Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Nothing to Fear but a Lack of Fear
President Obama's pro-stimulus op-ed piece, which Matt Welch skewered earlier today, displays the panicky, scare-mongering rhetoric we have come to expect from a politician who entered office less than a month ago with a reputation as a calm, cool, and rational weigher of facts:
What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives—action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.
Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse....
Every day, our economy gets sicker—and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now....
These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay.
Unless he has unpublicized psychic abilities, Obama doesn't really know what "Americans expect." He is telling us what we should expect, based on his own highly uncertain economic predictions. "This recession might linger for years," or it might not. "Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs," or possibly a different number. Obama hedges his bets by saying "unemployment will approach"—but not necessarily reach—"double digits." That much will be true if unemployment rises at all. As for sinking deeper into a possibly irreversible crisis, I'm not even sure what that means. The economy will never recover? We'll experience our first 100-year recession?
This is some pretty desperate-sounding speculation. Is Obama afraid the economy will never recover, or that it will start to recover before he can plausibly take credit for it? He says he wants—excuse me, we want—"swift, bold, and wise" action. I'm sure he'll settle for two out of three.
There is now an urgent need to read my swift, bold, and wise column about the stimulus plan.
Gilbert Martin|2.5.09 @ 1:20PM|#
"Is Obama afraid the economy will never recover, or that it will
start to recover before he can plausibly take credit for it?"
That is indeed part of it but the greater desire of Obama and the
rest of the Dems is to use the crisis as a rationalization for
implementing the whole spread of socialist goals they have been
wanting to do for decades.
They have to keep up the scare to reinforce the crisis mindset to
achieve that.
|2.5.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Obama is a politician. Full Stop.
He is just laying the groundwork that if his economic package
should fail to stimulate the economy, it failed because it was not
enacted soon enough, big enough, take-your-pick enough.
|2.5.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Obama hedges his bets by saying "unemployment will
approach"-but not necessarily reach-"double digits."
The Parsin' President strikes again.
You have to weigh every word from this guy. He does, after all, and
you should, too.
Take it from someone else you would be well advised to every word
from.
phalkor |2.5.09 @ 1:22PM|#
that, at some point, we may not be able to
reverse....
I'm sorry, but my understanding of physics leads me to believe that
nothing can be reversed. We must press onward, for good or for
doom.
|2.5.09 @ 1:26PM|#
I'm reminded again of "Yes, Minister": "We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it".
|2.5.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Carpet bomb the Canadians
Maybe if Obama would carpet bomb Mexico, LoneNimrod would suddenly
like him?
|2.5.09 @ 1:41PM|#
at some point, we may not be able to reverse
What does this mean? Complete economic collapse. Not only will
money become worthless, we will be unable to think the concept of
it anymore.
Indeed, we will lose the concept of numbers, as well, struggling to
get by making sense of the world by the mere relative size of
things.
Until, The Blindness strikes. We will pathetically crawl the earth,
groping and moaning -- our language having devolved until we only
have noises to express our pain and frustration.
Bats the size of beach umbrellas will swoop down and steal our
starving babies. At night, the carnivorous mammoths come...
This, this is what the believers in the so-called "free market"
want. Don't let them steal our Hope and Change(tm).
Neu Mejican|2.5.09 @ 1:44PM|#
action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb
out of this crisis.
IF we read this as "swift enough," "bold enough," and "wise enough"
then I think he is saying that Americans expect (i.e., desire, NOT,
"predict") the government to provide an effective response to the
crisis that takes the parameter of time into account.
I don't think any special psychic powers are required to make a
statement like this and feel assured it is the truth.
I, personally, chuckled when I heard the "never recover" part.
Kinda works against RC Dean's hypothesis that every word is
carefully chosen.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Never voted for Obama in the first place/Screeds/"That's Not
Change I Can Believe In"
Look, folks, it's not hard. You can't be disillusioned if you were
never, uh, "illusioned" in the first place.
economist|2.5.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"Maybe if Obama would carpet bomb Mexico, LoneNimrod would
suddenly like him?"
