Lions, Tigers, and...Tax Cut Snark? Oh My.

Economist Brad DeLong criticizes an economics reporter from ProPublica who claims "his job is looking for 'gotcha' stories about stimulus money going for 'lion cages at the National Zoo.'" In DeLong's comments, I asked:

What's wrong with lion cages at the National Zoo? I like the National Zoo, and someone would be employed by this. Seriously, I don't get it.

(That's not the snark, but it really does make you realize how stupid that reporter is. If you don't believe that a stimulus was necessary, well, you're an idiot, but, regardless, once you do have a stimulus, what's wrong with using it to fix up our zoos--and museums, and parks too? It beats digging up holes and filling them up again, or the slightly more productive activity of building ridiculous amounts of weapons that, in the best case, we never use. Unfortunately, once we do build them, there seems to be the temptation to use them which creates additional problems...).

Anyway, a commenter brings the snark:

If you give the lions cages, they lose all incentive to build the cages themselves. It's just another form of welfare and in the long run you end up with a bunch of lazy lions... Would be far better to cut their taxes.

Heh.

More like this

I think the creationist controversy sheds a lot of light on the conservative movement as a whole. So, in the comments of this post by Brad DeLong that wondered how in the hell anyone still seriously argues on behalf of the Treasury View in economics, I remarked that it reminded me of creationists…
Over the weekend, there was a lot of discussion of those ridiculous conservative faithtank graphs that were rerun in the Wall Street Journal. Several of my fellow ScienceBloglings have debunked the analysis that claims these data support the Laffer curve, although my favorite criticism is by Brad…
Representative Tom Coburn (R-OK) has submitted the following amendment to the stimulus bill: None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available under this act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park…
The ScienceBlogs are abuzz with discussion of how scientists should handle the media. The concern from scientists seems to focus on the fear of being misquoted, and the journalists are responding by pointing out that misquotations are rare, and that when they occur, they rarely are substantive…

Even the Dems who passed the motherfucking stimulus bill saw fit to put in ridiculous shit like, "No stimulus money shall be spent on public swimming pools." Yeah, because the people who build swimming pools suck ass, and anyone who doesn't own their own swimming pool should just suck gutter dust. We live in a motherfucking banana republic, where a vanishingly small number of US citizens own the overwhelmingly vast majority of wealth and live in luxury, while they begrudge everyone else even the most minor and mundane comforts.

I really enjoyed it whenever I came across reactionary bleating about all the "pork" in the stimulus bill. A great amount of it (bleating) courtesy of the comments section at the syracuse post-standard website.

However, my appreciation of the stimulus recently plummeted as I drove through no less than 6 construction zones on I-81 in PA attributing their existence to it :p

Wow, no less than 6 in PA? That's kinda low. I guess the economy really is bad!