How did conservatives create such a powerful grassroots movement recently

[IdahoMauleMan]

@elucidator

@Sam_Stone

…if you want to spend a trillion dollars of other people’s money…

Oh, crap! Listen, Sam, don’t do that, OK? “Other people’s money”, my ass, its our money because its our country. Point of fact, any of us here have more claim to it than you do.

Our money? “Our” money?

That’s great. I’m a little short right now, and could use an Andrew Jackson to quaff a few beers. To relieve a little stress of the day, you know.

Since it’s “Our” money, would you mind sending me whatever is in your wallet? Or maybe a credit card number and a PIN so I can get a cash advance? Thanks.

All kidding aside…it’s not even “Our” money, anymore than an homeowner underwater on their re-financed mortgage has been spending ‘their’ money over the past few years. When they get foreclosed on, and kicked out of their home, they will realize who’s money it actually was.

Right now, we’re spending a lot of the Chinese’s money. And they will want it back from our children and grandchildren, with interest.

[elucidator]

The way the Chinese are poisoning and raping their environment, they’ll be lucky if there are fifty of them left to collect.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Wesley_Clark

@Evil_Captor

You guys are way off the OP. The answer is, “with the usual mixture of money and lies.”

Lol. I still have no idea how they got so damn organized and motivated so quickly. If liberals had that kind of organization it would be amazing. We barely got Sestak picked over Specter in the PA primary.

Say what you want about conservatives, but they get stuff done. Liberals don’t seem to have the organization or turnout necessary to do to primaries on the left that the tea party is doing to primaries on the right.

During the War in Vietnam the left got organized. It is easier to be opposed to something than in favor of it. It is difficult to defend the Obama administration with any enthusiasm because the unemployment rate has risen since his inauguration. The most one can say is that things would be worse under the Republicans and that they will get worse if the GOP does well in the next election.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@elucidator

The way the Chinese are poisoning and raping their environment, they’ll be lucky if there are fifty of them left to collect.

I’ll take the other side of that bet, if you’re willing to pony up the Andrew Jackson that I asked for above.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@IdahoMauleMan

The esteemed dabbler Krugman was an senior economics advisor to Enron. And we know how that turned out.

Yes, we do. He resigned in 1999, to accept a position with the New York Times. Nice try.

[elucidator]

I guess I’m supposed to reel and stagger away in consternation at your wit. I say its our money, your trenchant riposte is well, if its ours, why don’t you send me yours? If thats Swiftian satire in Idaho, you guys need to get out more.

Anyway, according to this, you are already getting my money, as Idaho pays a lot less in taxes than it recieves in benefits. You’re welcome.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

[Mr_Smashy]

@elucidator

The way the Chinese are poisoning and raping their environment, they’ll be lucky if there are fifty of them left to collect.

I guess this is our new exit strategy from >$1T deficits as far as the eye can see!

Let’s call it the Steve Martin gambit.

PS Sam, great posts on this page. You have complete ownership of this issue.

[elucidator]

Has more to do with the foolishmess of sacrificing your air and water to economic development. Let me know if you need more assistance in understanding, I’m here to help.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

What good is breathable air to an unemployed person, smart guy?

[Mr_Smashy]

@elucidator

Has more to do with the foolishmess of sacrificing your air and water to economic development. Let me know if you need more assistance in understanding, I’m here to help.

You’re right of course. Their coming economic disaster means they will be less likely to want their money back :rolleyes:

[IdahoMauleMan]

@elucidator

Has more to do with the foolishmess of sacrificing your air and water to economic development. Let me know if you need more assistance in understanding, I’m here to help.

I do need more assistance. Thanks for the offer.

So if understand you correctly, it’s OK to bring forward consumption, and prop up current value-destroying activities by borrowing resources from others, because we end up with a net benefit due to

• Our consumption taking place in a nicer environment, which makes it all worthwhile and

• Their accelerated mortality and inability to collect, since they are killing themselves by creating something of value which they then loan to us

Do I have that right?

