EconomistMom.com
…because I’m an economist and a mom–that’s why!

EconomistMom.com

Submit Some Sane Sign Slogans!

September 23rd, 2010 . by economistmom

jon_image_rallytorestoresanity

Just watched tonight’s Daily Show with Jon Stewart and hope to post a video clip of it as soon as it’s available–because he made fun of boring economists as well as a**hole policymakers.  (Sometimes it is indeed the other way around, as well.)  But for now I want to get to work on signs for Jon’s “Rally to Restore Sanity” on October 30th.

This CNN.com column by John Avlon repeated some of the slogans Jon Stewart unveiled upon his announcement of the rally:

Among the signs [Jon Stewart] suggested for the rally:

“I disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler”

“9/11 was an outside job”

“Got Competence?”

“I’m not afraid of Muslims, Tea Partiers, Socialists, Immigrants, Gun Owners or Gays … but I am scared of spiders.”

“Take it Down a Notch For America”

Here are a few of my own (Economist Mom) ideas:

“My parents got more goodies from the government, and all I got was this stupid sign to hold (and the bills to pay).”

“I’ll protect my kids over my Social Security benefits.” …and its companion:

“I love my kids more than my tax cuts.”

“Be a Radical: Prioritize.”

“Act Like An Economist: Weigh Costs Against Benefits” (well, of course, that’s pretty boring, so…)

“Be a Good Mom: Pay for Your Own S**t So Your Kids Don’t Have To.”

Please submit your own ideas in your comments!  The Concord Coalition doesn’t have the budget to actually print up signs like these, but who knows?…Maybe you’ll find me sitting along the sidewalk w/ poster boards and paint!  ;)

(Late addition: go here for some funnier ideas gathered by people who are actually humorous for a living–as opposed to just being economists or moms for a living.)

15 Responses to “Submit Some Sane Sign Slogans!”

  1. comment number 1 by: economistmom

    Three more ideas of mine:

    –”An Economy Is a Terrible Thing to Waste”
    –”Have You Checked Your Math Lately?”
    –”Just because I think you’re stupid doesn’t mean you’re not.”

    ..ok, the last one being a sign I’m not likely to actually carry but could give to a few of my a**hole friends.

  2. comment number 2 by: SteveinCH

    Diane,

    Really sorry to see you shilling for Stewart but I’m sure he’s very popular in some quarters.

  3. comment number 3 by: economistmom

    Steve: I’m not “shilling” for Stewart–I’m “shilling” for Sanity! And contrary to the true meaning of “shilling” I am not in “kahoots” (tight) with Jon Stewart, but I wish I were!

  4. comment number 4 by: SteveinCH

    As you like it Diane. It’s your blog. If you think Jon Stewart and Colbert are serious policy guys, you’re certainly entitled to that opinion.

    As to shilling for sanity! Perhaps you are but I’d say it’s more true that you’re shilling for higher taxes. I literally have never seen you post anything specific about reducing the growth rate of spending. The only thing that came close was your posting in support of the ACA; however
    1. The deficit reduction effects of the ACA are negligible.
    2. There’s only deficit reduction at all because there was a tax increase and cost shifting to states and people who pay for their own insurance. So in point of fact, the ACA increased spending by about .5% of GDP from the baseline before it (and that’s assuming the Medicare cuts happen…care to bet on those?)

    Perhaps your calls for sanity would be more credible if there was actually some sense of balance to them.

    Somehow it appears that is it “sane” in your view for spending in constant per capita dollars to go up by more than 50% since the year 2000. That’s a problem that you somehow never seem to want to discuss, at least not in the year or so that I have watched the blog.

  5. comment number 5 by: AMTbuff

    Think it’s bad now? Wait until the Chinese want their money back!

    We’re driving America off a cliff: Can you pass me that joint?

    It’s the spending, stupid

    Face it: We’re screwed no matter who we elect

    Don’t look now, but your government safety net was built by the lowest bidder

    Where is government’s safety net for itself? Hint: It’s not China.

    Got yuan?

  6. comment number 6 by: Gipper

    Don’t expect strangers to pay for your problems.

    Be honest: rob someone at gunpoint instead of voting Democrat.

    Charity begins at home, not at the ballot box.

  7. comment number 7 by: Arne

    Diane does not focus on cutting spending because it is not currently too high (or not much). The real problem is that spending is projected to grow by too much.

  8. comment number 8 by: SteveinCH

    Really, so 24.5% of GDP (higher than at any time since the end of WWII) and $10800 constant 2005 dollars per capita (higher than any time in history) aren’t too high? Well, that pretty much settles it then.

  9. comment number 9 by: Arne

    1994-2000 and 2005-2007 has deficits lower than 3 percent of GDP. Looking at recession level numbers is a BAD way to decide what is sustainable. Higher than historical average is to be expected.

    On the other hand, most of those years were during bubbles, so they may be bad examples of sustainable revenues, so they are likely skewed in the other direction.

  10. comment number 10 by: SteveinCH

    Great, here’s some other numbers to look at from the CBO analysis of the President’s budget.

    2011 25.4%
    2012 23.7%
    2013 23.0%
    2014 23.1%
    2015 23.3%
    2016 23.9%
    2017 24.0%
    2018 24.2%
    2019 24.8%
    2020 25.2%

    But I’m sure it’s not the spending.

  11. comment number 11 by: Arne

    I would discount the first two or three years as still recession level spending, so I see a 2.1 percent increase in spending. Not good. Unsustainable.

    The biggest part of the problem is growth in spending.

  12. comment number 12 by: SteveinCH

    Let’s measure the growth from say 2005. In 2005 (pre recession), spending was 19.6% of GDP or $8359 2005 dollars per cap.

    I’d say the problem is sustaining spending at crazy rates and growing it but again, no discussion about that here.

  13. comment number 13 by: Arne

    Let’s stick with CBO numbers for the comparison, and start by looking at it with interest separated out.
    2005 18.7 1.5
    2006 18.7 1.7
    2007 18.3 1.7
    2008 19.1 1.8
    2013 20.8 2.2
    2014 20.6 2.5
    2015 20.5 2.8

    As we can see we have a big issue in interest costs. Putting the tax rates back to 1990 levels would take care of a bunch of that.

    We also have about a 2 percent rise in non-interest spending over the course of a decade. I am saying that the rate of growth is the biggest part of the problem. Over the past decade (1998-2008)defense has increased 1.0 percent, healthcare has increased 1.0 percent, and SS has decreased by 0.1 percent.

  14. comment number 14 by: Brooks

    Here are sign ideas, some related to fiscal responsibility, some re: hyperpartisanship:

    High Spending, Low Taxes: The REAL Evil Axis
    [feel free to use that quasi-rhyme for a fiscal responsibility rap]

    Handle the truth! Take your medicine! Higher taxes, lower spending.
    [By the way, I have the handlethetruth.org domain if anyone is interested in purchasing and using it for the cause of promoting fiscal responsibility. Email me at brooksbud@aol.com]

    Fiscal Policy: Responsibility first, Preferences second

    “Compromise” is much greater than a four-letter word

    Grow up: You don’t know everything, and you can’t get everything you want.

    A sharp tongue and a dull mind are often found in the same head
    [I didn’t think up that one; it’s a proverb]

    Stop the Partisan-Industrial Complex!

    Be logical: You don’t have to agree with me, but please agree with yourself.

    Dare to listen. (REALLY listen to the “other side”)

  15. comment number 15 by: Brooks

    Occurred to me that one of mine above is better as:

    “Compromise” is bigger than a four-letter word”