Republicans try to restore image/gbaji spam at 11Follow

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwmXd2At1xo7YxJpwKkeATr-_W7AD96D6VGO1

Is it easier for the GOP to be "fiscally disciplined" if they are the minority party or does this signal a real paradigm shift--i.e. actual lessons learned from the Bush era? There was a groundswell of disapproval regarding the bank bailout (though not as big as disapproval for bailing out the big three).



Stimulating the housing market like they did certainly turned out to be a ************

That has to be the weakest condemnation of something I've ever heard.

It's digging into the trenches for 2010 and praying that the economy recovers slowly enough that they can use it's "failure" as a talking point. Franken seems more and more likely to become the Minnesota senator and the GOP is going to be defending a lot of open senate seats in 2010. They're in very real danger of becoming completely marginalized next election without even enough senators to floor a filibuster.

I think a GOP "recovery" next election is unlikely and they're trying to at least prevent being completely swamped.

Just like the Tory party in Britain. I think the plan to promise ratio is about 1:100 right now.

To be fair, it's always easier to stand on principle when you are the minority party.

It is, but this isn't in any way, shape, or form standing on principal.

Robert Barro. Probably a handful of others who think that the spending should be smaller and the tax cuts larger.

You're missing the point though. While most economists aren't opposed to the size of the package, a pretty large number of them are opposed to the make-up of the spending. I was talking in terms of the percentage of the spending that is actually "stimulus". If we're spending 800 billion to get 400 billion worth of stimulus, we'd be better off just spending the 400 billion and cut out the other garbage.


Obviously, if we could spend 800 billion and get 800 billion of actual stimulus, that would be great as well, which is presumably where you get your position from. But that's *not* what's in this bill...

You're right, not one economist thinks there's too much spending in this bill.



Here's a link to the PDF file. http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf


I usually don't get involved in these things as I'm not very political, so much so that I'm neither liberal or Conservative, but as an every day middle of the road Joe, this whole thing has really pissed me off. How the hell can you vote on something you haven't even read? Zero integrity, that's how.

Apparently none of them.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4

I really thought everyone knew about this. The Bill was railroaded through in the name of "Something must be done NOW!" Oddly enough, after this emergency, must be voted on today Bill passed, Obama waited two days to sign it.

E-gads, I sound like a Pubbie, I really don't want to, it's just that this whole thing is a travesty and I think more folks really should be pissed. Misery loves company ya'know.. lol

Here it is!

I read the first page and now I'm off to stab a kitten in the face with a spoon.
/yawn.

Lol. That's hardly an agreed upon belief.



Sure. How about his recent WSJ article?



What he's effectively doing is refuting the statement you made above that "there is no make up of spending in Economics". He's pretty clearly countering the notion that any spending, regardless of what it's spent on, is "good". It would seem from his article that he's generally opposed to spending as a mechanism for GDP growth entirely. While he doesn't specifically state that the spending in this particular stimulus bill is "too large", it's a reasonable conclusion to make from his general position on spending and the presumed objective of the stimulus package. He does comment in an interview on the package though:



Kinda hard to argue that he'd thinks the spending should have been higher Smash...



I also suspect that you are confusing a general "we need to spend" with the more specific statement I made. I was talking about *this* stimulus being too large. There are lots off economists who agree that "we need to spend to stimulate the economy" (in opposition to Barro btw), who are also incredibly opposed to the specific spending in this bill. Again. If there's only 400 billion of stimulus in an 800 billion spending package, a whole lot of demand side economists (and almost all supply siders) will argue we should have stopped at 400 billion. The rest is waste and will reduce the benefits from the stimulus components.


That's not to say that many of them might not like to see 800 billion spent. But they'd like to see it spent on actual stimulus. When you hear most economists saying we should have spent more, they're talking about spending more on the parts that are actual stimulus. That's not the same thing. They're looking specifically at the stimulus components and concluding that it's not enough. They're not saying "let's put more pork in!".

Edited, Feb 17th 2009 5:22pm by gbaji

$800 billion doesn't sound like nearly enough to me.

Thats only about the same as has been spent in Iraq since the US went in to liberate them from.....ummmmm....whatever it was they needed liberating from, and they still don't even have a reliable electricity supply ffs!

I think its high time the US public stopped being so self-centred and started to think about holding some garage sales and sponsored walks to raise enough money to keep the heroic and hard-done-by bankers in the lifestyle to wich they are accustomed!

Still eating my sandwich, so I'm available and bored enough to reply. What do "folks like me" do? Pretty simple really. We generally don't speak in a condescending manner to folks we don't even know. We try to offer information as opposed to insults. Your approach works for you and mine has worked out very well for me. To each his/her own I guess.


Personally, I try to enjoy every moment as I realized long ago any moment wasted being upset is a wasted moment I'll never get back. I suppose it's easier for me than most being as I happen to be tall and attractive. It's good to be me. If I wanted to insult you, hell, who am I kidding, of course I do. Here's a fact.

You HAVE to be you, and I GET to be me.

Still eating my sandwich, so I'm available and bored enough to reply. What do "folks like me" do? Pretty simple really. We generally don't speak in a condescending manner to folks we don't even know. We try to offer information as opposed to insults.

Nope. You're a sucker. You blindly latch on to whatever lie is told to you by whomever you most identify with. You're as hard to manipulate as an infant. Sorry :(