Sounds right. Actually, LoneWhackOff would probably start thinking
of him whenever he, well...
|2.5.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Unemployment will approach double digits.
OMG, 9% unemployment! We'll become like... like.... FRANCE!!!
Naga Sadow|2.5.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Tremble puny commentators before the unveiling of LoneWacko! Chris . . . Kelly . . . I repeat Chris Kelly. Everyone should refer to LoneWacko as . . . Chris Kelly. That is all.
Underzog|2.5.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Is there nothing to fear but slanted and/or distorted
news?
When will Reason Hit and Run report on the U.N. admitting that
Israel did not hit than UNWRA school in Gaza?
Will Reason's Hit and Run report on the media smears against Israel
or just continually join the jackals?
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 1:59PM|#
This is nothing more than the fruit of an affirmative action
president.
He's not qualified. He lacks the requisite experience. The world
community is slapping the shit out of him. But hey, we need more
presidents of color and right now, Obama is the best we can come up
with.
A year from now, he'll be long gone.
kinnath|2.5.09 @ 2:05PM|#
The stimulus bill is everything I hated about the Clinton
adminstration -- it's one long collection of targeted gifts to
various consituent groups (heavily slanted towards demographics
supporting the democratic party).
Fuck Obama and the Democratic Party!
Neu Mejican|2.5.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Civil Discourse,
I am not sure what your "long gone" is meant to indicate.
Are you predicting impeachment?
Assassination?
Resignation?
How bad would Obama have to screw up to make his incompetence look
worse than what we've had for the past 8 years.
I mean, come on, the Bush administration couldn't even get the
switch to Digital TV to work smoothly.
Jeffrey L.|2.5.09 @ 2:22PM|#
God damn you Underzog! You fuckin' asshole! Everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Israel and Gaza? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Israel and Gaza? What the fuck are you talking about?
|2.5.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Civil Discourse,
I am not sure what your "long gone" is meant to indicate.
Me neither, even Jimmy Carter managed to serve a full term.
And he had the Democratic Congress working against him at every
turn.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Neu - "civil discourse" is, if I'm not mistaken, an alternate handle of the white power guy. So probably.
Paul|2.5.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Is Obama afraid the economy will never recover, or that it will start to recover before he can plausibly take credit for it?
Kind of. What the government is afraid of is that it will
recover before they can really sink their hooks into our economy.
That's what they're afraid of.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 2:30PM|#
"I am not sure what your "long gone" is meant to indicate.
Are you predicting impeachment?
Assassination?
Resignation?"
Scenarios 1 or 3, 3 being the most likely.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 2:31PM|#
""civil discourse" is, if I'm not mistaken, an alternate handle
of the white power guy"
You are mistaken.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Okay, different white power guy then. Don't generally hear the phrase "affirmative action president" outside of Stormfront or the deep south.
sage|2.5.09 @ 2:38PM|#
Geez, he does need to leave soon. He should get a job at the
circus...as a CLOWN.
I'm talking about you, civil discourse.
|2.5.09 @ 2:42PM|#
On a list that I subscribe to that's littered with bleeting
liberals, the list owner, no dummy, complained that, and I quote
"(I) likened tax cuts to spreading money around randomly, with no
purpose."
Yes, this is the wisdom of Obamanauts. This is what we are up
against: intractable stupidity from well-educated people. Only the
gubmint can spend your money wisely and non-randomly. Allowing
people to spend money as they see fit is dangerous and must be
stopped. It's certainly no basis for a sustainable economy.
zoltan|2.5.09 @ 2:44PM|#
A Democratic Congress couldn't even get BUSH impeached for all his bullshit. I seriously doubt anything will happen to Obama--and the day a politican these days has the balls and integrity to resign is a real day of hope and change.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 2:47PM|#
"Don't generally hear the phrase "affirmative action president"
outside of Stormfront or the deep south."
Northern Liberal. Registered Democrat I voted for Hillary
Clinton.
Look, Obama's simply not qualified. He proves that the media is the
message. If he has demonstrated anything consistently since the
inaugural, it's that he is totally in over his head. And it's just
going to get worse.
