GOP offers "No Cost Stimulus"

[Pablo Sanchez]

I just saw David Vitter and some other abscess on Fox News with a heading under them that confused the hell out of me; earlier today the GOP apparently presented something called the "No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009." Obviously Fox was completely useless at telling me anything about the story because their coverage consisted of Hannity asking the two Republicans favorable leading questions. Unfortunately I really haven't been able to find anything on the internet, apart from some bullshit from the likes of the Heritage Foundation. The link basically indicates that this plan amounts to an enormous giveaway to the energy sector, who will then create 2 million jobs and pass the savings on to America, and of course there will be no consequences to slashing regulatory safeguards.

Can anybody tell me more about this? In-depth information and analysis just seems unobtainable. This obviously has no traction and will go nowhere, but I'm very interested in finding out more because it might be the best look into what the current GOP believes about the economic crisis.

[Patrick Degan]

Same supply-side patent medicine with a fancier "new and improved" label.

Still the same old shit, though.

[Teleros]

Most of the stuff I've seen just links to this Heritage Foundation page as well.

[SirNitram]

Governments by underpants gnome.. 'Lossen regulations, ..., profit!'.

[The Spartan]

More trickle down bullshit. Give the energy companies big money and they'll give the little people jobs!

When are we going to stop falling for this bullshit?

[Surlethe]

If it consists of giving energy companies big money, how do they market it as a "no cost" stimulus?

[UCBooties]

If it consists of giving energy companies big money, how do they market it as a "no cost" stimulus?

By gutting other programs to pay for it. Thus, no tax increase, thus, "no cost."

[Pablo Sanchez]

If it consists of giving energy companies big money, how do they market it as a "no cost" stimulus?

This is part of what confused me. I think the gist of it is that you don't give the energy companies actual money, you just reduce the costs they incur from government regulations by simply not regulating them anymore. And there are no consequences to this, environmental or otherwise. Perhaps they also get exploration and drilling rights in various places (ANWR, shale areas, offshore) for free instead of paying the government for them, and the "cost" of these giveaways is pegged at zero with typical fuzzy math dishonesty.

[Darth Wong]

Aren't they accounting for imaginary future gains based on the supposed benefits of these policies when they say it will cost nothing? That's what they've done for the last 30 years. This tune hasn't changed for a long time.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I think they tried this 'lol supply-side, trickle down, voodoo economics' bullshit with the banks. Look what that got us: A big load of Bear Shit.

Call this for what it is: Stealing from the poor and the middle class and giving to the ultra-rich, Mk Whatever The Fuck It Is This Week. Then the fatcats will infamously play their part in this mess by not holding up their end of whatever Machiavellian contract we gave them our money for because they got the government by the balls. In other words, they took the money and didn't hire anyone but each other with it while actually still achieving Zero Productivity. Taking government back for the people will go a long way toward fixing this shit (check, now we just need to hold em on the fire to prove we're serious; a 'Throw The Bums Out' Tea Party in November 2010 could do the trick if necessary). Spanking the bastard CEOs with lots of onerous and innovation- and jobs-inducing regulation while freeing up the Little People by removing the taxpayer-funded boot from our throats will also likely help. A sense of justice restored at the very least couldn't hurt.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If it consists of giving energy companies big money, how do they market it as a "no cost" stimulus?

This is part of what confused me. I think the gist of it is that you don't give the energy companies actual money, you just reduce the costs they incur from government regulations by simply not regulating them anymore. And there are no consequences to this, environmental or otherwise. Perhaps they also get exploration and drilling rights in various places (ANWR, shale areas, offshore) for free instead of paying the government for them, and the "cost" of these giveaways is pegged at zero with typical fuzzy math dishonesty.

Because clearly there is no social value to environment protected by regulation and permit-regulated natural resources for us. None what so ever. That must be why these companies can be convinced to pay for it now. Silly me.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

If it consists of giving energy companies big money, how do they market it as a "no cost" stimulus?

This is part of what confused me. I think the gist of it is that you don't give the energy companies actual money, you just reduce the costs they incur from government regulations by simply not regulating them anymore. And there are no consequences to this, environmental or otherwise. Perhaps they also get exploration and drilling rights in various places (ANWR, shale areas, offshore) for free instead of paying the government for them, and the "cost" of these giveaways is pegged at zero with typical fuzzy math dishonesty.

Because clearly there is no social value to environment protected by regulation and permit-regulated natural resources for us. None what so ever. That must be why these companies can be convinced to pay for it now. Silly me.

On top of that, the companies so deregulated have a very strong incentive to not drop their prices one bit to compensate for lower expenses, so the idea fails on all merits but one: Profit.