He was quite defensive concerning the attacks coming from the right over the cost of all this stimulation:
... [I]t's now clear that the party's commitment to deep voodoo ... is as strong as ever In both the House and the Senate, the vast majority of Republicans rallied behind the idea that the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush administration's tax cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts.And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan - which will, it's worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration's $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq - has bordered on the deranged."It's destroying my daughter's future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs," said Arnold Kling of the Cato Institute.
First of all, I guess I need to see a shrink for so called "derangement" because I also thing this type of deficit spending is nothing more than punching our unborn babies in the face with an up-turned palm extended. Secondly, "cost" is a substantially relative term in this situation. If you are like Krugman, you will see tax cuts as a "cost" to government. If your skin is not the shade of pink ... you might see spending more than what tax revenue there is as the actual "cost" to government.
The idea of private individuals must be foreign to the esteemed laureate. Cutting taxes is "spending" to him and raising taxes is "saving." If John Doe makes $100 a day and is taxed 40% on every dollar, Krugman would view such a situation as Congress "spending" $60 on one of its citizens. I'm sure not even Krugman would think that the tax rates should be 80% or higher, but the reasoning behind this is different from why you or I would think the same. The view of these types is that the government should allow its citizens to have some of the fruits of their labor for policy orientated reasons ... but only as much as they need.
And in reality ... what is the main difference between tax cuts in the stimulus v. spending. One thing mainly: who gets to spend the money. Pumping $1 trillion into the economy by government spending is no different than simply not taking $1 trillion out in the first place. But then who gets to decide where the money is spent? Not Pelosi or Obama, but individuals like you and I.
Posts
6 comments:
I guess the obscure comment section of Behind Enemy Lines is as good a place as any to vent some frustration.
You have to give people jobs before you can tax them or expect them to put that money back into the economy. The whole idea here with the stimulus is to create jobs. I understand that if you cut taxes on business owners they might be able to hire a few more people, but tax cuts aren't going to create the amount of jobs we need created.
"Pumping $1 trillion into the economy by government spending is no different than simply not taking $1 trillion out in the first place." Either you haven't heard of don't believe in the multiplier effect: Every $1 in government spending (if spent appropriately) supposedly equals $1.50 increase in GDP. There's no multiplier effect with tax cuts and no guarantee people will actually spend the money.
I would guess by "cost" Krugman means opportunity cost: how much money the government could potentially have had to work with.
I have to be honest, you're not saying much here besides Paul Krugman is a Commie idiot. This is why I have a problem with you and Lou Dobbs and everyone who is against the stimulus. They have plenty of criticism to offer but no alternative solution. Sure, most people concede the stimulus is not perfect, but what should we do instead?
I guess the talk of bipartisanship during the transition was all bullshit. This "Republican voodoo" is making it really hard for Congress to get anything accomplished. This would be a great time for a third party to get into the mix. Start campaigning now.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your Iraq War spending tirade.
Four or five miles up along the road to serfdom is a good place to pull the car over for a breather, and figure out the way ahead. People are starting to do that now, albeit a bit late in the game, since this crappy bill will be signed into law after President's Day Weekend. . .
"They have plenty of criticism to offer but no alternative solution. Sure, most people concede the stimulus is not perfect, but what should we do instead?"
The one main alternative would be to have a tax holiday. Cut taxes instead of spend. That is what the Republicans wanted.
And, if every dollar the government spends is equal to 1.5, why don't we let the government spend all our money for us and have a big economic jubilee?
Even if you believe the "multiple effect" as if it were gospel, the shoddy stimulus bill squanders billions on things that are "7 degrees of separation" away from direct infusions of cash into the economy. Are the millions spent on STD research going to stimulate the economy in the next 12 months? What about the provisions in the bill that limit executive compensation, how is that going to stimulate the economy?
acreofindependence.com
"And, if every dollar the government spends is equal to 1.5, why don't we let the government spend all our money for us and have a big economic jubilee?"
I'm pretty sure that's what we just did. Not every dollar equals 1.5, but a small percentage of the stimulus should be a benificiary of the "multiplier effect".
STD Research: They just cured AIDS last week. That might be worth a buck or two.
Post a Comment