jump to navigation

Impeccable Logic September 2, 2010

Posted by Dwight and Lynn Furrow in politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: ,
trackback

One of the main talking points of Republicans in this election year is that the stimulus didn’t work to generate jobs so we have to go back to conservative, supply-side  economics—cutting taxes for the wealthy and eliminating regulations on business.

In fact, Carly Fiorina made this argument in her debate with Senator Boxer on Wednesday.

But this argument makes no sense. Here is Steve Benen’s explanation of why its nonsense—his logic is impeccable.

“…in early 2009 there were basically four main approaches.

(1) Pass a massive, ambitious economic stimulus.

(2) Pass a trimmed down economic stimulus that could overcome a Republican filibuster.

(3) Do nothing.

(4) Pass a five-year spending freeze proposed by confused congressional Republicans at the time.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can safely say that (1) was the best option, but we ended up with (2). The policy was effective and worked as it was intended, but it was too small to generate a robust, sustained recovery.

But let’s be clear about this — the shortcomings of (2) doesn’t discredit (1). That’s actually backwards. For that matter, those who thought (4) was just a terrific idea — i.e., almost every single Republican serving in the United States Congress — aren’t in a position to complain about (2), since (2) was an infinitely superior approach to (3) and (4).

Some folks, at this point, get to say, “I told you so.” Every Republican critic of the stimulus isn’t in this group.

You see. This is not really that hard to figure out.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Paul J. Moloney - September 4, 2010

It may be that rhetoric is the language of politics rather than logic, nonetheless I feel as if I am being victimized by the Republican lack of argument. Also, there is rhetoric that serves a purpose, such as disposing people towards the reasonableness of a proposal, and there is empty rhetoric that has no actual argument behind it. If it were not for the Republicans I probably would have never known the difference.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: