Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The march of idiocy

By

We also get made up “facts”:

[O]nly 15% of the massive spending increases in the Obama/Pelosi spending spree will take place in 2009. The remaining taxpayer dollars they plan to spend pay out over the next ten years!

However, in a period that begs, simply begs for fiscal expansion, the Reagan robot Republicans still read from the same text:

I ran for the job of RNC Chairman to lead our Party forward with its core principles as a guide: shrinking the size of government and creating private sector jobs that won’t go away as soon as taxpayer money runs out. The Republican Party must vigorously champion these rock-solid cornerstones of the American success story.

This is like suggesting pneumonia patients get more exercise.

He closes in exactly the spirit of bipartisanship that Republicans have been advocating lately, namely whiny partisanship for the minority Republicans and obsequious bipartisanship for the majority Democrats:

This is our opportunity to stand strong, and let the American people know that we Republicans won’t be a part of the Democrats’ tax-and-spend schemes. And we won’t cave to disastrous policies just for the sake of “bipartisanship.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. The letter has a number of other references to Pelosi I omitted. They’re obsessed with her. This, by the way, is a purely Republican obsession. Of the four leaders in Congress (Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi), Nancy Pelosi is the only one with net positive approvals. (The Republicans are the ones registering majority disapproval, by the way.) So the focus on the Speaker is aimed specifically and exclusively at the Republican base.

    <

    p>This is reminiscent of the former hysterical Republican hatred of Hillary Clinton. Could female Democrats in leadership be particularly distressing to Republicans?

    • This is reminiscent of the former hysterical Republican hatred of Hillary Clinton. Could female Democrats in leadership be particularly distressing to Republicans?

      <

      p>With at least as much objective proof as you present, you and the DNC are so very critical of Michael Steele because the notion of a black Republican is particularly distressing to Democrats.  

      • I’m personally glad that the RNC went with Mike Tyson’s buddy over the guy who’s a Republican because the government forced schools to racially integrate.  Not exactly the best options, but the RNC did pick the least horrific choice.

      • Have you heard of those people, gary?

        <

        p>Possibly?

        <

        p>Maybe?

        <

        p>Has the Left been dripping with vitriol about the former Secretaries of State anywhere near the vitriol that used to greet the current one?

        <

        p>I don’t think so.

        • Hmmm speaking of vitriol…Maybe republican women AND republican blacks are particularly distressing to Democrats.  

          <

          p>Bottom line: whenever either party claims the moral high ground over the other, whether it be with regards to race or gender, there are always fine examples why the particular claimant is either i) wrong  ii) hypocritical or iii) myopic.

              • All that really tells us is that you’re unwilling or too lazy to change your party affiliation, and that simply tells us you investment little or nothing in party branding.  No one here is under the illusion your political philosophy is Democratic in nature.

                • Voted for Carter.  

                  <

                  p>Actually had a beer with Billy Carter in Americus, Georgia and Jimmy’s personal lawyer there.  Good times.

                • Having a beer with Billy Carter does not make someone a Democrat. I have been to Reagan International Airport, but am not a Republican.
                  If you believe general support of the Democratic Platform indicates one is a socialist, and put forth economists that preach privitazation of the US Postal service, you are a Republican.

                • I think many Democratic Party people would be generally supportive of a move towards Euro-style democratic socialist policies, and the Postal service deserves no public protection from competition (which is functionally equivalent to privatization.)  Guess that makes me one of those numerous pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, Prius-driving Republicans.

                  <

                  p>As an aside, is the first part of your handle short for Susan, or is it a verb, and you’re making a subtle Cape Wind recommendation?

                • Absence of protection against competition is not functionally equivalent to privatization. There’s no reason public agencies can’t compete against private agencies. They’re still public: owned by the general public, controlled by elected or appointed representatives, etc.

          • the idea that Sarah Palin would appeal to supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign simply because of her gender, even though policy-wise they had nothing in common, was deserving of deep scorn, if not vitriol.

            <

            p>I did not support Senator Clinton in the primaries, but as a female voter, I was deeply offended by the McCain campaign’s hope that women would vote for any woman on a ticket, instead of expecting us to consider experience, fitness for office, and policy. And having talked to a number of Hillary supporters, I’d say they were even more angry about that than I was.

