Get ready for Porkulus II

posted at 2:20 pm on December 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Democrats on Capitol Hill have begun crafting a second job-stimulus plan after the abject failure of Porkulus to rein in unemployment, and it looks like they will take a hair-of-the-dog approach again.  Only half of a preliminary estimate of $300 billion in additional spending would go towards anything remotely resembling stimulus, such as tax cuts and business loans.  The rest would go towards unemployment benefits and another round of pork spending:

The Hill arrived at the $300 billion figure by adding up the following provisions:

Lawmakers are looking to extend unemployment insurance and COBRA healthcare benefits for the unemployed through 2010 at a cost of $100 billion alone, according to the sponsor of House legislation, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) pushed Wednesday for $69 billion for highway and transit projects that could be started almost immediately with funding. Oberstar had criticized the earlier stimulus bill for not including enough infrastructure spending, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) have voiced support for more infrastructure spending to create jobs.

Democrats would also increase loans from the Small Business Administration (SBA) at a cost of $20 billion, according to Zandi.

He called for raising limits for the SBA loans, removing the interest rate cap on them in order to allow credit to be given more freely and using leftover bank bailout money as small-business credit.

Tax credits for businesses that hire new full-time workers would cost about $27 billion under a proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning policy group. A new hiring tax credit has received extensive discussion and is under consideration by President Barack Obama, according to his economic team.

Providing more aid to states, a move to stem further job losses, also has support among lawmakers, The New Republic reported Tuesday. Zandi, noting that the state governments will have a $150 billion budget shortfall in fiscal 2011, has called for $75 billion in federal aid for states.

A federal work-share program backed by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and four other Democrats would cost about $600 million.

The total cost of all of those proposals would be $291.6 billion.

In other words, we’re seeing the exact same approach as the Democrats took in February, which produced nothing but fraudulent “jobs saved or created” numbers and double-digit unemployment.  The proposals would suck more money out of the private sector, expand the debt incurred already by this administration, and keep investors on the sidelines, with the possible exception of the SBA loans program.

The state aid package amounts to a second bailout of states that refuse to exercise fiscal responsibility.  Porkulus provided massive block grants to states, ostensibly to keep teachers and first responders employed.  Instead, the states used the money to paper over budget gaps and put off badly-needed decisions on scaling back their spending.  The next $75 billion will amount to a second federal bailout of the states, which are supposed to function as their own sovereigns instead of becoming dependent on the federal treasury — especially as directly as this.  And at the end of these bailouts, the same structural budget problems will still exist in these states, which will eventually force them to make the tough decisions after the rest of the country has subsidized their procrastination.

Transportation funds are a well-known and well-documented resource of pork for legislators.  The transportation bill each year carries hundreds or thousands of pork line items meant to guarantee re-election.  The only jobs they save are those of legislators.  Furthermore, expediting transportation projects amounts to a Cash for Potholes program, stealing “jobs” from later years, especially when the debt service on all of the borrowing becomes so onerous that Washington either hikes taxes or cuts spending.  Those jobs are temporary by nature and do very little to stimulate long-term growth and stable jobs.

The extension of benefits has value, but not as job stimulus, and there is evidence that these extensions are harming job creation.  Including this in any discussion of job stimulation is at least mildly Orwellian.

If Congress wants to stimulate the economy, it needs to stop expanding government and incurring massive deficits.  That means an end to ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, and Card Check, as well as significant reductions in federal government.  That would send positive signals to private capital that they can expect pro-growth policies and predictable tax rates, which would encourage investment and job creation.  They don’t need a summit to reach that conclusion — they just need a big dose of common sense.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:08 PM

You just made a lot of people laugh – at you, not with you.
Silly, silly bayam.

redwhiteblue on December 3, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Democrats Support More Federal Spending, Not Tax Cuts, to Stimulate Economy Because Individuals “Would Just Waste the Money on Star Wars Origami” http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/10/democrats-support-more-federal-spending.html

Mervis Winter on December 3, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Tax credits for businesses that hire new workers will not add any new workers either.

These tax credits are for one year only. After the year is over, either the tax credit has to be extended, or the worker will have to be fired. And since firing a worker increases a companies unimployment insurance rates, not to mention the costs of training and outfitting that worker for a year.

Like C4C, this subsidy will pay employers who were going to hire anyway. For everyone else, we get to pick up the tab.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Well, if it wasn\’t for the economic crisis inherited from Bush bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:08 PM

don’t look now, but he must have inherited his poll numbers from Bush too.

Also armed: the armed forces. Good luck!