Appeasing Iran
Nominating tax cheats for higher office
Alienating the press
An uneeded trillion dollar "stimulus" package
I've seen what happens to people who are promoted because of
corporate diversity needs as opposed to their ability and
experience. They tend to fail big.
|2.5.09 @ 2:48PM|#
I, personally, chuckled when I heard the "never recover"
part. Kinda works against RC Dean's hypothesis that every word is
carefully chosen.
I might agree with you, but I suspect that this part of Obama is
laying the groundwork for dodging blame if the recession drags
on.
Richard M. Nixon|2.5.09 @ 2:49PM|#
"and the day a politican these days has the balls and integrity
to resign is a real day of hope and change."
Thanks!
zoltan|2.5.09 @ 2:49PM|#
Oh yes, Hillary "I got by on the coattails of my husband"
Clinton would have been a fantastic president. I'm sure she would
have had nothing to do with rewarding any generous corporate
sponsors. As if the stimulus package wouldn't have gotten by on her
watch. Not to mention an unnecessary nationalized health care
system.
(SLD: I voted for Barr.)
zoltan|2.5.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Mr. Nixon, I respect your integrity to resign. It's all because of Goldwater, I know, but really, you should have done some time too. What's knowing you did something very wrong without getting punished for it?
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Civil - You're a "northern liberal" who uses the phrase "appeasing Iran." No. It's obvious that whoever you really are, you don't feel like admitting it.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 2:55PM|#
"Oh yes, Hillary "I got by on the coattails of my husband"
"
Hillary was a second term US Senator from New York who did more
over the last 8 years than vote "present". Obama is Lonesome Rhodes
made flesh.
|2.5.09 @ 2:55PM|#
I've seen what happens to people who are promoted because of
corporate diversity needs as opposed to their ability and
experience.
Except that Obama won a primary and the presidential election. No
one "promoted" him except the voters. Now, I'm not saying they made
a good choice ("the only winning move is not to play"), but nobody
did some PC promotion with Obama.
|2.5.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Republicans cried wolf a lot. The bad thing is, at the end of
the story, the wolf actually comes.
You may not feel it in trust-fund libertarian land, but jobs are
disappearing and we're really in for something bad. Even George W.
Bush became a socialist in the end to try to save the
economy.
Obama has a fine line to walk. Scaring people only hurts the
economy because it depresses confidence. But not telling the urgent
truth means necessary action might not happen since action depends
on weak-kneed congressmen afraid for their reelections.
zoltan|2.5.09 @ 2:58PM|#
H. Clinton was lucky her husband was president first, rather than her father. Poor, unlucky Caroline Kennedy. Of course, her votes for expanding war operations and entitlement spending are somehow better than just voting present. It's for the children though, even the ugly ones.
zoltan|2.5.09 @ 3:00PM|#
You may not feel it in trust-fund libertarian
land
Is this a joke? I made less than $20000 this year. That still
doesn't entitle me to anyone's trust fund. The "urgent truth" is
that massive government spending hurts the economy, just as massive
consumer spending on credit was hurting the economy for the last
decade.
|2.5.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Heh, PUMA tears are almost as yummy as neocon tears.
MAX HATS | February 5, 2009, 2:53pm | #
Civil - You're a "northern liberal" who uses the phrase "appeasing
Iran." No. It's obvious that whoever you really are, you don't feel
like admitting it.
The term "fake PUMA" is redundant.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 3:01PM|#
"Civil - You're a "northern liberal" who uses the phrase
"appeasing Iran." No. It's obvious that whoever you really are, you
don't feel like admitting it."
That's silly. Have fun neatly boxing up the populace!
zoltan|2.5.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Those middle-aged women keep boxing up themselves better than anyone else ever could.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 3:05PM|#
I'll have fun boxing up the populace as soon as I figure out what that means.
|2.5.09 @ 3:05PM|#
The same people who spent the first eight months of 2008 telling
me that people who thought we were in a recession were
"scaremongering" are using that word again.
Cue Kevin Bacon: "All is well! All is well!"
|2.5.09 @ 3:06PM|#
As for sinking deeper into a possibly irreversible crisis,
I'm not even sure what that means.
