A month or so ago, minority leader John Boehner put out an ad asking for economists to come forward who would agree with him that the economic stimulus plan was a mistake. Without noting here the problem of opposing a policy without bothering to ask an economist first, the results of his plan so far are very interesting.

no current or former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers--Democrat or Republican, living or dead, sane or insane--has signed up for the Republican House caucus's list of economists opposed to the stimulus package. None. Zero. Nada. Sifr. Efes. Wala sero. Kosong sifar. 'Ole. Knin. Pujyam. Mann. Dim. Nocht. Null. Meden. Hitotsu. Sifuri. Ling. Sunya. Mwac. Ataqan. Saquui. Hun. Illaq. Wanzi. Wanzi. Pagh. Na. Uqua.

 

Nobody.

 

That should tell you something about today's Republican Party.

So far, only a handful of economists think this is a bad idea, and even the top Republican economists aren't among them.

 

Remember that when people lecture us on how the Bush/Bush/Reagan deficits are the real problem.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldn...BUSH_S1.article

 

Great for a laugh.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldn...BUSH_S1.article

 

Great for a laugh.

I found this gem in the comments:

 

He did do what was necessary to protect us from further attacks. He also took down the terrorist Huesein, by the way this goof ball allowed the folks that attacked us to train in Iraq. If you folks out there won't admit that, well then get a life.

 

Either:

a. he is confusing Saddam Hussein with Mohammed Omar

b. he crossed the invasion of Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq in his mind

c. he still buys the old party line that Iraq was connected to 9-11, even though that was proven wrong a long time ago and he isn't aware that al-Qaida operations like that are compartmentalized anyway

d. he has no idea what he's talking about

e. he is legitimately retarded and I should back off

Edited January 12, 200917 yr by lostfan

A month or so ago, minority leader John Boehner put out an ad asking for economists to come forward who would agree with him that the economic stimulus plan was a mistake. Without noting here the problem of opposing a policy without bothering to ask an economist first, the results of his plan so far are very interesting.

So far, only a handful of economists think this is a bad idea, and even the top Republican economists aren't among them.

 

Remember that when people lecture us on how the Bush/Bush/Reagan deficits are the real problem.

First, what do you mean by your last sentance? I'm not following you, I don't think.

 

Second, (thinking about how best to say this...) - the stimulus plan is a mistake, but it's not right now. It's making a mistake on top of a bigger mistake. I'm not sure I can even explain that...

 

Second, (thinking about how best to say this...) - the stimulus plan is a mistake, but it's not right now. It's making a mistake on top of a bigger mistake. I'm not sure I can even explain that...

Its funny... I've seen this argument used about Iraq. The Iraq war was a cluster f*** and perhaps shouldn't have happened at all, but once there, you had to fight your way to a certain level of success before walking away. Will those same Republicans who used that logic, use the same to defend Obama here?

 

Its funny... I've seen this argument used about Iraq. The Iraq war was a cluster f*** and perhaps shouldn't have happened at all, but once there, you had to fight your way to a certain level of success before walking away. Will those same Republicans who used that logic, use the same to defend Obama here?

Yes, because he has no choice. I'll defend what he's trying to do. But, I have serious problems with it. And, it wouldn't matter if the pope were president, his economic advisers would tell him to have a huge stimulus package in this circumstance. (oh the irony - collection plate, please).

 

Your paralell is actually spot on, actually, IMO.

Yes, because he has no choice. I'll defend what he's trying to do. But, I have serious problems with it. And, it wouldn't matter if the pope were president, his economic advisers would tell him to have a huge stimulus package in this circumstance. (oh the irony - collection plate, please).

 

Your paralell is actually spot on, actually, IMO.

I know how you feel. On the one hand, I certainly understand the need for stimulus. And if you are going to do that, things like infrastructure and energy and transportation projects certainly make sense as a way to do it.

 

But like you, I also have serious problems with it, as I've stated here before. I think we are already at such a dangerous debt level, that running $1T+ deficits (funny, that looks like a swear word) might cuase us serious, serious problems in the not-too-distant future. I guess the real blame there falls on various Congress' and Presidents over the past few decades that ran up deficits when they didn't need to.

 

Move Over Edward R. Murrow

 

by digby

 

Can you guess who this is?

