>>>workingmom says:
February 9, 2009 at 9:54 am
charlie says:
February 7, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“Stimulus, is that spin for pork?”
Actually, Charlie, economic stimulus is spending,that’s what stimulus is. Perhaps a basic economics lesson is in order here. In a slowed economy people aren’t spending and there is no demand for the goods that have been produced. Therefore companies lay off workers who themselves can’t now afford to spend. And the problem worsens. As it turns out, what we need is more spending. Therefore what we need is an injection of money into the system.

}}}}Stimulus is spending, but not all spending stimulates. Government spending that inefficiently rewards favored voting blocs runs the risk of merely redirecting resources, and it’s nearly impossible to predict the point at which excessive government deficit spending becomes merely inflationary — though if Obama gets his million budgetary wishes, we’ll likely find out. Economists and pundits point to underemployment in the economy or “slack,” and they suggest that we can safely continue deficit spending so long as the economy still has unused capacity for growth. They said, in short, if you don’t have growth, you won’t have inflation. And they were wrong. It’s called stagflation, and it’s Jimmy Carter’s legacy.

>>>>The people who spend the most are the poorer folks, since they can’t afford to save, while the wealthy who would be the largest beneficiaries of a payroll tax holiday, for example, are more likely to save that money since they don’t have to spend every last penny to make ends meet.

}}}}Nonsense. A basic payroll tax holiday as entertained (and ultimately rejected) for the stimulus plan provides everyone with the same relief in dollars, not as a percentage of total income. As a result, it disproportionately benefits “poorer folks.”

>>>>Perhaps what Charlie has failed to notice from these very clear visuals of the stimulus plan, is that the large majority is still devoted to tax cuts. So the first question I might ask, is what did Charlie miss when reading this? This is more a tax cut bill than a spending bill.

}}}}Nonsense. The “very clear visuals” show $244B of $787B as “tax cuts.” That’s 31%. A lot of politicians will be relieved to hear that’s a majority. In addition, $55B of the $244B is actually “tax credits,” much of which will be paid to people who don’t pay income taxes — reducing the “tax cut” portion to about 25%. This is a spending bill. To paraphrase, “Perhaps a basic math lesson is in order here.”

>>>>As all independent economics experts have shown, it is continued reliance on tax cuts that helped propel us into this crisis, and it is the same tax cuts that will not inject the necessary capital to move the economy forward, but in an effort to appease people like Charlie, the government has returned once again to an emphasis on tax cuts that will be saved by the rich and not injected into the economy. So I think people like Charlie can’t complain about a bill that’s meant to appease them, while not stimulating the economy as much as is needed.

}}}}Nonsense. Please provide the names of the experts — and since it’s “all,” we’ll understand if it takes some time. Better yet, name one economist who suggests tax cuts alone are the problem. If it’s anyone with an ounce of credibility, and not a byline in the New York Times, the Nation or Mother Jones, you’ll have a start on your mission. Charlie may not have fleshed out his thought about “pork” in much detail, but workingmom, your response is half-baked tripe. Please get your facts together before convening your next economics lesson.

Don’t forget that most “imports” (Honda, Toyota, Nissan) sold here are now made here. Since 2005, non-domestic automobile manufacturers have produced more vehicles in the U.S. than GM/Ford/Chrysler.