            <

            p>

  3. Republicans?  They only want to shrink the parts of government they don’t like, such as anything to do with the real lives of real people.  I suspect they want to shrink the size of the government in order to expand the size of the military and its contractual partners.  

    <

    p>The Republican brand of “tax and spend”–$12 Billion a month for an illegal war–is as predictable as the day is long.  We’re a war-mongering nation, and as long as our military and defense fetishes endure, we will always be one.  Mr. Steele and his Republican colleagues don’t give a rat’s ass about the American people, their pocketbooks, or their lives; they care about enriching the business sector that thrives on the military industrial complex and their own brand of “tax and spend.”  

  4. Only, most economists “believe in that silly premise”.  

    <

    p>Is this stimulus by popular vote?  I’m not sure you can support your premise.

    <

    p>Just for grins I pulled down my first Macro economics text.  This is from Campbell R. McConnell, Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies.  McGraw-Hill, 7th edition, 1978.  You know, the best selling economics book at colleges for the past several decades:  “Some economists feel that fiscal policy is an impotent and unpredictable stabilization tool.”  Some? The majority? Minority? Does a vote of economist even matter in this context?  If so, I don’t see how.

    <

    p>Also, here’s some economist who don’t share his vision.  With all due respect Mr. President….

    <

    p>Please proceed with the “most economist agree” argument but just like “most people believe in angels” doesn’t make angels real or unreal or fiscal stimulus beneficial or impotent.  Fiscal stimulus happens to the favored pitch by the bunch who’s in charge. Not much more.

      • Deal.  Cato’s off the table so long as any liberal leaning site is also.  To whit Mass Budget and Policy, because God knows it much easier to simply discredit a source rather than actually address the contents of the link.

        • because he thinks, somehow, that we are bothered by that.  He doesn’t, however, understand the math.  Perhaps some clarification would be helpful:

          <

          p>Insofar as a 3 correlates to Worthless on the BMG ratings scale, a 3 influenced by Edgarthearmenian (ETA) factor is automatically converted in value to that of a 6 BMG scale, both in practice and theory.  Therefore, 3ETA equals 6BMG, and thereby confers upon the comment a rating of Excellent.

        • Well maybe because the text is still published, and the most widely macro econ college text used today, complete with the same quote I produced above regarding the dubious usefulness of fiscal stimulus..  Based on the rejection of a source because it’s 3 decades old is rather simplistic.  Reckon we ought to reject any source over 30 years old ?  

          <

          p>Origin of the Species!  Burn it!

          • …but on the other hand, don’t take it as gospel.  In modern conversation, Darwinism doesn’t mean much without an understanding of genetic markers and punctuated equilibrium, both ideas being less 30 years old.

            <

            p>Considering that information is a lot more “perfect”, trade is a lot “freer”, global finance a lot more “multipolar”, and banking a lot more “sophisticated/full of sophistry”, yes, a 30-year old text is out of date.  A box is still published because people buy it, not because it’s right.

            <

            p>If you can back up your ideas with something from modern economics, I’m all ears.

            • The text is still used in colleges and university.  The single most used econ text; the quote remains.  Additionally if you seek other economist who don’t support the fiscal intervention, you need not look very far.

              • around here maximized profit no longer equals the point where marginal cost equals marginal revenue, that was last week. Economics, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

                • Hard to see why some cling so firmly to the notion that “most” economists support their position, as if a vote by economists is desireable or advances the ball further in any direction.  The fiscal bill was and is a hail mary pass with unforeseeable outcomes, some of which could be quite disasterous.

                  <

                  p>The only reasonable explanation why Democrat Leadership is shouting so loudly that the HUGE, VAST MAJORITY OF NON-NUT JOB ECONOMISTS, WHY PRACTICALLY EVERYONE think we’re right, is because first, they hope they’re right, second, in the shouting match, there’s more of them shouting by virtue of the majorities in Government.

