Saturday, March 7, 2009

What's in it for them

Republicans (with help from blue dawg Democrats) successfully prevented a larger, more effective stimulus. They even prevented its being debated. What's in it for them?

They believe all the usual nonsense about the so-called free market, and they hate anything that might help a person. Hey, that could be a handout to a lazy no-account welfare queen overextended homeowner. The conservatives all know that you just can't give those people anything, or they'll just want more. Who do they think they are, AIG?

In their nightmares, though, these Republicans see the ghost of John Maynard Keynes. Most of them don't understand him, but they fear that a stimulus might be successful. They're deeply afraid of another Roosevelt, someone whose charisma and success could leave them out of power for two decades like last time.

Barack Obama clearly has the charisma. They need to deprive him of success.

A too-small stimulus does two great things for Republicans: It may fail and improve their electoral chances in 2010 and 2012. And it still incurs big debts - though less than either the Iraq war or the Bushist tax cuts for the wealthy - and that makes it possible for the conservatives to try again to kill all the social spending the federal government does. All of it. That's what gives them their morning woody - the chance to put all of us at even greater risk.

See, a too-small stimulus is a win-win for the Republicans! It's only a loss for the American people.

4 comments:

mroberts said...

No a stimulus will fail because it does nothing to stimulate the economy. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken away from a private citizen that could have used it to pay down debt, fund college education, save for retirement, or invest in a new business. I don't think replacing insulation in federal buildings, funding ACORN, and rebuilding bridges is going to stimulate the economy, especially when the economy is going to be bogged down with paying the debt back for years to come.

lovable liberal said...

Ever' t'ing dat guy just said was bullshit. Thank you.

This wingnut theory of crowding out is well-known to be a lie. Learn some economics. You'll be ahead of most of the Republican caucus.

mroberts said...

This wingnut theory of crowding out is well-known to be a lie. Learn some economics. You'll be ahead of most of the Republican caucus.

Well-known to be lie? Only if you deny common sense. Where else do tax dollars come from, if not from the people? I HAVE learned some economics, I've been studying it for years.

Van said...

//I HAVE learned some economics, I've been studying it for years.//

Apparently not enough to understand that:

1.) Crowding-out is based on rational expectations theory, which assumes that people tend to think things through rationally all the time (We know how well that worked out with the housing mess);

2.) Those private citizens weren't investing that money anyway because the stock market's completely unstable (Gotta love those liquidity traps);

3.) Massive government spending worked pretty well last time we did it in the 30s and 40s;

4.) Paying down debt and saving for retirement does zip to help the economy because it's not going anywhere, and while we should have been doing that in the first place, it's not the best idea to slow the flow of money into the economy even more when we're already in a situation caused by a chronic economic slow-down;

5.) The debt didn't slow down the economy too much when Reagan jacked it up by ~30% back in the day, oui?