A commentor on noted economist Dean Baker’s blog makes a good point about government spending:
an overlooked factor in deciding how much to spend and what to spend it on is the fact that fed govt borrowing costs are incredibly low right now. now is the time to borrow big to pay for needed infrastructure improvements. if we wait until the economy recovers we will still have to borrow but at much higher rates.
Tim Fernholz explains why the “agreement” thats been “reached” in the senate will weaken the stimulus bill:
An agreement has been reached on the stimulus legislation, and it is an agreement we could refer to as “galactically stupid.” The decision to cutting $40 billion in state aid, another $20 billion in school construction, $2 billion for rural broandband access in favor of $30 billion in tax rebates for people who buy homes and cars is a travesty; the former option is more stimulative to the overall economy and targets needed investments, while the latter has a small stimluative value, is regressive and would be a step towards puffing the housing bubble up again.
When it comes to Republicans understanding economic stimulus, I’ve seen more intelligence from promiscuous teenage girls in horror movies. Steven Pearlstein from the Washington Post agrees:
Spending is stimulus, no matter what it’s for and who does it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets.
Seriously people. You need to read that entire, brief, article.
Jon Stewart, yes THAT Jon Stewart, comes up with an innovative idea for fixing the credit crunch:
…rather than giving bailout money straight to the big banks, Congress should give tax credits to Americans for the express purpose of paying off their consumer debts. Not only will the banks get a cash infusion so they can regain liquidity, his reasoning goes, but consumers will be relieved of their credit card and mortgage debts and will thus have more spending money to pump back into the economy. Stewart calls it “trickle-up economics,”…
Senator Jim DeMint’s “Stimulus” “proposal” would cost at least $6 trillion:
I can’t find an estimate, but based on estimates of the Bush tax cuts I’m guessing that the DeMint price tag is at least $6 trillion over the next 10 years. Why isn’t this a front page story anywhere?
Obviously as a liberal I’d like to see mention of Republican hypocrisy (not affordable, not temporary, not efficient), but that isn’t necessary. I would think “Republicans Propose $6 Trillion Stimulus” would be a sufficiently interesting headline to lead a newspaper.