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:16 PM

lol. because the military (that despises Obama) will violate the Posse Comitatus Act and shoot at their own in order to defend Obama. lol!

elduende on December 3, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Get ready for Tea Party 2: The Sequel

Subtitled, “This time, they’re armed.”

UltimateBob on December 3, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Also armed: the armed forces. Good luck!

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Well, thanks to the liberals if they even give someone a fat lip they’ll be courtmarshalled, so I don’t think teapartyers will have much to worry about there.

Scrappy on December 3, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Where would the unemployment rate be now without the Stimulus? One shudders to think…

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

According to Obama, 9%.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Actually, tax cuts don\’t create stimulus in this environment. Unemployment payments do.

They’re both just transfers of money (not wealth) from the government to individuals. They can’t “create stimulus” — at best they can bring some spending forward, but there is no free lunch.

Try this little thought-experiment: what if the government decided an under-employment benefit would be good (after all, under-employment is just another form of unemployment), and wrote everyone a check for, say, $20 million. Would that stimulate the economy? $20 million is ridiculous, you say? Ok, $20 thousand. No? $2 thousand? If your answer to $20 million was “ridiculous” and your answer to “$2 thousand” was “that might work”, then you need to ask yourself where the line is crossed.

What really needs to happen is that businesses have to have confidence that they won’t be taxed, (knee)capped-and-traded, or health-care-bludgeoned into non-viable cash flow if they hire more people. Businesses are seeing the out-of-control spending in Washington, and they know that it is going to have to be paid for, sooner or later, and the only way to get the wealth required to pay for it is by massive taxation.

mr.blacksheep on December 3, 2009 at 3:23 PM

yeah – lets suck even more money out of the private sector, drive up inflation even more and see how that works out. Unemployment of 15+% here we come!

gwelf on December 3, 2009 at 3:24 PM

That’s missing a /sarc tag, right? Because no one is that stupid… right?

WitchDoctor on December 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM

+100

LASue on December 3, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Can we say that supply-side economics was discredited when Bush ushered in the Great Recession? No? Oh, well alright. If you say so.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Only if you completely ignore history. Then again, you’re a liberal, so that comes with the territory.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Also armed: the armed forces. Good luck!
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Who’s side do you think they will be on?

Barry the Bower and his merry band of National Socialists or people who believe in our founding documents?

Did you answer the question I posed a while back:

Can you give me an example of where Obowma’s brand of Statism has actually worked?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM

speechless…….feel like I turned my teleprompter off….

SDarchitect on December 3, 2009 at 3:27 PM

What’s $300 Billion compared to the $100 TRILLION we have in unfunded liabilities for our entitlement programs alone.

This nation is fiscally ruined beyond all repair already and doomed to collapse. We as a nation are just too slow to realize it yet.

Pity. The Founders had a good thing going there for a short while.

Yakko77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Who’s side do you think they will be on?

Probably with America and against the secessionists. To borrow a line from AP, the only thing more American than secession is brutally crushing secessionist movements!

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Actually, tax cuts don\’t create stimulus in this environment. Unemployment payments do. When consumers are trying to cut back on personal debt, tax cuts are one of the least efficient ways to create economic growth.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Those who refuse to learn from history try to fool those who do.

Tax cuts are the only mechanism that has ever created economic growht. Govt spending has never done so. Not even once.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Tax cuts are the only mechanism that has ever created economic growht. Govt spending has never done so. Not even once.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Two questions for you.

How do you figure we got out of the Great Depression?

Do you not count th 2.8% GDP growth rate resulting from the stimulus as “economic growth”?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:32 PM

As somebody pointed out above, Bush inherited a recession and then 9/11 happened w/all of its market shattering issues and still we came back.

There were numerous recessions dating from the time of Bush Sr, including the one that was inherited by Clinton. None were more serious than a cyclical slowdown in the economy. Nothing came close to the level of economic collapse that occurred in 2008. How you see a comparison is hard to understand.

So why did Bush add $4 trillion to the debt wile building up a $1 trillion structural budget deficit that would guarantee the next President had no chance of balancing the budget? Some of you guys think the answer is going back to Bush policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

You excuse Obama by noting the Bush years amount to a fraction of what you approvingly see Obama doing already? Explain that logic.

Again, you’re so caught up in partisan politics that you don’t know the facts. Spending went through the roof under Bush in years when he controlled the Congress.
It was Bush who doubled the federal debt, adding over $4 trillion in a time of economic stability. On top of that, he took the balanced budget handed him by Clinton and turned it into a situation where the government was eventually spending somewhere between $600 bil to $1 tril more annually than it collected in taxes.

