Aug 16, 2011 5:11 PM GMT
Rick Perry is one of them.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/stimulus-thinkingBut what's amazing here, obviously, is that Mr Phillips is justifying building aircraft carriers because government spending creates jobs and stimulates the economy. And he's right about that! But it seems that there are no other things the government spends money on, apart from defence, that Mr Phillips believes can stimulate the economy. He appears to believe that while government spending on aircraft carriers leads to workers getting hired, spending their paychecks, and helping the recovery, government spending on highways, high-speed rail, education, and health care does not. Meanwhile, Mr Phillips also believes, as he argued in a Washington Post op-ed last week, that the government shouldn't borrow any more money, because that's leading us to economic ruin, like Greece. And he believes that the government shouldn't raise taxes, because that kills jobs. So where is the money supposed to come from? We're left with one possibility: Mr Phillips believes that we should build more aircraft carriers to stimulate the economy, and fund it by cutting other government spending programmes. But obviously when you cut other government spending programmes, the people who were working for those programmes lose their jobs, stop receiving paychecks, and stop spending money, which harms the recovery. And then there's the question of how many $2.6m prostitute-safe-drinking programmes you can find to cut. You need 3,500 of them to fund your $9 billion aircraft carrier.
The tea-party movement has spent the past year arguing that stimulus doesn't work and cannot, by nature, create more jobs or economic activity. The idea that a major tea-party figure can turn around and make a bog-standard argument for defence spending on Keynesian grounds testifies to a startling capacity for cognitive dissonance. I'm impressed.
q1w2e3 saidRick Perry is one of them.
southbeach1500 saidq1w2e3 saidIn fact, if Obama is defeated, I predict a major stimulus in the hands of a Republican president, who will find it convenient to blame Obama for the cuts while taking all the credit for the jobs created by boosting government spending.
Stimulus? Paid for how?????
southbeach1500 saidChristian73 saidsouthbeach1500 saidq1w2e3 saidIn fact, if Obama is defeated, I predict a major stimulus in the hands of a Republican president, who will find it convenient to blame Obama for the cuts while taking all the credit for the jobs created by boosting government spending.
Stimulus? Paid for how?????
By borrowing money, and then growing the economy to increase tax receipts to pay back the debt.
southbeach1500 saidChristian73 saidFor the majority of people who live in reality, this is what governments do to stimulate their economies. It's worked for more than a 100 years everywhere it's been done, including the US from 2009 - 2011.
It hasn't worked because it doesn't work.
southbeach1500 saidChristian73 saidsouthbeach1500 saidChristian73 saidFor the majority of people who live in reality, this is what governments do to stimulate their economies. It's worked for more than a 100 years everywhere it's been done, including the US from 2009 - 2011.
It hasn't worked because it doesn't work.
I now believe that you are among the Tea Baggers who are so obsessed with getting the black guy out of the White House that you'd rather see America fail than the economy get better before the election. It's really sad.
"The black guy out of the White House" huh?
Our President is our President, regardless of gender or race. You liberals always playing the race card... just like "Ed Schultz" did the other night on MSNBC.
At least better than you’d think listening to Gov Perry’s anti-government rhetoric. When he announced his candidacy for President the other day, he growled that his goal as president would be to make Washington “as inconsequential in your lives as I can.”
How did that happen? Well, Gov Perry has a funny way of going about that “inconsequential” thing. According to many news accounts from back in the Recovery Act days:
“Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”
Now, I’ve got no problem with a state government using Recovery Act funds to retain or create jobs. In fact, the figure and quote above shows Texas to be following a traditional Keynesian game plan: as the private sector contracts, turn to the public sector to temporarily make up part of the difference.
RickRick91 saidq1w2e3 saidRick Perry is one of them.
Rick Perry - a big government big spending fiscal liberal from Texas.
Just like George W. Bush.
Perry's office and some budget experts say the entire state budget is not a fair gauge of a governor's fiscal record, since portions such as federal funding are not under his direct purview.
"Lawmakers and the governor have no control over that," Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said.
Fed largely by state taxes and fees, general revenue has typically made up roughly half the Texas budget. It's the part of the budget that lawmakers spend most of their time arguing over during legislative sessions. Much of the rest of the budget is tied by provisions in federal law and the Texas Constitution.
When general revenue spending is examined by itself, the trends match better with the fiscal conservative image that Perry promotes. Though general revenue spending has grown with nearly every budget since Perry took office, it actually fell over the last decade an average of 0.6 percent every two years once those numbers are adjusted for inflation and the state's booming population growth. It rose during Bush's tenure.
"Obviously fiscal restraint is always something the governor has made a priority," Frazier said. "He's the only Texas governor since World War II that has cut general revenue spending."
That distinction is one that Perry has touted repeatedly in recent years, from campaign commercials to the biography on the governor's office website.
Mike Hailey, who runs the Austin political site Capitol Inside and served as Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock's press secretary, said that general revenue spending is "a more telling gauge" of a governor's fiscal record but that the rest of the budget is relevant as well.
He also noted that the Legislature chose to accept billions in federal stimulus money in 2009, which temporarily pumped up spending.
Frazier made clear that Perry is aware of the balancing act that comes with federal funds.
"Texas taxpayers send that money to Washington," Frazier said. "We deserve to have our fair share back as opposed to seeing that money go to other states. But there is that separate concern that federal spending has grown out of control and needs to be reined in."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-did-the-gop-turn-against-stimulus-ask-a-psychologist/2011/08/25/gIQADugV6J_blog.html#pagebreakIn 2001, Grover Norquist called a national sales-tax holiday “exactly the kind of immediate stimulus our shell-shocked economy needs now.” Norquist went on to quote George W. Bush’s chief economist, Glenn Hubbard, saying we needed stimulus “sooner rather than later.” Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced a bill to that effect.
Around the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) held a hearing in which he invited Kevin Hassett, a conservative economist based at the American Enterprise Institute, to make the case for a fiscal stimulus. “The economists who studied this were quite surprised to find that fiscal policy in recessions was reasonably effective,” Hassett testified. “It is just that folks tried a first punch that was too light and that generally we didn’t get big measures until well into the recession.”
Ryan was delighted by his answer. “That is precisely my point,” he replied. “That is why I like my porridge hot. I think we ought to have this income tax cut fast, deeper, retroactive to January 1st, to make sure we get a good punch into the economy, juice the economy to make sure that we can avoid a hard landing.”
So not only was it non-controversial that deficit-financed stimulus spending was an effective and desirable way to fight economic downturns, but it was taken as obvious by Paul Ryan — Paul Ryan! — that the big danger was that you did too little. Now, of course, Ryan takes the initial stimulus’s inability to fully combat the recession as evidence of the policy’s failure, even though we now know the recession was deep enough that standard calculations — the sort of calculations Hassett was referring to in his testimony — would have argued for a stimulus of more than $2 trillion.