Lefty economist: "Porkulus bill failed due to influence of Republicans"!

Will Rogers had a saying; loosely: It's not so much what folks don't know that hurts 'em, it's what they do know that ain't so.

Amen and amen. And as Exhibit #1 I offer a writer for the Fiscal Times--about as Left-wing a rag as you could find this side of Mother Jones.

To put it directly: This guy (Mark Thoma) is either ignorant or a willful shill for the Dems. Take this quote from him:

In the wake of the Great Recession, why has employment been so slow to recover? One answer is that an important but widely unrecognized change in fiscal policy has taken place.

Due largely to the influence of supply-side Republicans and many Democrats who embrace growth policies, policies that were originally intended to stimulate innovation in the private sector were applied to the government sector and infrastructure spending. This change in policy that [emphasizes] growth...has shifted resources and attention away from traditional policies that could have reduced joblessness at a more rapid rate.

Didja get that? Here I'll bet you thought the Democrats--who in 2009 owned the White House and had solid control of both chambers of congress--were solely responsible for every single effin' word in the "stimulus" (a.k.a. "porkulus") bill, right?

After all, the measure didn't get a single republican vote in the House and only 3 in the senate, so apparently the GOP members were hugely against the monstrosity. The Dems rammed it through, so I would think they're responsible for its results, whether effective or wasteful/disastrous.

But according to Thoma, Dems were rolled--hoodwinked! Buffaloed! Tricked! by dem eeeeeebil supply-side Republicans (and some Democrats who embraced growth policies). As a result, says Thoma, "policies that were originally intended to stimulate innovation in the private sector were applied to the government sector and infrastructure spending."

One scarcely knows where to begin attacking ignorance of this caliber.

First, Mark--you ignorant asshole--the Dems had complete, total, 100 percent control of every word in that ridiculous piece of Keynesian crap. You can't possibly seriously believe otherwise. Republicans were unable to win a single amendment to the damn thing.

And had it succeeded, do you seriously expect us to believe you'd have come out with this same critique--"Oh, it would have been SOooo much more effective if congress had just been able to avoid applying stimulus to the government sector and infrastructure spending?

If so, you're an idiot.

Worse, you're a dishonest idiot.

Let's start with the basics: Do you believe Keynes' proposition that the fastest way to get out of a recession is for the government to spend massive amounts of money on public-works projects (i.e. "stimulus")? Let's just assume you do--mainly since if you didn't, you wouldn't have your current job.

So if that's what you believe, where the hell else do you think stimulous money would go other than government?

In other words, Keynes advocated government spending. Got it? Would it help if I sounded the word out for you?

So for you to pop up after the damn thing failed to produce any growth or recovery whatsoever (or are you gonna try that smoke-blowing "millions of jobs created or saved" bullshit?) and say, "Oooh, the problem was that stimulous was applied to government and infrastructure" is as credible as Bawney Fwank claiming--two months into the mortgage meltdown that he helped set in motion--that there were absolutely no problems in the mortgage industry.

Okay, let's look at your remaining defense option: To claim that your critique is NOT that the stimulus was spent on government and infrastructure but that "policies that were originally intended to stimulate innovation in the private sector were applied to the government sector.

If you choose that as your defense, can you give us a single example of a phrase in the vast bill that you consider a "policy intended to stimulate innovation in the private sector"?

Take your time. We'll wait.

Here's the text if you need it:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/html/PLAW-111publ5.htm

Let us know when you're ready to make your case.

Because unlike 30 years ago, people like you can no longer get away with claiming that a law says X when it doesn't.