Several House Republicans, especially David Vitter, have trumpeted that the stimulus program if enacted will hand billions of dollars to ACORN, their favorite whipping boy. Factcheck.org disagrees, pointing out that the Community Development Block Grant program was established back in the Ford Administration, and that ACORN would have to compete with a number of other nongovernmental organizations to channel the funds, and would likely get very few dollars out of it, because other organizations have a better track record of rehabilitating older housing. It has nothing to do with voter registration anyway. It's a logical fallacy thing:
- The stimulus bill provides funding for redeveloping neighborhoods.
- ACORN does some work in redeveloping neighborhoods.
- Therefore the stimulus bill provides funding for ACORN.
NO, wrong: first two bullets are correct, but the third one is NOT.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_stimulus_bill_include_a_52.html
How about one other controversy on the stimulus program: how much of it is for tax cuts? I offered the figure here on Gather of 42%, which I had heard from some TV talking head. somebody else on Gather said heck no, it's not nearly that much that is dedicated to tax cutting. I was frustrated to discover that factcheck.org did not address the question. Okay, check out this breakdown of the stimulus program from the New York Times web version. They come up with the figure of 275 billion for tax cuts. I don't know if that is 42%, but it is at least a third of the package, so it is in the neighborhood. Any other questions about the stimulus program? Any other willful misconceptions? What do you WANT it to say? Maybe we can interpret it to say what you want it to say.
here's the NYT pie chart for the stimulus package. Of course, by the time you read this, somebody in a back room in congress will have chopped something off or added something, but here it is anyway:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/stimulus-pie-chart/
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 45
The Repubs are going to spin it any way they can so that it has nothing but negative connotations on their side so when they go up for reelection they can say to their constituients hey look at me I didn't help pass the pork laden bill by the guy we didn't even want in office anyway.
still, what do tax cuts accomplish regarding our economy? For one thing, nobody gets the money until about 1 year from now. for another thing, economists in general do not think that tax cuts provide much bang for the buck in a harshly recessive environment.
Can you explain why the economy should stop its downward spiral of reduced employment ==> reduced spending ==> reduced demand ==> reduced employment?
If you can explain how to stop that by doing nothing I will accept your expertise. Of course, the explanation must make sense. :-)
Aren't you aware that these "changes" won't even come into effect intil AFTER 2010? Or AT ALL?
This is NOTHING but a SPENDING SPREE. Nothing is EVER created by Government.
Tax cuts, and MASSIVE SPENDING cuts, will be all of the "stimulus" a Free Market needs.
You speak of nothing but a Keynesian NIGHTMARE.
The problem here is not supply, the problem is demand. What good will it do when no one is buying because their discretionary budget is nil? The 600,000 people that lost their jobs in January will cut their spending. They will buy less. Businesses will suffer for that reason.
Of COURSE they do.
This "Spendulus" garbage DOES NOT equal jobs. The Government DOES NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING, and it has no money.
The government itself does not produce anything. Companies do. Infrastructure projects, for example will create jobs. They need the workers to build the bridges, the companies to fabricate the materials and the engineers to put together the plans. Those people are now employed. They now have the ability to increase their spending. Businesses across the board benefit.
Your Econ Prof gets an F.
When the handed-out job is completed, there is not a remaining job.
Picture yourself for one minute laid off. What spending will you cut? Picture no income. Now multiply that by 3.6 million. That's how many jobs were cut since December 2007. All of the things that you've cut maybe clothes, restaurants, new car, new gadgets (tvs, cameras, phones, whatever) are not being purchased. Too much supply too little demand.
Who else would like to comment either on ACORN or on the composition of the stimulus package in terms of tax cuts/unemployment relief/infrastructure?
Basic economics, increase wages in a time of less demand and you cause hiring freezes (at a minimum) or more likely destroy smaller, struggling businesses. Set prices floors as the NRA did drive more businesses out of existence. The Depression was set to be a recession, maybe 2 years at max until Hoover/FDR raised taxes/tariffs, FDR increased government spending, went of the gold standard, confiscated all gold assets, invalidated contract law, set wage/prices across the country, caused farmers to destroy millions of tons of food (to raise their prices for such), pushed 100s of thousands of sharecroppers/lease farmers off their land by paying farmer owners to idle their land, destroyed private utility companies with the TVA boondoggle, demonized the wealthy/prosecuted them for violations of new laws (they in return laid low and stopped investing/working) and caused the market/GDP to stay below its 1929 level until after 1944.
Yeah the Depression was not caused by government action.
Only World War ll saved his ass, and ours, from the mess he created.
But obviously, this is a chasm of belief between the free market true believers and those who believe that government has a valid role to play in lessening the impact of a depression through spending programs. There is really not much of a dialog, it is more like a shouting match.
What is more STIMULATING? Stealing $15,000 from me and letting the Government spend it, or the Government giving it BACK to me, and letting ME spend it?