I have no idea what The Chosen One meant when he said it. But I
wouldn't rule out total global economic collapse, all currency to
zero, all cities in flames, end of civilization, out of the
question. Because when it comes to recovery, WE R DO'N IT RONG
CBO|2.5.09 @ 3:08PM|#
"CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce
GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would
have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd
Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on
Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/
But if we don't do it, we will never recover.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 3:10PM|#
"I'll have fun boxing up the populace as soon as I figure out
what that means."
Good luck with that.
|2.5.09 @ 3:13PM|#
No one denys that there is a recession. But there is no evidence
that this monstrosity will do any good. Further, the bill increases
baseline non-defense spending from $380 billion to over $700
billion a year. That means that is it no a "targeted, timely and
temporary" bill that Larry Summners is claiming it is.
If it is such a great idea, why is the administration lying about
it and why are they so concerned about getting Republican votes?
Just pass the thing without them or make the Republicans
fillabuster it and tell the American people how those evil
Republicans stopped Obama from saving them. Majorities with good
ideas don't have to negotiate. It is only when majorities are
fucking and want to make sure they can avoid blame that they worry
about negotiating.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 3:17PM|#
And speaking of Fear Mongering:
Steven Chu, our new Secretary of Energy, tries to spook the
public:
"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what
could happen," he said. "We're looking at a scenario where there's
no more agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't
actually see how they can keep their cities going" either.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Fun Fact:
Northern liberal Hillary Clinton supports are often skeptical of
global warming.
|2.5.09 @ 3:20PM|#
There really is no evidence the bill will solve the crisis. It's
really just a crapshoot experiment in Keynesianism. But what we
don't need is more dishonesty, such as saying that government
spending doesn't create jobs or economic growth.
Obama wanted Republican votes to share the burden of blame,
obviously. Republicans' best political option is to vote no. Their
constituents prefer it, and they get to say I told you so if the
economy continues to tank.
However pathetic it is that Republicans care more about reelection
than their country; however disheartening that Republicans actually
might be hoping that the country continues to slide into the abyss
for their own selfish political purposes, it's certainly not
surprising. And they are entitled to believe it won't work. But
their rants against it come with so much dishonesty that the only
plausible explanation is naked politics.
|2.5.09 @ 3:23PM|#
John | February 5, 2009, 3:13pm | #
No one denys that there is a recession....anymore. They used
to. They also seem to have given up on denying that this is "the
worse economy since the Great Depression," which used to be the
standard for "scare-mongering." I'm betting it will be less than
six months before they give on denying this an economic catastrophe
altogether.
But there is no evidence that this monstrosity will do any
good. Then argue against the plan. Pretending the economy
isn't that bad, whining when people say it is, is just
idiotic.
BTW, job losses jumped from over 500,000 per month to over 600,000
per month.
"Tis but a scratch."
"A scratch? Your arm's off!"
"No it isn't."
"Look!"
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 3:24PM|#
"Uncivil Discourse | February 5, 2009, 3:17pm | #
I'm a lifelong member of the Democrat Party! I swear!"
"MAX HATS | February 5, 2009, 3:19pm | #
Fun Fact:
Northern liberal Hillary Clinton supports are often skeptical of
global warming."
Great ad hominum.
But that doesn't change the fact that Obama is not qualified to be
president.
In fact, in none of your responses do I see anything that firmly
supports your implied contention that he is.
All you can say is I'm a white southern racist and Hillary sucks.
Oh, and so do her supporters. Pretty weak.
|2.5.09 @ 3:25PM|#
Majorities with good ideas don't have to
negotiate.