                  <

                  p>Realistically, I think there are 4 groups of economists – maybe more.  Hard to guess, and irrelevant, which group has the “most” members:

                  <

                  p>i) those economists who know something about economic effect of fiscal stimulus and have confidence that the particular Bill may be effective.  Let’s put Bernanke in this group. Obviously Robert Reich.

                  <

                  p>ii) i) those economists who know something about economic effect of fiscal stimulus and have NO confidence that the particular Bill may be effective.  Probably Greg Mankiw and this group of several hundred.

                  <

                  p>iii) those economists who have no particular specialty in the effects of fiscal stimulus by governments, but have a general feeling the Bill may be effective, for one reason or another.  I actually put Krugman in this category, because, although he a smart guy with a Nobel prize, it’s in Trade effects, not effect of government spending on the traditional variables.

                  <

                  p>iv) then there’s the group that think doing nothing – fiscally speaking – is the best policy.  i.e. the problem is that the consumers have been borrowing and spending too much and are now so highly leveraged with debt supported by devalued assets that the only thing we can do is make them spend more.  Hard to actually repeat that aloud without laughing.

                  <

                  p>

                • We need to try something different. We’ve already tried cutting rates to zero. That hasn’t worked. Fiscal stimulus is the next arrow in the quiver. We should shoot it, not keep it behind our backs.

                  <

                  p>There are a lot of other things we also should do, however.

                • We need to try something different. We’ve already tried cutting rates to zero. That hasn’t worked. Fiscal stimulus is the next arrow in the quiver. We should shoot it, not keep it behind our backs.

                  <

                  p>We could try Wickan magic, chanting and deep massage too.  Each, equally as useful.  However, rates aren’t zero, which means monetary policy hasn’t exhausted itself.

            • I was certainly not asserting that most economists are neo-Keynesian, just that I don’t think there are many that travel without the prefix.

    • The points that most economists seem to recognize are:

      • In general, having the Fed lower interest rates is the best mechanism for responding to garden variety recessions. So in general, this is correct. Fiscal expansion is not the preferred policy.
      • The current recession is not garden variety.
      • The interest rate cannot cross the zero line.

      • The interest rate cannot cross the zero line.

        <

        p>It’s not a great idea, but there’s no technical reason why we can’t have negative economic rates.  I’ll pay you $3 a year if you borrow $100 from me.  That’s -3% interest, no?

        • I’ll have to check the charts but I’m pretty sure the overnight secondary repo market briefly went negative sometime last November so that investors had to pay money to invest in short term Treasuries: negative interest.

    • I don’t know the text at all, but generally, sentences that start with “some say…” tend not to be able to assert anything in particular with any kind of authority.  This usually gets by the layman’s BS detector and is why you see pundits use it all the time.

      <

      p>Incidentally, isn’t the notion that ‘fiscal policy’ won’t get us out of this any more something that Krugman pointed out?  Are we talking about the term in the same sense?

        • Libertarian ideology (ie Cato Institute) need not apply.  I’ll take Krugman any day.  Obama has made it clear that as much as he might be open to engagement, he is also emphatically rejecting the failed ultra-free market philosophy that has prevailed in the past several years.  So to answer your question honestly, I would say Krugman in, Cato out!

        • I haven’t said anything about Cato.  “Some say…” should set off BS detectors.  Krugman’s position is apparently consistent with the books assertion about “some economists” with regard to the current situation.  

          <

          p>That’s all.  

  6. Where was criticism of the irresponsible spending and policies under the Bush administration that brought us to this economic crisis? Bringing democracy to Iraq was an admirable goal, but has it really been worth $800 billion to replace a secular government with a pro-Iranian theocracy?
    In contrast, the Obama stimulus package contains a fraction of that spending, and it is targeted to American roads, bridges, schools, arts, healthcare and …states. Although the GOP has convinced the party Congressmen to play the role of obstructionists, most Republican Governors support the bill.
    If it was worth $800 bil to stabilize Iraq, why is it irresponsible to spend $500 bil to stabilize the American economy and support our infrastucture and state governments?

  7. they had a pretty pie chart that supported the 15% in 2009 claim, making two sources to claim that.  Do you have something to back up that it’s not true, regardless of the merits of having this been a front or back-heavy bill?

Archives