At most, you can say that Obama is guilty of not coming down on Democrats in Congress harder to force more direct spending on stimulus and to eliminate pork. Or that spending on clean energy or long-term transportation projects in the stimulus was wasteful. So maybe that accounts for $400 bil in spending that shouldn’t have occurred. But stimulus had to happen in the face of economic collapse.

You can blame Obama for a lot of things, but hundreds of billions of ‘wasted’ stimulus spending and some pork projects look insignificant compared to what Bush did.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Also armed: the armed forces. Good luck!

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:16 PM

What makes you think the armed forces won’t be amongst the tea partiers?

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM

caught a few moments of dear leader thanking union leaders and academia to his little job forum…i’m thinking no one from the business sector, you know the people who actually create jobs….

total farce

and now this little porky pie….Lord help us…China will continue to say ‘Kiss me’

cmsinaz on December 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Two questions for you.

How do you figure we got out of the Great Depression?

Do you not count th 2.8% GDP growth rate resulting from the stimulus as “economic growth”?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:32 PM

As every economist will tell you, we got out of the Depression because FDR got rid of most of his regulations in order to help the war effort. If spending could have done it, the Depression wouldn’t have lasted a year.

No, the 2.8% is not real, it’s completely stolen from future quarters.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM

What makes you think the armed forces won’t be amongst the tea partiers?

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Because they put their love for America above partisan politics.

Enjoy being brutally crushed! I’ll get some popcorn.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM

What’s $300 Billion compared to the $100 TRILLION we have in unfunded liabilities for our entitlement programs alone.

This nation is fiscally ruined beyond all repair already and doomed to collapse. We as a nation are just too slow to realize it yet.

No doubt, that falls on both parties and is a total disaster. And we’re going to be sending more money to China to pay interest on our debt than just about any area of domestic spending.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Which economists would call that stupid? Name them- from any major US research university or Wall Street.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Try anyone from the Chicago school. You know, the guys that have won the most Nobel prizes over the last 20 years or so.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Probably with America and against the secessionists. National Socialist Democrats
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:29 PM

FIFY.

I note that you haven’t been able to answer the question:
Can you give me an example of where Obowma’s brand of Statism has actually worked?

I do feel some empathy for your predicament – here you’re supporting the Statists and all they’ve done is let you down.

Well, it more like Statism has let you down – as it always has, but that’s par for the course, huh?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM

As every economist will tell you, we got out of the Depression because FDR got rid of most of his regulations in order to help the war effort.

So basically we got out of the Depression due to the federal spending spurred by WWII? LOL, I was hoping you’d walk into that trap, but I wasn’t sure if you were quite dumb enough to do it.

No, the 2.8% is not real, it’s completely stolen from future quarters.

“Err…it wasn’t the kind of growth I want so it doesn’t count!”

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Nothing came close to the level of economic collapse that occurred in 2008. How you see a comparison is hard to understand.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Even the cyclical downturn of 2008 didn’t come close the the horror stories the liberals spun about it.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Do you not count th 2.8% GDP growth rate resulting from the stimulus as “economic growth”?
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Why did you Lie about that in your other posting?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Again, you’re so caught up in partisan politics that you don’t know the facts. Spending went through the roof under Bush in years when he controlled the Congress.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM

This is funny. The troll who claims that govt spending is good for the economy, is declaring that spending by Bush caused an economic downturn.

Apparently money is smart enough to know whether it is being spent by a Republican or a Democrat.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Because they put their love for America above partisan politics.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Apparently you equate love for govt with love for America.

Those who love America will the ones abandoning this govt.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Try anyone from the Chicago school. You know, the guys that have won the most Nobel prizes over the last 20 years or so.

Right, the ones who modeled the libertarian economic policies that guided the Fed not to fully regulate markets, leading to the great collapse of 2008 and trillions in economic losses. Alan Greenspan, once the greatest champion of that school of thought, said that it has been completely discredited. Good call, let’s go down that road again and see the country completely ruined.

The only school of thought that’s been accurate all along has been the thoughts of Warren Buffet.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:43 PM

we are going to be supporting the states for a long time. our ever vigilant press has missed the story for the last 20 years of Pols promising everything in the world to public employees (with the help of the “accountants” they hire)

part of this is the deep corruption of the press, part of this is because reporters consider a good day if they can balance their checkbook.

it is now time to pay up….on your dime.

this also furthers the goal of reducing states to adminstrative units governed by the Feds. Their job is to raise taxes and pay for national programs.

very clever actually.

r keller on December 3, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Also armed: the armed forces. Good luck!

