting to watch a president with the reputation of a smarmy prick.Rip Van Winkle, everyone. Welcome back from your eight-year coma.
Becker doesn't say that we don't need a stimulus. He says that it will have less of an impact than people are predicting. He doesn't say the impact will be negative.Time will tell whether I am right that a spending and tax package of the type analyzed by Romer and Bernstein may stimulate the economy as measured by GDP and employment, but that the stimulus will be smaller then they estimate, and its value to consumers and taxpayers could be even smaller.His blog colleague also says we're in a Depression, not a recession.There are plenty of tax cuts in this bill as well.
"And the Republicans are now the party in FAVOR of STD's I guess . . ."God, you're so lame. Can you think about it for a second and maybe see that money for STD's while not a bad idea, DOESN'T BELONG IN A so-called STIMULUS BILL?How pathetic that you don't know how to think, that all you can do is immediately fall into victims vs meanies.
There are many economists who actually believe Galbraith, that $100 of government spending produces $150 of output.It's stupid on the face of it. It's another perpetual motion scheme, to get more out of something than you put in. If it were true, the multiple examples of majority or complete control of spending by the government would have repeatedly produced unending wealth. But there is not a single case where the case can be made for this.From The Atlantic: "Larry Summers famously said that in order to be effective, fiscal stimulus must be "timely, targeted, and temporary." The Democrats' plan is none of those things. Instead, it is an enormous Galbraithian transfer from the private sector to the public sector." And even when temporary, infrastructure spending is effective only if those projects can mainly utilize unemployed resources, which is not the case here.
"Becker doesn't say that we don't need a stimulus."No, he just details why he doubts that this particular stimulus package will be successful. He might be wrong, he admits, he just hasn't seen any arguments to explain why economists are lining up behind this that make any sense to him.No matter, I answered your challenge about the economists.
Re: Bearbee:What happens when you hire people to paint that bridge who then turn around and spend the money on products made in China? How does that create a nations wealth?Well, we've turned imaginary money into real (made in China) assets, haven't we? The problem is that when we buy the whole thing on credit and there's a shock to the system, we end up having to sell those real assets at firesale prices and end up with less than we started. Well, that and many of the made in China assets are kind of junky besides. Maybe we should spend it all on American cars? It'll still be junk, but American junk (haha).Re: Pogo:No, he just details why he doubts that this particular stimulus package will be successful. He might be wrong, he admits, he just hasn't seen any arguments to explain why economists are lining up behind this that make any sense to him.I haven't either. But at the same time, economists have to appreciate the political realities here. Perhaps only 20% or 30% of the "stimulus" is real stimulus. But maybe, in order to buy Congressional votes, you have to shovel in 70-80% pork? You could still come to the perfectly legitimate conclusion that some sort of stimulus is so necessary now, that this crap bill is better than nothing, particularly since the legitimately stimulative bits are front-loaded. Two years down the line, if we've got over the immediate problem and are facing catastrophic inflation instead, Congress may well revisit this spending package and cut huge chunks of it out.
I'm afraid the only thing it stimulates is the American denouement.
Are there any mainstream economists who DON'T think we need a massive government stimulus right now?For DTLHatTip: Rev
Building on the economists referenced by Pogo and Original Mike, Greg Mankiw has collected a number of other skeptics, not all of which are on the CATO list (I think many of them are actually in favour of some sort of stimulus, just not the kind of stimulus Congress has decided to put together).
Remember when Townie used to call himself a libertarian?Now he can't even imagine an economist might think the government can't fix the economy through massive spending. :)
Post a Comment