My God, you are an idiot.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right. That was my point.

Which was the same as the chupacabra point--neither exists.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Which was the same as the chupacabra point--neither exists.

And thus chupacabra supporters should be asking themselves why they vote R and whether it's time to jump ship.

[LessinSF]

Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms with his Google Problem.

[Hank Chinaski]

Stephen Stanley has my proxy on Tyetal's failed "stimulus" packages. And why spending more should lead to impeachment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms with his Google Problem.

doesn't this help him, like how Palin complains about "gotcha" questions, but even people with 3 digits in their IQ (hi Adder!) can at least consider RS's complaint?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Stephen Stanley has my proxy on Tyetal's failed "stimulus" packages. And why spending more should lead to impeachment.

That piece is very strangely timed.

Also, to argue that the key pro-growth policy is extending the Bush tax cuts is almost comical.

ETA: Look at that, a timely chart:

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

That piece is very strangely timed.

Also, to argue that the key pro-growth policy is extending the Bush tax cuts is almost comical.

ETA: Look at that, a timely chart:

Well, that's at least in part because the '01 cuts were about keeping a campaign promise, not about being a tax-cut stimulus. If we get past the politics of it, then maybe we can fairly assess the outcomes.

Of course, it's also not the point to compare the realized growth to any historic average, but rather to the **unknowable** growth rate that would have happened but for the tax-cut/spending stimulus.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Well, that's at least in part because the '01 cuts were about keeping a campaign promise, not about being a tax-cut stimulus. If we get past the politics of it, then maybe we can fairly assess the outcomes.

I'm not sure what you mean. They were certainly sold as a stimulus (which differed from the give the surplus back justification of the campaign).

But I'm not sure why you think that matters. Surely you aren't arguing that the politics drives the stimulus?

Of course, it's also not the point to compare the realized growth to any historic average, but rather to the **unknowable** growth rate that would have happened but for the tax-cut/spending stimulus.

Of course, but given that the right comparison is unknowable, we have to make due with what we have.

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Well, that's at least in part because the '01 cuts were about keeping a campaign promise, not about being a tax-cut stimulus.

That's because Republicans can't use the word "stimulus" in anything other than a perjorative sense anymore - the memo is out. Years ago when everyone was getting their $100 checks in the mail from Smilin' George it was touted by all and sundry as a means to give tax money back to the ordinary folks who would certainly invest it more wisely than gubermint ever could, by going out and buying stuff (if you were a little guy like me - I think I spent it on drugs) or creating jobs if you were a big swinging dick like Hank, suddenly freed from a repressive tax burden to go forth and make a thousand flowers of employment bloom. So it was designed to promote consumer spending on the one hand and job creation on the other. But this is not "stimulus" -- oh no no no -- "stimulus" is what Democrats do when they are trying to make this country more like socialist wherever.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ironweed

That's because Republicans can't use the word "stimulus" in anything other than a perjorative sense anymore - the memo is out. Years ago when everyone was getting their $100 checks in the mail from Smilin' George it was touted by all and sundry as a means to give tax money back to the ordinary folks who would certainly invest it more wisely than gubermint ever could, by going out and buying stuff (if you were a little guy like me - I think I spent it on drugs) or creating jobs if you were a big swinging dick like Hank, suddenly freed from a repressive tax burden to go forth and make a thousand flowers of employment bloom. So it was designed to promote consumer spending on the one hand and job creation on the other. But this is not "stimulus" -- oh no no no -- "stimulus" is what Democrats do when they are trying to make this country more like socialist wherever.

Well, *that* one was branded as stimulus at the time.

The $1T+ tax cut was not--the economy needed no stimulus, the government had surpluses as far as the eye could see, and it was one more strategy to "starve the beast" and return to 'murricans, what was rightfully theirs.

Sure, the messaging moved around a lot, but Stimulus wasn't the original sell, so judging it on how stimulative it was isn't the right test. And the result provides plenty of fodder for insult on direct bases.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Sure, the messaging moved around a lot, but Stimulus wasn't the original sell, so judging it on how stimulative it was isn't the right test.

I still don't follow you. It was sold in part as stimulus ("The president said the refunds will give a boost to the economy, but economists have said that depends on how much consumers decide to spend.").

But regardless, the current contention is that keeping those cuts will be really stimulative. Whether they were the last time around is as good evidence as we can get as to whether that contention is likely to be true. It doesn't matter whether stimulus was the goal last time around.

ETA: Here's Greenspan saying the economy was slowing in January and tax cuts might help. Less reliably, wikipedia says Bush argued it would be stimulus.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

I still don't follow you. It was sold in part as stimulus ("The president said the refunds will give a boost to the economy, but economists have said that depends on how much consumers decide to spend.").

But regardless, the current contention is that keeping those cuts will be really stimulative. Whether they were the last time around is as good evidence as we can get as to whether that contention is likely to be true. It doesn't matter whether stimulus was the goal last time around.

No, I think the current contention is that *eliminating* the cuts would lead to a significant contraction.

Of course, if you believe Bill Gross (who talks his book enough that it's reasonable to doubt any given thing) then we have a lot bigger worries than a 2% (or whatever) contraction in GDP if we don't get the federal house in order right soon.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

No, I think the current contention is that *eliminating* the cuts would lead to a significant contraction.

Okay. Flip side of the same coin, no? (And actually Hank's link talked about continuing the cuts as stimulus, but again, flip side).

[Adder]

I'm with Josh Marshall on whether he should resign (no), but I don't agree with his assessment of the judgment of Pelosi, Wasserman-Sschultz and Israel to call for his resignation.

That move only helps relieve the distraction if he actually resigns. Calling for him to resign without knowing he will do it no benefit to the party. It only gives the story new legs. And despite their short term evaluations, it likely doesn't even benefit them personally.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm with Josh Marshall on whether he should resign (no), but I don't agree with his assessment of the judgment of Pelosi, Wasserman-Sschultz and Israel to call for his resignation.

That move only helps relieve the distraction if he actually resigns. Calling for him to resign without knowing he will do it no benefit to the party. It only gives the story new legs. And despite their short term evaluations, it likely doesn't even benefit them personally.

you can drunk driving drown a woman and be a grand kleagle and still be qualified to be a Dem congressman. I don't think flash your underwear passes either of those, do you?