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:16 PM

What makes you think the armed forces won’t be amongst the tea partiers?

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM

During the Tea Party I went to back on Tax Day in APril, one of the speakers offered some praising comments to our troops and vets and asked how many vets were in the crowd of well over 1000 and nearly half I’d wager raised their hands.

Yakko77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Those who love America will the ones abandoning this govt.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Odd, that’s what every wacko, traitorous secessionist says.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:44 PM

I note that you haven’t been able to answer the question:
Can you give me an example of where Obowma’s brand of Statism has actually worked?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. The only language that crr6 speaks is “leftist talking points.” In that language, this question does not have an answer.

In the real world, the answer to that question is, of course, “never.”

UltimateBob on December 3, 2009 at 3:44 PM

As every economist will tell you, we got out of the Depression because FDR got rid of most of his regulations in order to help the war effort.

So basically we got out of the Depression due to the federal spending spurred by WWII? LOL, I was hoping you’d walk into that trap, but I wasn’t sure if you were quite dumb enough to do it.

Man oh man, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. Do you even know what the difference between a regulation and spending is? I did not say that spending got us out of the Depression, in fact I pointed out that the years before the war, FDR spent record amounts of money, and the economy continued to get worse.

No, the 2.8% is not real, it’s completely stolen from future quarters.

“Err…it wasn’t the kind of growth I want so it doesn’t count!”

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Once again, you read what I wrote, and see what you want to see. Do you honestly believe that moving economic activity from one quarter to another is really a benefit????

Do you believe you can make yourself richer by moving money from one pocket to another?

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Odd, that’s what every wacko, traitorous secessionist says.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Interesting that in your world, people who respect the Constitution are the traitors and wackos.

UltimateBob on December 3, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Again, you’re so caught up in partisan politics that you don’t know the facts. Spending went through the roof under Bush in years when he controlled the Congress.
It was Bush who doubled the federal debt, adding over $4 trillion in a time of economic stability. On top of that, he took the balanced budget handed him by Clinton and turned it into a situation where the government was eventually spending somewhere between $600 bil to $1 tril more annually than it collected in taxes.

Interesting. I thought Congress controlled the budget. Don’t you mean to say the balanced budget handed to him by Clinton’s GOP Congress?

Yes we conservatives complained about the out of control federal spending after that, about No Child Left Behind, etc. You know, the same stuff liberals say we didn’t complain about as their logical-fallacy justification for the current massive spending.

You can blame Obama for a lot of things, but hundreds of billions of ‘wasted’ stimulus spending and some pork projects look insignificant compared to what Bush did.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM

What did Bush do again exactly? He was a member of the Executive branch. I mean, what is your argument exactly? “The car was already traveling 160 mph down the hill. We Dems didn’t think it would be prudent to step on the brakes, so we’re punching the accelerator and then blaming the continued downhill travel on the last driver!”

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Can you give me an example of where Obowma’s brand of Statism has actually worked?

Sure. Look at virtually every Western European country (some of the most prosperous, wealthy nations on earth with the highest quality of life).

Now your turn, when has your brand worked?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Right, the ones who modeled the libertarian economic policies that guided the Fed not to fully regulate markets, leading to the great collapse of 2008 and trillions in economic losses.
bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:43 PM

And to think, you are actually hypocritical enough to complain that everyone else is wearing ideological blinders.

You really do prefer to live in a fantasy world, don’t you.

As has been proven over and over again, it was govt interference in the market that caused the problems of the last few years. Govt created a bubble, then when it popped they applied the worst possible solutions. Even with the inevitable govt bungling, the problems have been made worse by the attrocious economic policies of your love interest Obama.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Odd, that’s what every wacko, traitorous secessionist says.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:44 PM

In whatever world your mind occupies, loving govt is the same thing as loving country.

Not surprised, liberals think the only reason the sun comes up is because congress passed a law.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:49 PM

According to someone who was there, government spending programs did not solve the great depression – it made things worse:

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”

–Henry Morgenthau Jr. (Secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt — and key architect of FDR’s New Deal, May 9, 1939.)

LASue on December 3, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Man oh man, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. Do you even know what the difference between a regulation and spending is? I did not say that spending got us out of the Depression, in fact I pointed out that the years before the war, FDR spent record amounts of money, and the economy continued to get worse.

