Romney: Stimulate the economy, not government

[Winehole23]

I don't think it was about Republicans wanting to stick it to the Democrats.

Could be a little bit of both: loyal opposition and giving them the business, too.

There's no reason at all for the GOP to go along with the Dem agenda, and very much to obstruct and be mischievous.

All the sanctimonious stuff about the opposition putting party above country is exactly what it has been the last eight years: bull pucky.

"Putting the country first" is code for yielding to the majority's agenda. In this Bush and Obama don't differ much. Insulting the minority for their lack of patriotism hasn't gone out of style.

[Nbadan]

If we put: * $1 into food stamps, it returns $1.73 into the economy.

$1 into unemployment, it returns $1.64 into the economy.

$1 into infrastructure returns $1.59 to the economy.

$1 into State Gov't aid returns $1.36.

Tax Cuts do almost nothing. Very little return on your dollar plus they cause the Deficit to skyrocket

Effect of tax cuts: * $1 into nonrefundable tax rebates returns $1.02 next year. * $1 into permanent tax cuts returns less than $0.50.

Source: Economy.com

[DarrinS]

If we put: * $1 into food stamps, it returns $1.73 into the economy.

$1 into unemployment, it returns $1.64 into the economy.

$1 into infrastructure returns $1.59 to the economy.

$1 into State Gov't aid returns $1.36.

Tax Cuts do almost nothing. Very little return on your dollar plus they cause the Deficit to skyrocket

Effect of tax cuts: * $1 into nonrefundable tax rebates returns $1.02 next year. * $1 into permanent tax cuts returns less than $0.50.

[angrydude]

yea, they don't make GDP go up because people save the money and that is what is needed for the long-term health of the economy.

However, they are worthless if the government doesn't cut back spending in an amount equal to them.

Passing tax cuts without reducing spending is worse than not passing cuts at all.

[Nbadan]

Passing tax cuts without reducing spending is worse than not passing cuts at all.

Normally, I agree, a tax-cut without equal cuts in deficit spending is really just a tax-deferment...but we are in a emergency situation right now...we cannot let the capital markets come to a stop....

[Nbadan]

"I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus. The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years. The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad."

Krugman