Actually, it was less the word "twaddle" that seemed to characterize your position on the NYTimes' editorials in general. Rather it was liberal guilt and some trashy word about entitlements. Forget just what that was.
You are obviously entitled to say whatever you wish about the Times' editorials, well, so long as you stay within Dale's guidelines. But if you wish to engage in conversations about political issues it usually helps to bring evidence and arguments. Not just bad adjectives.
As for the Times editorial, its point was to make an argument that the timing of the stimulus elements in the package was well done, at least in the larger picture. A mix of near term stimulus items, further, and then further still.
Prime among the near term stimulus items were unemployment benefits, assistance for health insurance and the like. They were also clearly labeled as ways to help folk having the deepest problems. So these items served dual purposes.
I haven't seen you argue against, for instance, unemployment insurance, just that you thought it didn't belong in a stimulus bill.
I have two problems with that argument. First, it is a stimulus. Money is spent right away. Second, once this round of bills gets completed, it will be very hard to impossible to get relief of this sort through the congress. Better to get it now. |