Nice try dear, but you can’t squirm out of this one. If not the New Deal(although you neglect to mention GDP grew every year except for 1 during FDR’s presidency), then it was the federal spending necessitated by WWII that lifted us out of the Great Depression and made us one of two superpowers. So to summarize, your earlier point that federal spending has never resulted in growth was almost comically incorrect. You know this of course, which is why you’re dodging.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Sure. Look at virtually every Western European country (some of the most prosperous, wealthy nations on earth with the highest quality of life).

Now your turn, when has your brand worked?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:47 PM

You mean those European countries where the standard of living is less than half that of the US?

You are aware that the poor in this country live better then the upper middle class in most European countries. And until Obama came along, the US was continuing to pull further ahead.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:51 PM

I guess we can count the delusion of the military loving the National Socialists along with the first stimulus actually doing anything.

What’s the color of the sky in your world crr6?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Nice try dear, but you can’t squirm out of this one.
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:50 PM

I have no desire to squirm out of reality. There is not a single economist who doesn’t work for the NYT, who believes that FDR had anything to do with recovering from the Depression. Most will tell you to your face that FDR and his policies caused the Depression.

Not that you care for reality. You’ll just keep trying to find a new way to work today’s talking points into your posts.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:53 PM

What’s the color of the sky in your world crr6?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Whatever color the DNC tells him it is today.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Actually, tax cuts don\’t create stimulus in this environment. Unemployment payments do. When consumers are trying to cut back on personal debt, tax cuts are one of the least efficient ways to create economic growth.

Unemployment benefits don’t stimulate spending in anyway, shape or form. The unemployed recipient is going to be spending much less that when he or she was employed, for a net GAIN of nothing.

There’s another glaring hole in your brilliance. Reducing taxes leaves more money in the pockets of those consumers who are “trying to cut back on personal debt”. That extra money allows them to reduce their personal debt faster than they would be able to under a higher tax obligation. The sooner they’re able to pay off those debts, the sooner they’ll have extra money TO SPEND.

It was Bush who doubled the federal debt, adding over $4 trillion in a time of economic stability.

…over the course of 8 years.

Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress ran up nearly $800 billion dollars of debt – nearly a quarter of Bush’s total – in one month. And what’s there to show for it? Fantasy jobs in fairy-tale districts.

rvastar on December 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM

I have no desire to squirm out of reality. There is not a single economist who doesn’t work for the NYT, who believes that FDR had anything to do with recovering from the Depression. Most will tell you to your face that FDR and his policies caused the Depression.

Not that you care for reality. You’ll just keep trying to find a new way to work today’s talking points into your posts.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Again with the squirming. Once again do you dispute that it was the federal spending necessitated by WWII that got us out of the Great Depression?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:55 PM

What’s the color of the sky in your world crr6?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Red. It is his favorite color.

Aviator on December 3, 2009 at 3:55 PM

JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED, MORE PORK!

GarandFan on December 3, 2009 at 3:55 PM

You mean those European countries where the standard of living is less than half that of the US?

LOL. You really are drinking the Kool-Aid. And this is the problem with debating lemmings like you. You’ve been spoon fed propaganda for so long that you can’t summon an independent thought. Get off HA, man. Go outside. Better yet, visit Europe.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:57 PM

It is scary to me in this day and age that someone can sit here an say with a straight face that economic growth comes from the government.

Ergo, that letting the people keep their own money is less effective than filtering it through the governmental bureaucracy. I can only shake my head.

WitchDoctor on December 3, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Ergo, that letting the people keep their own money is less effective than filtering it through the governmental bureaucracy. I can only shake my head.

WitchDoctor on December 3, 2009 at 3:57 PM

(Sigh). Let’s start small.

Say Obama had given Americans a huge tax cut. During a recession, would most people have saved that money (or used it to pay off debt, or would they have spent it to stimulate growth?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Interesting to note that Jesus Christ would be demonized as a socialist (maybe even a communist) by many around here if he walked the earth today.

“And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people.” Acts 2:44-47.

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Sure. Look at virtually every Western European country (some of the most prosperous, wealthy nations on earth with the highest quality of life).
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:47 PM

I can see in your delusional mind that you’re confusing ‘Statism’ with ‘Capitalism’.

Given that Statism is defined as:

Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.

And encompasses Socialism,Progressivism,Fascism,Marxism,Collectivism,Leninism,Stalinism,.

Which countries are you talking about?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 4:01 PM

And encompasses Socialism,

…seriously? France, Holland, Great Britain, Belgium etc. All are “socialist”, as you would call it.

Still waiting for an example of when your brand worked Juno….

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Better yet, visit Europe.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Better yet, you should move there, crr6. Be sure to write to us when you find a job. Good luck!

jwolf on December 3, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Sure. Look at virtually every Western European country (some of the most prosperous, wealthy nations on earth with the highest quality of life).

Now your turn, when has your brand worked?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:47 PM

France has 50% more debt to GDP than we do as one example. All those European countries and Japan are in bigger trouble than we are because of their low birthrates.

All the liberal entitlement programs are about $100 trillion underfunded- and that’s without ObamaCare stepping on the gas.

So really the question is, when has your brand ever been paid for?

Chuck Schick on December 3, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Say Obama had given Americans a huge tax cut. During a recession, would most people have saved that money (or used it to pay off debt, or would they have spent it to stimulate growth?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM

In other words….
You’re too stupid to spend money yourself, we need bureaucracies to make those decisions for you. Get back in your cage slave and start producing for your country.

Scrappy on December 3, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Still waiting Juno.

Also, it looks like MarktheGreat has skittered away. Shocking.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:08 PM

(Sigh). Let’s start small.
Say Obama had given Americans a huge tax cut. During a recession, would most people have saved that money (or used it to pay off debt, or would they have spent it to stimulate growth?
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Who would do a better job of spending that money?

The individuals that earned it?

Or a government that seizes it at the point of a gun and uses it to buy votes?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Scrappy on December 3, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Don’t take it personally, it’s a simple economic question. Answer it.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Who would do a better job of spending that money?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 4:08 PM

The government, obviously. Individuals would probably save it or use it to pay off debt.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM

crr6

Umm… the United States?

Try looking it up in the wikipedia, it should be in there, or try a real reference source.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 4:11 PM

(Sigh). Let’s start small.
Say Obama had given Americans a huge tax cut. During a recession, would most people have saved that money (or used it to pay off debt, or would they have spent it to stimulate growth?
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM

You missed investment. Do you know what that is?

Chuck Schick on December 3, 2009 at 4:11 PM

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:01 PM

In fairness to Christ and the early Christians, shouldn’t you have pointed out that their communal living style was a voluntary arrangement? And that the government did not force any group of people to live that way at the time? And that the consequences to any society in which the government has forced the people to live in communes have been nothing short of horrific? In short, can you not see the difference between a voluntary choice of a small group of people, and a coerced system imposed on the entire population with the full power of the state?

jwolf on December 3, 2009 at 4:11 PM

The government, obviously. Individuals would probably save it or use it to pay off debt.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Obviously it didn’t work.

Chuck Schick on December 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Guess I didn’t see anything in there about Politiboros, Climate Tsars, gulags, the IRS, EU master planners, or Presidents for Life. Is that what Jesus wanted?

a capella on December 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Democrats would also increase loans from the Small Business Administration (SBA) at a cost of $20 billion, according to Zandi.

A little known problem with SBA is ‘excluded industries’ and ‘lack of industry experience’ restrictions on SBA loans.

Excluded industries means that SBA won’t lend to you if you are in any of a long list of industries considered too volatile. Amoung them are restaraunts, natural resource developement, internet technology and biotechnology.

Without direct Industry Experience, a borrower is in-eligible too. So a person with vast background in business cannot change careers and start a new small biz with SBA funds no matter how much other experience and success they have accumulated over a lifetime.

DrW on December 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM

The government, obviously. Individuals would probably save it or use it to pay off debt.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM

So if banks have more money due to increased savings, what do they do with the money? The invest it.

Now normally they would invest it in the private sector, but due explosive growth of government, they are buying treasury bills. Another case where government is crowding out the private sector.

WashJeff on December 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Don’t take it personally, it’s a simple economic question. Answer it.

Say Obama had given Americans a huge tax cut. During a recession, would most people have saved that money (or used it to pay off debt, or would they have spent it to stimulate growth?

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:09 PM

People will spend that money how they see fit. Some in all of the categories that you mention, as they have every right to do.

Thanks for confirming for me that you believe that they should not have that right. Otherwise why would I have anything to take personally.

Now go away to one of those fabulous countries that you think are doing things so well, and leave us to live how we’d like to… In the system that has created the most vibrant and powerful economy in the history of the world. Oh, and be sure to send us a thanks from whatever country you move to for having the extra money to pay for the military that defends your country.

Scrappy on December 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM

The government, obviously. Individuals would probably save it or use it to pay off debt.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Well, now you finally cut through the bull and came right out with it. Saving money, paying off debt is … undesirable? Perhaps even morally wrong? So harmful to our society that it’s better to have the government take money away from anyone who would think of doing such a terrible thing? If that is truly what you believe then I say in all sincerity, please move to another country and you will make both of us happier.

jwolf on December 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Once again do you dispute that it was the federal spending necessitated by WWII that got us out of the Great Depression?

Until WW2, federal spending did nothing to get the US out of the Great Depression.

So – technically speaking – wasn’t it WAR that did the trick?

rvastar on December 3, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Prokulus did NOTHING to stimulate jobs. It did not save or create jobs. No it didn’t. because none of the money helped the private sector.

The dem idiots in congress have made our economic environment poisonous to business and they will never hire until they know for sure what their tax expenses are going to be. Right now they are freaked out at the spending and are laying off everyone they can and cutting back everything else they can.

Nothing the libs tell us is factual or accurate, as we have seen repeatedly in the last ten months. Anyone supporting anything they try to do at this point is either mentally challenged or inhaling the kool aid.

dogsoldier on December 3, 2009 at 4:20 PM

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 3:45 PM

MarkTheMaybeNotSoGreat, not sure what you do for a living or what your educational background is, but you appear to know very little about economics…maybe stick to whatever it is that you know. Couple of basic facts regarding the Great Depression:

—it was a worldwide event.

—it began in 29/30, and FDR took office in 1933.

Did the New Deal lengthen or worsen the GD? Hard to say. Economists (both historians and theorists) of all stripes have widely varying opinions on that question. It’s very complicated and not a simple black/white question that can be answered easily. Same with the questions regarding the causes of the GD. Lots of theories about a very complicated series of questions. Don’t pretend to have all the answers. Just makes you look like an assclown.

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Guess I didn’t see anything in there about Politiboros, Climate Tsars, gulags, the IRS, EU master planners, or Presidents for Life. Is that what Jesus wanted?

a capella on December 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Of course not. Ideal vs. reality and all that. Don’t be obtuse.

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:26 PM

The government, obviously. Individuals would probably save it or use it to pay off debt.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Saving it (heaven forbid!!!) and paying off debt (who would ever do such a thing?) would both strengthen our economy.

BOTH are a better option than letting the government decide to do with it.

If you are so gung ho on the idea that government knows best, then by all means, give them every dollar you make. You are free to do so at any time.

“How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188″

MississippiMom on December 3, 2009 at 4:28 PM

The government, obviously. Individuals would probably save it or use it to pay off debt.
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM

AAAAHHHH HAH!!!!!!

Now I’ve figured it Out!

With that type of Moronically Statist Answer, crr6 HAS TO BE a closet Conservative parroting these answers meant to make the National Socialist Democrats look BAD.

I can’t really believe that was a serous answer, so that was well played ma’am.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Better yet, visit Europe.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:57 PM

I have. Our standard of living in our trailer parks is better than the middle class over there.

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 4:33 PM

our economic environment poisonous to business and they will never hire until they know for sure what their tax expenses are going to be.

dogsoldier on December 3, 2009 at 4:20 PM

To leverage off your point, businesses are controlling the “controllable expenses”. Unfortunately for many, payroll is typically the largest controllable expense.

One thing that business owners understand intimately is that debts come due as some point in the future. Therefore, more “stimulus” money will continue to be seen by business owners as additional debt incurred which must be repaid through potentially increased tax burdens – aka uncontrollable expenses. Until this gov’t decides to stop incurring debt, business owners will control the controllable expenses. Therefore, the “stimulus” program will not be seen by business owners as stimulating…

Neo-con Artist on December 3, 2009 at 4:35 PM

I have. Our standard of living in our trailer parks is better than the middle class over there.

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Not saying you’re wrong Sir, but rather than posting a sort of silly and hyperbolic statement, why not link to credible data or other evidence supporting your assertion? Just sayin’.

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Sure. Look at virtually every Western European country (some of the most prosperous, wealthy nations on earth with the highest quality of life).

Average birth rate for native European women: 1.3 children – woefully short of the replacement rate.

Here’s the order of healthiest fertility rates for Western European countries:

1) France
2) Netherlands
3) Belgium
4) Switzerland
5) Austria
6) Germany
7) Italy
8) Spain

And here’s the order with the highest proportion of Muslims:

1) France
2) Netherlands
3) Belgium
4) Switzerland
5) Austria
6) Germany
7) Italy
8) Spain

In 50 years, Europe is going to be filled with two demographics: 1) elderly Europeans and 2) Muslims. Let’s see how “properous” and “wealthy” they are then.

rvastar on December 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Your lists are identical rvastar. BTW, hyperbole isn’t a particularly effective technique when trying to “win an argument”.

