Richie, although you were very clear in you reasoned response regarding the explanation of what this Bill is for, I remain a little confused.
Since, you know, government policy really does not fix recessions (except giving money back to the taxpayers to spend, you know, tax cuts) and again I am not blaming the 2000 recession on Billy, being a free marketer and all, I am unclear how you think Bush policies caused this financial catastrophe. I thought it was folks borrowing more than they could afford and then stupid financial wizards selling the debt (MBS's).
I still am a little confused regarding the purpose of spending several generations money on a bill, which even your side acknowledges will have an uncertain effect. Read...they don't know, could help, could hurt.
So, I ask again, unfulfilled, what is this bill for?
I also ponder, how about we do nothing? You know, let the business cycle correct itself? Let businessmen and women run their companies, hire, fire and make products. OK, so if I was in charge, I would cut taxes on businesses and accelerate depreciation of purchases to jump start the whole process. Gosh, now that I think of it, that is exactly what the previous administration and (at the time) conservative congress did to shorten the last recession despite dot bust and 9-11.
Again... why are we spending way more money than we have, to bankrupt this country? Again, I metaphorically scream, what is the purpose of this bill?
Jim - we agree. You are confused. You need to ponder more if you think we should do nothing. That said, you fit right in with today's GOP.
I again note that you never complained about our kids paying our bills for the past 8 years. Only now - all of a sudden. Very cynical, no?
It is government's role to participate in the economy. Spending and tax cuts are stimulative. When we have a growing economy tax increases and spending cuts may be in order to raise revenue, pay down debt and keep the economy from overheating. The federal government should be counter-cyclical. This is very basic economic theory - much of which even Milton Friedman agreed with.
If we simply let the capitalist economy work it's magic we will suffer through frequent booms and busts. It was argued to Keynes that in the long run, we may grow even more with such an uneven approach. Keynes then replied "in the long run we'll all be dead." Further - the stability of Keynesian policies actually fosters more growth in the long term. Much of 20th Century Latin America followed your model.
I again note that you never complained about our kids paying our bills for the past 8 years.
Ummm...well yes I/We did and we excoriated our Republican Legislators for earmark spending and started to refer to ourselves as Conservatives.
But...before you start on tax cuts, you are right, our focus always was on shrinking the size of government.
And...I, as always, read your stuff (not just start typing) and again I ask...what is this bill for? Specifically? You know the one that will increase our national debt by 30%.
Jim - you must be using Republican math. $800B spending bill over two years, national debt $10T, and you say the former will increase the latter 30%!?
You used to criticize spending - never the deficit. You never acknowledged the tax cuts, pissing away the inherited surplus, were a mistake. Tax cuts do nothing to shrink government, only it's bite.
You want more laissez-faire policy ("do nothing") when that is what brought us here in the first place. Are you too stubborn to learn from experience?
The specific purpose of the bill is to arrest the deflationary spiral in which we found ourselves, thanks entirely to your boy and his administration. It will do this through tax cuts and spending, which are stimulative.
If that doesn't answer it for you, you need to find a new topic that may be less vexing.
This bill is for the people who supported him and got him elected, not unlike the oil people bush took care of in his first days in office while he forgot to read the memo Bin Laden prepares to attack America. Did not have a national security meeting his first 3 months. There I said it.
10 comments:
It is a policy response to the financial catastrophe that President Bush handed off to President Obama.
Remember when Clinton handed off to Bush? My, my. What a study in contrasts!
OK, so the reason for the Bill is the Bush derangement syndrome.
Got it.
Richie, although you were very clear in you reasoned response regarding the explanation of what this Bill is for, I remain a little confused.
Since, you know, government policy really does not fix recessions (except giving money back to the taxpayers to spend, you know, tax cuts) and again I am not blaming the 2000 recession on Billy, being a free marketer and all, I am unclear how you think Bush policies caused this financial catastrophe. I thought it was folks borrowing more than they could afford and then stupid financial wizards selling the debt (MBS's).
I still am a little confused regarding the purpose of spending several generations money on a bill, which even your side acknowledges will have an uncertain effect. Read...they don't know, could help, could hurt.
So, I ask again, unfulfilled, what is this bill for?
I also ponder, how about we do nothing? You know, let the business cycle correct itself? Let businessmen and women run their companies, hire, fire and make products. OK, so if I was in charge, I would cut taxes on businesses and accelerate depreciation of purchases to jump start the whole process. Gosh, now that I think of it, that is exactly what the previous administration and (at the time) conservative congress did to shorten the last recession despite dot bust and 9-11.
Again... why are we spending way more money than we have, to bankrupt this country? Again, I metaphorically scream, what is the purpose of this bill?
Jim - we agree. You are confused. You need to ponder more if you think we should do nothing. That said, you fit right in with today's GOP.
I again note that you never complained about our kids paying our bills for the past 8 years. Only now - all of a sudden. Very cynical, no?
It is government's role to participate in the economy. Spending and tax cuts are stimulative. When we have a growing economy tax increases and spending cuts may be in order to raise revenue, pay down debt and keep the economy from overheating. The federal government should be counter-cyclical. This is very basic economic theory - much of which even Milton Friedman agreed with.
If we simply let the capitalist economy work it's magic we will suffer through frequent booms and busts. It was argued to Keynes that in the long run, we may grow even more with such an uneven approach. Keynes then replied "in the long run we'll all be dead." Further - the stability of Keynesian policies actually fosters more growth in the long term. Much of 20th Century Latin America followed your model.
Read up and you will be less confused.
I again note that you never complained about our kids paying our bills for the past 8 years.
Ummm...well yes I/We did and we excoriated our Republican Legislators for earmark spending and started to refer to ourselves as Conservatives.
But...before you start on tax cuts, you are right, our focus always was on shrinking the size of government.
And...I, as always, read your stuff (not just start typing) and again I ask...what is this bill for? Specifically? You know the one that will increase our national debt by 30%.
Jim - you must be using Republican math. $800B spending bill over two years, national debt $10T, and you say the former will increase the latter 30%!?
You used to criticize spending - never the deficit. You never acknowledged the tax cuts, pissing away the inherited surplus, were a mistake. Tax cuts do nothing to shrink government, only it's bite.
You want more laissez-faire policy ("do nothing") when that is what brought us here in the first place. Are you too stubborn to learn from experience?
What is this bill for?
The specific purpose of the bill is to arrest the deflationary spiral in which we found ourselves, thanks entirely to your boy and his administration. It will do this through tax cuts and spending, which are stimulative.
If that doesn't answer it for you, you need to find a new topic that may be less vexing.
This bill is for the people who supported him and got him elected, not unlike the oil people bush took care of in his first days in office while he forgot to read the memo Bin Laden prepares to attack America. Did not have a national security meeting his first 3 months. There I said it.
Post a Comment