[IdahoMauleMan]

@elucidator

I guess I’m supposed to reel and stagger away in consternation at your wit. I say its our money, your trenchant riposte is well, if its ours, why don’t you send me yours? If thats Swiftian satire in Idaho, you guys need to get out more.

Anyway, according to this, you are already getting my money, as Idaho pays a lot less in taxes than it recieves in benefits. You’re welcome.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

Who lives in Idaho?

And if you don’t like Idahoans taking more of your money, demand it all back, and choose how to spend it yourself. Take out the government as the middleman.

That’s sort of the whole point.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

@IdahoMauleMan

The esteemed dabbler Krugman was an senior economics advisor to Enron. And we know how that turned out.

Yes, we do. He resigned in 1999, to accept a position with the New York Times. Nice try.

I was being a smart-ass, obviously.

It was a 5-second counter to the Savior Complex - to wit, here is a Laureled and Awarded Smart Man, therefore he must be right about everything. Let us follow him.

[Lobohan]

@Sam_Stone

The CBO didn’t assess the results of the ARRA. They specifically said that the evidence that was available was inadequate. As a result, their report relied on the same models they used for their first report, only slightly modified because the nature of the stimulus was slightly changed from their first report.

If there’s no evidence, then all we can do is look at the models being used to justify the stimulus. Let’s be clear here - if you want to spend a trillion dollars of other people’s money, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it is being wisely spent.

First off it’s my money. Aren’t you a canuk? Second off, the vast majority of economists thought it was necessary. Care to give me a cite that more than the ideological fringe you favor were against a stimulus?

Yet all that has been offered has been the output of model simulations and a lot of bluster. So, the only line of attack against this is to look at whether the model itself is built on good assumptions, whether it covers all the possible effects, and whether it has good inputs.

The papers I posted call into question all of this. The general equilibrium model used has no track record of accuracy. There is plenty of dispute around the basic assumptions of fiscal stimulus. There is new research which suggests there are negative effects that have not been considered. There are hundreds of economists who do not agree with using fiscal stimulus to spend your way out of this recession, including a number of Nobel Laureates.

And there are thousands that do. At what point is consensus not important?

All of this is presented to show you that it is not a FACT that the stimulus has been a net benefit, that it has created millions of jobs, or that it saved the country from a depression. Hell, even the CBO report you used as evidence for your assertions doesn’t say that. Even if we use their Keynesian analysis, the best we can say is that the economy improved somewhat while the spending was taking place, but once the spending stops the economy will under-perform because of the additional debt, and by 2020 the stimulus will have been a net negative for the country.

It isn’t a net negative because of the bad it averts. I’ll grant that in economics there are no facts, but the consensus opinion was that a stimulus was necessary. A stimulus wasn’t some fringe notion, it was the accepted way to deal with what we were faced with. I appreciate that you disagree, but you’re the oddball on the field here.

One more big negative for the stimulus - the huge deficit it has caused has spooked markets and politicians, and has Democrats running scared in this election cycle. As a result, they may let the Bush tax cuts expire, which will be an anti-stimulative jolt three times bigger than the stimulus was. If this happens, then the Democrats will be repeating the same mistake they say Roosevelt made when he succumbed to fears over the deficit and raised taxes in 1937, plunging the economy back into the depths of the depression.

The tax cuts on the richest Americans aren’t likely to do anything to jolt the economy. And best of all you get 3 trillion over ten years to fight the deficit. I’d think you’d be all for it.

[Lobohan]

@IdahoMauleMan

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes, we do. He resigned in 1999, to accept a position with the New York Times. Nice try.

I was being a smart-ass, obviously.

It was a 5-second counter to the Savior Complex - to wit, here is a Laureled and Awarded Smart Man, therefore he must be right about everything. Let us follow him.

Except it wasn’t a counter, it was an incorrect statement that created a negative image. You should be more careful in the future.