Two hundred Economists signed an ad in the NY Times explaining why the stimulus is a disaster in the making. The group included three winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, one of them honored for his work in this particular area. I believe the professionals. In part, that is because what they say makes good common sense. They do not see the issue as a close call at all--but a slam dunk all out disaster-- otherwise they would be disagreeing with each other. They call their work the "dismal science" in part because there is usually such great disagreement!
I must admit that I cannot even conceive of a sum of money exceeding 1 trillion dollars (adding 800 billion to the sum earlier committed). But I know this: When they finish "printing" or "issuing" the money into the nation's money supply, the first and certain effect is to devalue the dollars in my pocket by a significant amount. I doubt that a more inflationary plan has ever been proposed--perhaps not even in the great depression. The next question is how to pay back the 1+ trillion debt thus created? Socialists argue that the creation of new jobs will lead to the expansion of the gross national product, which in turn will raise tax revenues. Funny, what we know for sure is that tax CUTS lead to increased tax revenue, and this is just the reverse! Here, its a question of counting generations which again I leave to the experts. It is my personal belief that the socialists already know that they are going to be "forced" to raise taxes to amortize most of this debt-- that is half of the equation "tax and spend" upon which they have always relied. Conservatives see two categories: Provisions which will impact the economy beginning immediately and out to about two years. In this category are found the funds which are truly needed to make the money supply fluid enough ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS (I am not an expert). This part of the plan should be approved. But by far the greatest sums are proposed to advance the socialist's dream agenda of controlling and even nationalizing the financial system. producing alternate energy, reforming the school system, the medical system etc, etc. These are not "stimulus" items at all--but parts of the long term socialist plan for our country. It takes a long time to build wind farms and the like, but the point here is that each of these political areas, such as alternate energy, need to be addressed separately by government---not part of such a Hugo Chavez cafeteria. I conclude that this huge bill is the perfect place to fear the iron law of unintended consequences as well as the concerns voiced here-- it's just far to big to risk. But in the end, we are in for 2 years of socialist domination with the Democrats in full control of both branches (remember--even the filibuster in the Senate is gone now with the defection of three Republicans--and a filibuster cannot defeat legislation anyhow, merely delay it). We shall see in 2 years and then 4 years how the Dems do--the situation has great clarity as nothing of importance can be blamed on the Conservatives or Republicans who are also conservatives. Should be quite a show. GP On Feb 11, 10:26 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why Republicans Won't Support the Stimulus > --- > because it's a take from our future generations and the rich and give > to those who squandered their money? > no thanks - let'em pay their own debts > > On Feb 11, 5:20 am, "liberal mike532 !" <littlemike...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Why Republicans Won't Support the Stimulushttp://www.truthout.org/021009M > > Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog: "Why are Senate Republicans (all, > > that is, except the lonely moderates Collins, Snowe, and Specter) > > nixing the stimulus package, as House Republicans did? Not because > > Obama failed to compromise - he gave them the tax breaks they wanted, > > ncluded a whopper for business. Not because Senate Democrats failed > > to bend - they agreed to trim more than $100 billion out of a previous > > version of the bill. Not because Senate Republicans are doctrinally > > opposed to deficit spending - many of them happily voted for Bush > > spending and tax cuts that doubled the federal debt. The reason has to > > do with the timing of the economic recovery."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
