# Fuck Harry Reid! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 12, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694 "2010-02-12T12:53:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/281 "2010-02-16T00:31:21Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > **Sam** , I agree (as does almost every economist out there, including uberlefty ones like Krugman) that tax cuts (and regulation cuts) will generate jobs, but disagree that repealing SarBox is poster child #1 on where to start. Confidence of a firm’s books is critical to the efficient free flow of capital. Yeah, regulation cuts! That’s exactly what we need. What a brilliant economic strategy. As to your claim regarding Paul Krugman, I’d like to see a cite. Here’s what he said back in November: > [@](#): > > One such measure would be another round of aid to beleaguered state and local governments, which have seen their tax receipts plunge and which, unlike the federal government, can’t borrow to cover a temporary shortfall. More aid would help avoid both a drastic worsening of public services (especially education) and the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs. > Meanwhile, the federal government could provide jobs by … providing jobs. It’s time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration, one that would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment. There would be accusations that the government was creating make-work jobs, but the W.P.A. left many solid achievements in its wake. And the key point is that direct public employment can create a lot of jobs at relatively low cost. In a proposal to be released today, the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, argues that spending $40 billion a year for three years on public-service employment would create a million jobs, which sounds about right. > Finally, we can offer businesses direct incentives for employment. It’s probably too late for a job-conserving program, like the highly successful subsidy Germany offered to employers who maintained their work forces. But employers could be encouraged to add workers as the economy expands. The Economic Policy Institute proposes a tax credit for employers who increase their payrolls, which is certainly worth trying. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html) Seems quite a bit different from a call for tax and regulation cuts. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/282 "2010-02-16T00:47:00Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’m sure your agreement with Sam would be entirely different if he were from Papau New Guinea instead of Canada. I’m not buying the line either. And now it’s been too much fun watching his frustration to just break down and tell him. It’d be a horrible anticlimax, and I don’t think he’d believe me anyway. Apparently he lacks the smarts to do any checking on his own? life _is_ hard sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/283 "2010-02-16T01:50:38Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Oohh. Roll-eyes. Got me good on that one. You’re such a fucking little girl. > > If you’re going to quote someone, don’t you think what you write underneath the quote should have something to do with … oh, I don’t know … the fucking quote. Now, now, little one. What I wrote was a direct commentary on you profoundly stupid post to **Mr Smashy**. Direct. I even thanked you and explained what I was thanking you for. Yes, I segued into pointing out what a doofus statement it was, as well. The :rolleyes: was just dessert, hoping that the stupid that I shoved back in your mouth din’t leave too bad of an after taste, powerful as it was. Oh, :D. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/284 "2010-02-16T01:52:40Z")
\*\*Squink, \*\* I responded to your post. Would you be kind enough to respond to mine? (Post 273) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/285 "2010-02-16T02:08:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Really? That’s the comeback? > > But you bring up a good point. See, here in Canada we don’t have an estate tax at all. So really, I should be encouraging this bit of idiocy, because it’s just one more thing that will push America’s best and brightest our way - along with their investment money. Dumb, real dumb. [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28418678/the\_death\_tax\_scam](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28418678/the_death_tax_scam) The death tax scam is a boon to multi millionaires and billionaires. How you can think sucking another 90 billion out of the tax base is a good idea amazes me. But it seems once you convince somebody that the rich are being exploited they will fight to save the poor exploited wealthy. i just don’t know how they get by. I suppose people like you make it easy. Idiocy is thinking huge estates gathered at the expense of the poor should be protected from the tax man. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/286 "2010-02-16T02:18:24Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I’m not buying the line either. > And now it’s been too much fun watching his frustration to just break down and tell him. It’d be a horrible anticlimax, and I don’t think he’d believe me anyway. Apparently he lacks the smarts to do any checking on his own? life _is_ hard sometimes. No frustration. Have fun playing your game, I honestly mean that. I guess we’re done then. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/287 "2010-02-16T02:28:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > As to your claim regarding Paul Krugman, I’d like to see a cite. Hmmm, ok [ask and ye shall receive](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/is-obama-relying-too-much-on-tax-cuts/). > [@](#): > > What this says is that there’s a reasonable economic case for including a significant amount of tax cuts in the [stimulus] package, mainly in year one. Perhaps the most liberal economist in the country says that tax cuts lead to job growth. The only question is how many jobs, how much bang for the buck, as I posted 3 pages before. