Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <you claim that Congress and many other economists completely disagree.> I didn't claim that Congress completely disagrees. It has been reported, however, that the CBO has said that the GOP plan would create twice the jobs for half the price.
Originally Posted By Mr X ＊＊＊I didn't claim that Congress completely disagrees.＊＊＊ I suppose then you and I must just have different definitions of what "flies in the face of" means.
Originally Posted By dshyates "It has been reported, however, that the CBO has said that the GOP plan would create twice the jobs for half the price." Please link. That sounds like a mountain sized steaming pile of crazy to me.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It has been reported, however, that the CBO has said that the GOP plan would create twice the jobs for half the price.*** We'll never be able to prove that conjecture, since a snowball in hell has a better survival rate than a GOP plan these days.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"It has been reported, however, that the CBO has said that the GOP plan would create twice the jobs for half the price." Please link.*** Yes. Please do. And I did try to use the Google machine as you requested. The only stuff remotely similar to what you are claiming came either from the Minority Leaders' Office or Michelle Malkins' blog. Are those sources what you meant when you said "has been reported"?
Originally Posted By dshyates "Michelle Malkins' blog." Dang X, NOW you bring her up and I already used the phrase, "steaming pile of crazy".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I suppose then you and I must just have different definitions of what "flies in the face of" means.> My guess is you'd be supposing wrong. I referred to the CBO, not Congress.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yes, you referred to the Congressional Budget Office. Would that not be a facet of congress? One particularly concerned with money? Why do you insist on spitting hairs instead of having a productive conversation?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Please link.> Okay, looks like I conflated some things. Sorry. The GOP said the CBO report showed that, under the current bill, tax cuts would be half of what the President called for, and then they said their plan would provide twice the jobs at half the cost by using methods endorsed by an Obama economic advisor. Next, there was a report that the CBO had sent a letter to Sen Gregg, the Commerce nominee, that appears to state the GOP plan would work better than the current bill. Here's some links. <a href="http://republicanleader.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109933" target="_blank">http://republicanleader.house....D=109933</a> <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/" target="_blank">http://www.washingtontimes.com...ng-haul/</a> <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96x...regg.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Would that not be a facet of congress?> I would not consider it a "facet". It's controlled by Congress, but not composed of Congressmen. <Why do you insist on spitting hairs instead of having a productive conversation?> It's hard to have a productive conversation with someone who is changing your words, and therefore changing your meaning.
Originally Posted By Mr X ＊＊＊I would not consider it a "facet". It's controlled by Congress, but not composed of Congressmen.＊＊＊ Fair enough.
Originally Posted By dshyates Thanks for the links Douglas they are very interesting. The CBO and Washington Post ones were good. The Boehner press release is the only onee that says that the Republican plan would create twice the jobs and half the cost. On that one I am gonna call BS. But I do have concerns about the long term impact of such a huge bill. It seems as if both parties got some crap included in the spirit of bipartisanship. I wish they would tackle the issue in 2 parts. QUICKLY pass teh parts EVEYONE agrees on which is about$600B of the bill. Then take more time to do the political cage match on the rest.
Originally Posted By Mr X ＊＊＊I wish they would tackle the issue in 2 parts. QUICKLY pass teh parts EVEYONE agrees on which is about$600B of the bill. Then take more time to do the political cage match on the rest.＊＊＊ A most excellent suggestion. Has it been proposed anywhere other than on a Disney fan site?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Zandi, BTW, was an economic adviser to McCain in 2008, so this is not some liberal spin.>> <Mr Zandi is a registered Democrat.> So is Zell Miller. Zandi was still an advisor to McCain. And Moody's is not normally in the business of posting wild-eyed liberal numbers. And you haven't shown his numbers to be wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (DD): <Okay, looks like I conflated some things> Ya' think? (Dshyates): < The Boehner press release is the only onee that says that the Republican plan would create twice the jobs and half the cost. On that one I am gonna call BS.> Ya' think? <I wish they would tackle the issue in 2 parts. QUICKLY pass teh parts EVEYONE agrees on which is about$600B of the bill. Then take more time to do the political cage match on the rest.> I agree with that too. As I said on another thread, even the stuff in there that is good and not pork, but not stimulative, should be considered separately and on its own merits. But it's not going to happen that way.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And you haven't shown his numbers to be wrong.> No, but just because he was an advisor to Sen McCain doesn't make them right. And many noted economists disagree with his numbers. <Ya' think? > Yes. Unlike some, when I make a mistake, I admit it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And you haven't shown his numbers to be wrong.>> <No,> Thank you. <but just because he was an advisor to Sen McCain doesn't make them right.> Nor did I say they did. I pointed out his relationship this year to point out that he obviously was not considered some out-of-the-mainstream guy by 2008's GOP standard bearer. <And many noted economists disagree with his numbers.> If they do, you haven't provided anything other than assertions from them. No actual research or hard numbers. <Ya' think? > <Yes. Unlike some, when I make a mistake, I admit it.> This time you did, at least on this matter, and I give you props for that.