Says the Republican, in between bouts of blaming the Democrats for
not being bipartisan enough.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 3:26PM|#
I'm not contending anything except that you are not what you represent yourself as.
|2.5.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Kicking Hillary Clinton's ass when she had the whole party machinery behind her, and then getting her to join your cabinet, seems like pretty good evidence that one is up for the job to me.
|2.5.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Obama may not be an empty suit, but he's done nothing to disprove it yet. Yet another tax cheating nominee today, who also took lobbying money as a member of the House. Not to mention the stimulas disaster in the making. Doubtful he'll be out before 2012, but it's extremely doubtful voters will make the same mistake twice.
|2.5.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Joe,
Take it up with the CBO above. They are saying the plan won't do
any good and in the long run will hurt the economy. Further, lets
look at the plan
1. $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
2. $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and
Children program
3. $300 million for grants to combat violence against women
4. $2 billion for federal child care block grants
5. $6 billion for university building projects
6. $15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
7. $4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion to
provide "youth" summer jobs for people up to the age of 24
8. $1 billion for community development block grants
9. $4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities"
10. $650 million for digital TV coupons, including $90 million to
educate "vulnerable populations"
POORLY DESIGNED TAX RELIEF:
11. $15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
12. $145 billion for "Making Work Pay" tax credits
13. $83 billion for the earned income credit
STIMULUS FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
14. $150 million for the Smithsonian
15. $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce
headquarters
16. $500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes
of Health facilities
17. $44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture
headquarters
18. $350 million for Agriculture Department computers
19. $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new
building next year
20. $448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security
Department headquarters
21. $600 million to convert federal auto fleet to hybrids
22. $450 million for National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
23. $600 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
24. $1 billion for the Census Bureau
INCOME TRANSFERS:
25. $89 billion for Medicaid
26. $30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
27. $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
28. $20 billion for food stamps
PURE PORK:
29. $4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
30. $850 million for Amtrak
31. $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
32. $1.7 billion for the National Park System
33. $55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
34. $7.6 billion for "rural community advancement programs"
35. $150 million for agricultural commodity purchases
36. $150 million for "producers of livestock, honeybees, and
farm-raised fish"
RENEWABLE WASTE:
37. $2 billion for renewable energy research
38. $2 billion for a "clean-coal" power plant in Illinois
39. $6.2 billion shall be for the Weatherization Assistance
Program
40. $3.5 billion shall be for energy efficiency and conservation
block grants
41. $3.4 billion shall be for the State Energy Program
42. $200 million shall be for state and local electric-transport
projects
43. $300 million shall be for energy-efficient appliance rebate
programs
44. $400 million for hybrid cars for state and local
governments
45. $1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
46. $1.5 billion for green technology loan guarantees
47. $8 billion for innovative technology loan guarantee
program
48. $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
49. $4.5 billion for electricity grid
REWARDING STATE IRRESPONSIBILITY:
50. $79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
If you want to defend that pile of crap go right ahead. But there
is a reason why it gets less popular every day. It is because the
longer it is around, the more the marks get wise to what a joke it
is. That is why Obama is panicing and talking so much shit. The
longer this goes on, the more people will realize how bad it
is.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 3:28PM|#
They are saying the plan won't do any good
If you can produce a CBO report that says the plan won't do any
good, I will be very, very surprised.
|2.5.09 @ 3:30PM|#
Tony, I contend that the party that nominated the good looking, inexperienced twit in a time of crisis just to gain power is the party putting politics ahead of country.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 3:30PM|#
"I'm not contending anything except that you are not what you
represent yourself as."
Baseless self-comforting drivel.
|2.5.09 @ 3:34PM|#
James Ard,
I was a Hillary supporter in the beginning and very skeptical of
Obama, but I'll take any Democrat over any Republican first. And
second, I'll take a magna cum laude Harvard graduate who was able
to get himself elected president despite his relative inexperience
in politics over another plutocratic moron like Bush or McCain any
day.
|2.5.09 @ 3:34PM|#
"If you can produce a CBO report that says the plan won't do any
good, I will be very, very surprised."
Unless the Washington Times is making it up, prepare to be very
very surprised.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 3:37PM|#
"Kicking Hillary Clinton's ass when she had the whole party
machinery behind her, and then getting her to join your cabinet,
seems like pretty good evidence that one is up for the job to
me."
In the primaries, he disparaged Hillary's positions. Then in the
general election, he adopted them.
|2.5.09 @ 3:37PM|#
John,
They are saying the plan won't do any good and in the long run
will hurt the economy. No, they're not. They're saying the
bill will promote growth in the short term, at a cost over the
longer term.
