Odd contradiction in your post, V. You assert that the Times editorial was without "substantive reasoning" but then I had provided, whoops, I see a bit more condescension, missed that, I had "tried to provide"
The contradiction, of course, is that my "some" came from the editorial, the notion that the structure of the stimulus bill tried to provide for sequenced economic pops.
As for separating unemployment insurance from the other parts of the stimulus package and, I gather, being in opposition because they are put together, means you've let yourself get caught in the trap of the "perfect as the enemy of the good."
Unemployment insurance is stimulative. Folk spend the money and it goes into the multiplier bit. I've seen arguments, ones which make a lot of sense, that it's more stimulative than tax cuts, some portions of which go into savings.
Tax cuts for the wealthy, which is one of the big items for the House Reps, are certainly far less stimulative than unemployment benefits. |