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Well, now you finally cut through the bull and came right out with it. Saving money, paying off debt is … undesirable?
jwolf on December 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM

During a recession, yeah. Why has this website been reporting the decreased consumer spending on Black Friday as bad news? We want people to spend during recessions.

AAAAHHHH HAH!!!!!! Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM

“haha I’m in way over my head and I can’t argue the point on it’s merits so I’m going to try and laugh it off”

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:46 PM

So – technically speaking – wasn’t it WAR that did the trick?

rvastar on December 3, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Sort of, yeah. More specifically the federal spending the war brought about did the trick. Sure, the govt. spent money on defense rather than social works, but it was federal spending nevertheless.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:47 PM

rvastar on December 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Layer in the unemployment rates and birthrates into your comment, and it is interesting to how productive the economically unproductive are at creating more of the economically unproductive.

Agreed. Unsustainable… Whatever crr’s vision of the glorious western european’s standard of living, it won’t last. If 50 years is the over/under, I’ll take the under…

Neo-con Artist on December 3, 2009 at 4:48 PM

I have. Our standard of living in our trailer parks is better than the middle class over there.

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 4:33 PM

No need to admit you live in a trailer par SirGawain. I would have guessed it anyway.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Your lists are identical rvastar.

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM

That was his point: what fertility exists in Western Europe is essentially a Muslim phenomenon.

jwolf on December 3, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Your lists are identical rvastar.

I believe the appropriate phrase is “that’s the point”.

BTW, hyperbole isn’t a particularly effective technique when trying to “win an argument”.

It is when you’re right.

rvastar on December 3, 2009 at 4:54 PM

No need to admit you live in a trailer par SirGawain. I would have guessed it anyway.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Heh, typical liberal attitude on display.

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Heh

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM

That’s it, keep your chin up.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:56 PM

rvastar, my bad on the “identical lists” comment…little slow on the uptake. However, I stand by my other point regarding hyperbole. What percentage of Europe’s population will be Muslim in 50 years, and what impact will that have on its relative wealth and prosperity?

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:58 PM

We want people to spend during recessions.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Speak for yourself. Whatever the state of the economy, I want people to be able to decide for themselves how to use what discretionary monies they may have — whether on consumer spending, investment, saving, debt reduction, or anything else. It is not the government’s place to tell people how to spend their money.

jwolf on December 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM

That’s it, keep your chin up.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Keep going for those working class votes champ. Your disdain for the unwashed masses is hard to hide.

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 5:02 PM

What percentage of Europe’s population will be Muslim in 50 years, and what impact will that have on its relative wealth and prosperity?

dakine on December 3, 2009 at 4:58 PM

We can’t know this; all we can do is project current demographic trends or project some other hypothetical instead. However, IF current trends hold then without doubt Western Europe will have a much different kind of society within a couple of generations. This would have profound implications about many things, wealth being perhaps the least among them.

jwolf on December 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM

But…I thought $30 billion a year for winning a war was too expensive?

Almost $1.1 TRILLION IN LESS THAN A YEAR!!! – on non-stimulus stimulus? I guess there is no sum large enough to ruin an economy?

For that kind of money, we could have fought in Afghanistan for the next three decades…

catmman on December 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Say Obama had given Americans a huge tax cut. During a recession, would most people have saved that money (or used it to pay off debt, or would they have spent it to stimulate growth?
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM

50/50.

But they would have made the choice where to spend their money, as opposed to the government spending their money.
Where did the government spend the peoples money? Pay off the debt or stimulate growth?

Itchee Dryback on December 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM

The government, obviously. Individuals would probably save it or use it to pay off debt.
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM

So, you WERE serous about that????

So with all the wasted billions of dollars and the way the economy as it is,You actually think that the Government is better at spending money that the people?

So you are a tried and true Statist aren’t you?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Actually, tax cuts don\’t create stimulus in this environment. Unemployment payments do. When consumers are trying to cut back on personal debt, tax cuts are one of the least efficient ways to create economic growth.

bayam on December 3, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Well you’ve already discredited yourself so I’m mostly making this point for others. What we need right is to exactly reorient our economy back to a natural economic order with some savings, moderate debt, and a good amount of consumption. Our no savings, heavy debt, and a ton of consumption system won’t last (which btw practically everyone is to blame for to some extent). Unfortunately Obama and the Dem’s policies are leading us back to lots of debt and little savings in a futile effort to avoid the painful restructuring we, and the world, are going to go through at some point.

jarodea on December 3, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3