MacDonald responds to letter
In response to the March 18 letter entitled "Stimulus article has it all wrong"
Chris MacDonald '10
Issue date: 3/25/09 Section: Commentary
Dear Mr. Jacobsen,
I will not immediately suppose that you are so extraordinarily dense as to believe what you wrote last week. I emphasize that mere insolence and what you clearly deem to be wit do not undermine the fact that you are disastrously and embarrassingly wrong.
The total lack of fabrication in my article pales to utter insignificance in light of that fact that your response, lamentably, had little more bearing on reality than your sad belief that mentioning Keynesian economics grants you the credence of an expert. Regrettably, the precepts of supply and demand are discarded when not all the might of the Recovery Act is thrown at ensuring the continued viability of businesses and employment, but rather towards ventures that, while commendable, have little or no economic return.
Lobbing talking points such as the miraculous creation of 3 million jobs, Mr. Jacobsen, is almost as worthless as your foolish assertion that the Obama administration is not alarmist. Alarmism is a sacred tool in politics, and no presidency is fully free from it as an effective and invaluable device in governance. If there is panic, fear, or strife, then there is a leader in the wings waiting to sweep in.
To widen the narrow and clearly shrinking scope of your mind, a 'contraction' is a period of decreased business activity. This is merely the symptom of a greater problem, which should be responsibly and safely treated. What needs to be addressed is the disease-the overall recession. Spending nearly $2 million to research pig odor I can safely say falls under the category of 'thunderously unnecessary' and does nothing to alleviate mounting debt, teetering banks, and collapsing businesses.
Yes, Mr. Jacobsen, I imply that there is something amiss with the middle-class tax cuts when there are broader and grimmer implications to them. Robin Hood economics are dangerous in that they insidiously aim to redefine socioeconomic strata by brutally taxing the wealthy. Financially devastating the upper classes (during a recession or otherwise) in order to balance out the troubles of the lower classes is frighteningly radical. It is, more or less, institutionalised pillaging that has no place in a modern society. Trickle-down economics and supply-side theory were proven to work during Reagan's administration-during, I hasten to add, an economic recession.
To close, I commend your (however misplaced) fervour and hope in the future that you spend a little less time with your thesaurus and a little more time ensuring that whatever is discharged from your pen newly pays tribute to the concepts of accuracy and sense.
I will not immediately suppose that you are so extraordinarily dense as to believe what you wrote last week. I emphasize that mere insolence and what you clearly deem to be wit do not undermine the fact that you are disastrously and embarrassingly wrong.
The total lack of fabrication in my article pales to utter insignificance in light of that fact that your response, lamentably, had little more bearing on reality than your sad belief that mentioning Keynesian economics grants you the credence of an expert. Regrettably, the precepts of supply and demand are discarded when not all the might of the Recovery Act is thrown at ensuring the continued viability of businesses and employment, but rather towards ventures that, while commendable, have little or no economic return.
Lobbing talking points such as the miraculous creation of 3 million jobs, Mr. Jacobsen, is almost as worthless as your foolish assertion that the Obama administration is not alarmist. Alarmism is a sacred tool in politics, and no presidency is fully free from it as an effective and invaluable device in governance. If there is panic, fear, or strife, then there is a leader in the wings waiting to sweep in.
To widen the narrow and clearly shrinking scope of your mind, a 'contraction' is a period of decreased business activity. This is merely the symptom of a greater problem, which should be responsibly and safely treated. What needs to be addressed is the disease-the overall recession. Spending nearly $2 million to research pig odor I can safely say falls under the category of 'thunderously unnecessary' and does nothing to alleviate mounting debt, teetering banks, and collapsing businesses.
Yes, Mr. Jacobsen, I imply that there is something amiss with the middle-class tax cuts when there are broader and grimmer implications to them. Robin Hood economics are dangerous in that they insidiously aim to redefine socioeconomic strata by brutally taxing the wealthy. Financially devastating the upper classes (during a recession or otherwise) in order to balance out the troubles of the lower classes is frighteningly radical. It is, more or less, institutionalised pillaging that has no place in a modern society. Trickle-down economics and supply-side theory were proven to work during Reagan's administration-during, I hasten to add, an economic recession.
To close, I commend your (however misplaced) fervour and hope in the future that you spend a little less time with your thesaurus and a little more time ensuring that whatever is discharged from your pen newly pays tribute to the concepts of accuracy and sense.
Be the first to comment on this story