"I'll be hone

s

t with you. I don't thin

k

journali

s

t

s

s

hould be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guy

s

report where our troop

s

are at. You report what'

s

happening day to day. You ma

k

e a big deal out of it. I-I thin

k

it'

s

a

s

inine. You

k

now, I li

k

ed bac

k

in World War I and World War II when you'd go to the theater and you'd

s

ee your troop

s

on, you

k

now, the

s

creen and everyone would be real excited and happy for'em. Now everyone'

s

got an opinion and want

s

to downer--and down

s

oldier

s

. You

k

now, American

s

oldier

s

or I

s

raeli

s

oldier

s

. I thin

k

media

s

hould be aboli

s

hed from, uh, you

k

now, reporting. You

k

now, war i

s

hell. And if you're gonna

s

it there and

s

ay, 'Well loo

k

at thi

s

atrocity,' well you don't

k

now the whole

s

tory behind it half the time,

s

o I thin

k

the media

s

hould have no bu

s

ine

s

s

in it."

Yes, that's the newest war correspondent from Pajamas Media, Joe the Plumber reporting from Israel. Can a FoxNews gig be far behind?

 

LINK

Edited January 12, 200917 yr by BigSqwert

I was going to post that, but I really don't want to acknowledge his existence anymore. Every single time, without fail, that he opens his mouth, he confirms to me that he is stupid, perhaps mildly retarded.

and wouldn't you want to make that man the face of your political party

and wouldn't you want to make that man the face of your political party

 

Heck, why not? The proposed #2 of the party was a female version of him.

BS, Your avatar isn't showing up for me...

BS, Your avatar isn't showing up for me...

Me neither. I don't know what happened. I'll try to find a new one.

I blame Joe the plumber

Its funny... I've seen this argument used about Iraq. The Iraq war was a cluster f*** and perhaps shouldn't have happened at all, but once there, you had to fight your way to a certain level of success before walking away. Will those same Republicans who used that logic, use the same to defend Obama here?

 

Heck no, I am waiting for March 1st so I can blame the entire economy on Obama, just like was done to Bush in 2001

Heck no, I am waiting for March 1st so I can blame the entire economy on Obama, just like was done to Bush in 2001

I can think of no one who did that, and I don't recall anyone in 2001 blaming the economy on Bush. I'm sure there were a few haters who did - the kind of people who like to hate on everything and anything. Except, I'd like to think we are all smarter than that here. Bush was no more at fault for the 2001 economy than Obama would be in 2009.

 

 

I know some of my friends who did, but I have dumb friends.

I can think of no one who did that, and I don't recall anyone in 2001 blaming the economy on Bush. I'm sure there were a few haters who did - the kind of people who like to hate on everything and anything. Except, I'd like to think we are all smarter than that here. Bush was no more at fault for the 2001 economy than Obama would be in 2009.

Once he signs off on the stimulus package, B.O. is going to own this economy pretty quickly.

I can think of no one who did that, and I don't recall anyone in 2001 blaming the economy on Bush. I'm sure there were a few haters who did - the kind of people who like to hate on everything and anything. Except, I'd like to think we are all smarter than that here. Bush was no more at fault for the 2001 economy than Obama would be in 2009.

 

I argued with MANY people on here who STILL call the 2001 recession the Bush recession.

I argued with MANY people on here who STILL call the 2001 recession the Bush recession.

On here? Really? I wasn't around then so I don't know. But that really is ridiculous. I don't see how any President can be blamed for an economy their first year in office. That's ridiculous.

 

Once he signs off on the stimulus package, B.O. is going to own this economy pretty quickly.

He'll own it more than many previous Presidents, but you can't logically fault or credit him (or both) until a number of years later.

 

I argued with MANY people on here who STILL call the 2001 recession the Bush recession.

I argue with you calling it the Clinton Recession, but I don't blame it on Bush, either.

He'll own it more than many previous Presidents, but you can't logically fault or credit him (or both) until a number of years later.

Depending on the type of package he puts together...yes, you'll be able to. This package will make the economy his almost as much as the new deal did for FDR. If he screws this up by wasting it on poorly-designed, impossible-to-implement, low-multiplier business tax cuts...then if it turns out not to be enough to avoid the deflationary spiral that is still on the horizon, then he'll deserve a majority of the blame for that, because he'll have wasted his best shot.

I argue with you calling it the Clinton Recession, but I don't blame it on Bush, either.

How about Greenspan bubble #1?

How about Greenspan bubble #1?

Much more accurate than blaming it on either of those presidents IMO.