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/288 "2010-02-16T02:38:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > \*\*Squink, > \*\* > I responded to your post. Would you be kind enough to respond to mine? (Post 273) Ahh, missed it. Once we hammer the conservatives down for that expensive war they foisted off on us\* we can go back to [late 70’s](http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php#table), pre-Reagan rates. All that nonsense about Laffer curves and taxing at lower rates to to bring in more dollars for the feds needs expurgation. We put a man on the moon with tax rates like that, invented the laser and the personal computer, became the economic powerhouse of the world. I’m not seeing any reason we couldn’t do the same again under similar taxes conditions. After the Bush years, we certainly _need_ to do it again if we’re to retain any respect as a superpower. OK, OK, maybe we don’t have to go all the way back to 78, but the goddam economy fell apart under tax conditions that every conservative must admit were \*supposed to be \*a heck of a lot more favorable to their economic growth hypothesis than anything we saw from the 50’s through the 70’s. Meanwhile the national debt exploded! Isn’t it time ya’ll did a reality check on the validity of Reaganomics? * * * \*Don’t get all huffy over that, we penalize people for smoking pot, speeding and not curbing their dog, no reason we can’t do the same when a group uses their political power to buy themselves a useless and costly war. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/289 "2010-02-16T03:13:04Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Hmmm, ok > > [ask and ye shall receive](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/is-obama-relying-too-much-on-tax-cuts/). > > Perhaps the most liberal economist in the country says that tax cuts lead to job growth. The only question is how many jobs, how much bang for the buck, as I posted 3 pages before. I really think you are badly misrepresenting Krugman here. First, he’s not talking about the jobs bill, he was writing a year ago about the stimulus package, and talking about the benefits of tax cuts for stimulating the economy. Second, he was not at all promoting tax cuts as a preferable approach to stimulating the economy, only one that the circumstances of not having enough “shovel ready” projects ready to go immediately. Here’s the title and introduction to the piece you linked to: > [@](#): > > Is Obama relying too much on tax cuts? > > I don’t know yet. But news reports this morning certainly raise questions. > > Let’s lay out the basics here. Other things equal, public investment is a much better way to provide economic stimulus than tax cuts, for two reasons. First, if the government spends money, that money is spent, helping support demand, whereas tax cuts may be largely saved. So public investment offers more bang for the buck. Second, public investment leaves something of value behind when the stimulus is over. Third, when you consider this with what he wrote in the article I linked to, and contrast it with what you wrote, you are stretching your interpretation of Krugman’s opinion beyond the breaking point. This, in particular: “Perhaps the most liberal economist in the country says that tax cuts lead to job growth” is wrong and deceptive. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/290 "2010-02-16T03:31:44Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I really think you are badly misrepresenting Krugman here. First, he’s not talking about the jobs bill, he was writing a year ago about the stimulus package, and talking about the benefits of tax cuts for stimulating the economy. > > Second, he was not at all promoting tax cuts as a preferable approach to stimulating the economy, only one that the circumstances of not having enough “shovel ready” projects ready to go immediately. Here’s the title and introduction to the piece you linked to: > > Third, when you consider this with what he wrote in the article I linked to, and contrast it with what you wrote, you are stretching your interpretation of Krugman’s opinion beyond the breaking point. This, in particular: “Perhaps the most liberal economist in the country says that tax cuts lead to job growth” is wrong and deceptive. So cute to hear you try to refute it. No worries, let me explain in a way you’ll understand. His point is, federal spending (the stimulus bill in his context) creates jobs. But tax cuts also create jobs. My point was: tax cuts create jobs. Your guy admits this. Best you do too. I’ll say it for the 3rd time now: it’s a matter of bang-for-the-buck, which is better, tax cuts vs federal spending. But you and your buddy Squink, who (let’s face it) isn’t exactly bringing the potato salad to the mensa picnic, seem to want to refute this. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/291 "2010-02-16T03:44:04Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > So cute to hear you try to refute it. No worries, let me explain in a way you’ll understand. His point is, federal spending (the stimulus bill in his context) creates jobs. But tax cuts also create jobs. You may try to snark all you like, but his words speak for themselves, despite your selective quoting. > [@](#): > > My point was: tax cuts create jobs. Your guy admits this. Best you do too. In Krugman’s outline for improving the jobs outlook, written a few months ago, he does not propose tax cuts once. What he specifically says is: > [@Krugman](#): > > So our best hope now is for a somewhat cheaper program that generates more jobs for the buck. Such a program should shy away from measures, **like general tax cuts, that at best lead only indirectly to job creation, with many possible disconnects along the way.** Instead, it should consist of measures that more or less directly save or add jobs. > [@Mr. Smashy](#): > > I’ll say it for the 3rd time now: it’s a matter of bang-for-the-buck, which is better, tax cuts vs federal spending. But you and your buddy Squink, who (let’s face it) isn’t exactly bringing the potato salad to the mensa picnic, seem to want to refute this. You can repeat it as much as you like, with as many insults as you like, but Krugman has his own opinion. What does become more and more clear is that for some reason you have to try to misrepresent and co-opt a liberal economist to try to support your opinion. Maybe you should ask yourself why this is, and then come back and try again. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/292 "2010-02-16T04:01:58Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Squink, who (let’s face it) isn’t exactly bringing the potato salad to the mensa picnic 😃 Aww, damn it’s [not even original](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22potato+salad+to+the+mensa+picnic%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). For a moment I thought there might be hope for you. I much prefer original work, but if you _must_ import stuff to try for a point, at least try to import highest [Quality](http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/19719). ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/293 "2010-02-16T04:48:42Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > I’ll say it for the 3rd time now: it’s a matter of bang-for-the-buck, which is better, tax cuts vs federal spending. When’s the last time you saw anyone come close to cutting federal spending? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/294 "2010-02-16T06:50:10Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > How you can think sucking another 90 billion out of the tax base is a good idea amazes me. The typical left-wing mindset - allowing people to keep their own money is “sucking 90 billion out of the tax base”, as if this money was part of some public fund they’re stealing from. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/295 "2010-02-16T07:52:29Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > …it’s a matter of bang-for-the-buck, which is better, tax cuts vs federal spending. No way I’m wading into this except to ask a factual question: Doesn’t certain federal spending (e.g., infrastructure, unemployment) have higher economic multipliers (above 1.0) than tax cuts (which, IIRC, fall below the 1.0 mark)? If so, then federal spending gives a (much) higher bang-for-the-buck. In some brief googling, I couldn’t find a good reference – surely, some one must have one bookmarked. Or do I mis-remember? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/296 "2010-02-16T11:41:47Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > allowing people to keep their own money This is just conservababble for “allowing people to take a pass on servicing the debt they ran up conquering Iraq and suchlike”, to say nothing of paying off the principal. This may come as a shock to you, but when you buy a house on credit, you encumber a sizeable chunk of ‘your’ income for a long period of time. Sure it’s still your money, but you owe it to someone else. That debt’s gotta be paid off, and the interest too, before your money can truly be called yours again. That’s the current situation. Who do you think should spend their money paying for your folly, if not you? Don’t you think the cash in a Liberal’s pocket is their money, or do future generations somehow owe you a prosperous lifestyle despite your spendthrift ways? Well, I can’t speak for the future, but the cash in my pocket belongs to _me_, and _my_ house is paid off. You too should find some way to pay off your debts before claiming that the feds are unfairly appropriating ‘your’ money. They’re not, and they wouldn’t be, even if we took top tier income tax rates back to 50% as they were in 1978. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/297 "2010-02-16T13:55:43Z")
> [@An\_Arky](#): > > Evan Bayh is a big fat pussy. Nah, he’s just a graduate of the Sarah Palin School of Leadership. “I don’t wanna do all this work! It’s too hard! I quit! Is there a Blue Dog speaking circuit, and are they less tight with their own money when it comes to speaking fees?” -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/298 "2010-02-16T14:31:12Z")
As an alternative to “letting people keep their own money,” how about “securing enough resources for society that there remains an infrastructure with which people, both presently and in future generations, can continue to earn money.” Conservatives see government as some distinct entity which takes from them resources they’ve collected all upon their own. I see government as an agency of, by and for society with the purpose of ensuring the ability for members of the society to seek life, liberty and happiness. Sort of like a home owners association for America. I find the “my money” frame to be a bit solipsistic, since it’s almost never the case that people got their money completely independently of society. Perhaps people within a society are like a researcher working in a corporation. How do you decide intellectual property issues in a case like that? Our society provides you with the resources you need to produce your work and allows you to benefit from doing so. It is not in society’s interests to die out simply because you feel that the product of your work sprung up solely of your own devices. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/299 "2010-02-16T14:51:26Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > As an alternative to “letting people keep their own money,” how about “securing enough resources for society that there remains an infrastructure with which people, both presently and in future generations, can continue to earn money.” It’s really more of a “cleaning out the joint checking account and then asking for your lunch money” thing with many conservatives. -btw, I forgot to thank **magellan** for acknowledging that it’s important to get our financial house in order, and that taxes have a major role to play in that. The national dialog is constantly innundated with conservatives demanding that they get ‘their’ money back, so it took a bit of courage and thought on **magellan** ’s part to come along as far as he has. No doubt he’d pay a heavy price for it if he were running for congress. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694/300 "2010-02-16T16:14:31Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > 😃 > > Aww, damn it’s [not even original](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22potato+salad+to+the+mensa+picnic%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). > For a moment I thought there might be hope for you. > > I much prefer original work, but if you _must_ import stuff to try for a point, at least try to import highest [Quality](http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/19719). No offense young man, but Imus was saying that line 20 years ago [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-harry-reid/528694.md?page=16)