Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

[Arrian]

All the Republicans are saying is that if you are going to have a stimulus plan, have a damn stimulus plan

Bull****. If they had their druthers, there would be no stimulus plan. Several of them are trying to water it down as much as possible.

You Democrats here, if you are as sincere as you pretend about stimulus, should be appalled at your legeslators watering down this bill in any way and especially with obvious pork

True. I am, to an extent. I'm also aware that any spending bill will have some pork in it, b/c this is Congress we're talking about. I'm not saying that's just a-ok, mind you. Is there some particularly obvious pork that's going to the 2nd district of CT? If so, I'll happily write my buddy Joe Courtney and take him to task.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Bull****. If they had their druthers, there would be no stimulus plan.

You keep saying that but I've yet to see you provide any real evidence to back up that rather odd claim.

Several of them are trying to water it down as much as possible.

It seems that the Democrats beat them to it. Could it be watered down any more given all the pork and social policy being tacked onto it in the guise of stimulus policy?

[Arrian]

You keep saying that but I've yet to see you provide any real evidence to back up that rather odd claim.

It's rather simple, really. It's a matter of ideology. Right now, however, they know they can't block a stimulus bill entirely (or make it 100% tax cuts), so they've backed up to a more moderate position. Tactics.

That being said, I do agree social policy and the stimulus bill should only overlap to the extent that said overlap is incidental.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Bull****. If they had their druthers, there would be no stimulus plan. Several of them are trying to water it down as much as possible.

Hardly. Do you honestly think that they believe they have any chance of keeping a stimulus plan from passing? Of course not. In the House it is a literally impossible. So if you know you can't stop it, what harm is there in making sure it at least does what it is supposed to do? There is nothing wrong in pointing out waste and graft inside a bill regardless of whether you want it to pass or not.

There are legitimate problems with this stimulus package, there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

True. I am, to an extent. I'm also aware that any spending bill will have some pork in it, b/c this is Congress we're talking about. I'm not saying that's just a-ok, mind you. Is there some particularly obvious pork that's going to the 2nd district of CT? If so, I'll happily write my buddy Joe Courtney and take him to task.

Well there you go, I am glad we are in agreement. Except I see nothing wrong will calling Congress out for it, least of all Congressmen doing it (regardless of the reasons for doing so). If this bill doesn't work it will hurt the dems a lot, if it doesn't work and all those billions for thingks like STD prevetion are in there for people to pick at then it will be catastophic.

It's rather simple, really. It's a matter of ideology. Right now, however, they know they can't block a stimulus bill entirely (or make it 100% tax cuts), so they've backed up to a more moderate position. Tactics.

Well, you just contridicted yourself. There would be a stimulus bill if the Republicans were involved, but it woul be tax cuts (which I would also oppose).

At this point knowing that there will be a stimulus package regardless, I just want it to be stimulus. Whehter that be tax cuts or infrastucture doesn't so much matter to me as long as it is NOT bs social programing crap and kickbacks to Democrat support causes. Honestly, it looks like we really needed an Obama in the Speaker position more than the Presidential position.

[DinoDoc]

It's rather simple, really. It's a matter of ideology. Right now, however, they know they can't block a stimulus bill entirely (or make it 100% tax cuts), so they've backed up to a more moderate position.

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually deal with the position they are advancing rather than the position you imagine them to have? That would seem to be a more productive area of discussion rather than simply disregarding Congressional Republican and indeed some Democratic objections to the nearly trillion dollar Christmas tree.

[Arrian]

So basically because "The Right" has ideological objections to government spending/pork and favors tax cuts than any legitimate suggestions for improvement of a bill by any Republican should be thrown out the window since they obviously just have an axe to grind. Sounds like lawmakers are either with you or against you.

No, I didn't say it's about an axe to grind. I said it's about ideology. And no, that doesn't mean that a particular objection is useless. Sorry if I gave that impression.

As for with me or against me... there are a number of wingnut Republicans in the House. **** them. They are against me most of the time. The centrists - the few remaining (Senate) I don't mind. Besides, I'm not in the government. If I get fired up and have a "screw them" opinion about something, whatever. I don't think Obama will do that, and that's a good thing.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually deal with the position they are advancing rather than the position you imagine them to have? That would seem to be a more productive area of discussion rather than simply disregarding Congressional Republican and indeed some Democratic objections to the nearly trillion dollar Christmas tree.

1. I don't think it's my imagination.
2. Productive? This is Apolyton.
3. I'm not totally disregarding the objections. But I think it's also important to consider the source.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Ok, last post on this for a bit.

The issue, looking back at my posts in this thread is this:

The Republican party has lost nearly all of its credibility to me. It will have to earn back some before I trust them further than I can spit.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Would it help if I anonymously posted the valid objections?

[DinoDoc]

1. I don't think it's my imagination.

Even if it isn't, I fail to see the use in failing to deal at all with the facts on the ground simply because you assume that there must be WMD something else at play.

2. Productive? This is Apolyton.

Would you rather I said entertaining? Circle jerks can get rather boring after awhile.

3. I'm not totally disregarding the objections. But I think it's also important to consider the source.

All I've seen so far is a kneejerk rejection based on what you assume to be the reason for the objections rather than what the stated objections are.

-Arrian

-DinoDoc

[Arrian]

-DinoDoc

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Would it help if I anonymously posted the valid objections?

Heh. You objecting is fine... I tend to listen to you. You're not a wingnut.

Btw, I note that the bill got zero Republican votes in the House. Zero.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

I know. I'm impressed they held the line like that. Gives me a sliver of hope that the Senate Republicans stick together as well and force the creation of a real stimulus bill.

[Ramo]

The fact remains, however, that if it isn't infrustucture or tax cuts it is not stimulus and should not be in the bill.

The best stimulus are unemployment insurance, food stamps, and aid to states, because all of that sort of stuff is going to be spent immediately. Generally speaking, both infrastructure and tax cuts have a lower multipliers associated with them. Particularly the tax cuts for the rich that the Republicans are pushing for.

[Arrian]

Makes sense. That stuff will get spent, for sure.
Infrastructure is decent too, though there's always the worry that we will build the wrong things (Bridge to nowhere, etc).
Tax cuts will likely be saved for the most part. Not that saving is bad, but it's not stimulative to the economy. Though I'd also imagine at least some of it would be put toward paying off debts, which might help bank balance sheets, which would be good.

-Arrian

[Elok]

On a vaguely related note, does anyone else find it really funny when politicians blame the current crisis on "greed on Wall Street," in that utterly disgusted tone of voice they use? WTF else motivates people on Wall Street? It's kind of like cursing "lust in a whorehouse" or "gluttony at a smorgasbord."