Why can't Johnny read?
ChrisO|2.5.09 @ 3:37PM|#
I'm getting a distinct whiff of "national malaise" from the Obama administration. That approach worked so well the first time it was tried...
|2.5.09 @ 3:38PM|#
But there is a reason why it gets less popular every
day.
Oh, don't you worry. Obama stopped letting the Republicans
monopolize the press today.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that the opponents keep saying
"getting less popular," but never provide figures, or say it is
unpopular?
Gee, why do you think that might be?
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 3:38PM|#
from the second paragraph:
BO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the
House and Senate bills will help in the short term but
result in so much government debt that within a few years they
would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower
Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the
government had done nothing.
Harmful over the long haul does not mean it will do no good. The
idea behind the stimulus is balancing short term gain with long
term drag.
|2.5.09 @ 3:41PM|#
"They are saying the plan won't do any good and in the long run
will hurt the economy. No, they're not. They're saying the bill
will promote growth in the short term, at a cost over the longer
term."
Oh so that makes it a good idea? Joe you always start throwing out
insults when you know you are wrong.
If you are so concerned about the effects of the current economy
fine, why not just expand unemployment insurance and help to those
who are being hurt by the downturn? You could do that for 1/4 of
the price and not any of the long term effects? Oh I know because
that wouldn't allow Democrats to steal as much and might actually
help someone who is not politically connected.
Cue Joe for a personal insulting rant directed at me.
|2.5.09 @ 3:42PM|#
In the primaries, he disparaged Hillary's positions. Then in
the general election, he adopted them.
And Karl Rove said John McCain fathered a black child out of
wedlock. Politicians try to win. Anyone who can beat the Clintons
gives me hope that he can beat the Republican noise machine and
actually accomplish something for this country.
|2.5.09 @ 3:42PM|#
John realizes his entire thesis is shot. He just plumb got the
story wrong. Does this change his opinion or argument in the
slightest?
What do you think?
|2.5.09 @ 3:43PM|#
BTW, has anyone else noticed that the opponents keep saying
"getting less popular," but never provide figures, or say it is
unpopular?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37
Support for Stimulus Package Falls to 37%
shove it up your ass Joe.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 3:43PM|#
If you are so concerned about the effects of the current economy fine, why not just expand unemployment insurance and help to those who are being hurt by the downturn? You could do that for 1/4 of the price and not any of the long term effects?
John, you put that very proposal in your list of "waste" in the
stimulus bill.
27. $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
|2.5.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Joe you always start throwing out insults when you know you are
wrong. ..The CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said
the House and Senate bills will help in the short term
There I go, being wrong again.
Come on, John, just admit it. You got the story wrong, and now
you're whining at me for being a mean person.
Ha ha. Why would I discuss economic policy with someone who's too
slow to read the Washington times, and too dishonest to admit that
he's wrong?
|2.5.09 @ 3:45PM|#
"John realizes his entire thesis is shot. He just plumb got the
story wrong. Does this change his opinion or argument in the
slightest?"
What are you tallking about? Spending hundreds of billions of
dollars on things that won't directly affect the economy or
incentives to produce or even help out those out of work is a
terrible idea. The bill as it stands is completely indefensible. It
is not even a Keynesian stimulus. It is just the Congress and
interest groups using the recession to loot the treasury. Even the
CBO admits that it will be harmful in the long run. What exactly
are the bills merits beyond, Obama told you to like it?
|2.5.09 @ 3:46PM|#
"27. $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits"
Fine, keep that and get rid of the rest.
|2.5.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Nice cherry-pick, John. Reminds me of when you got so hot under
the collar about that single Zogby poll last August. Will you never
learn?
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
|2.5.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Joe,
If you print a trillion dollars and drop it out of airplanes, that
would in the short term stimulate the economy. It would, however be
an incredibly bad idea. There are any number of ways to stimulate
the economy in the short run that do not involve the long term debt
and hit to the economy that this bill does.
You prove on here over and over that you are utterly incapbable of
thinking for yourself or criticizing Democrats. Of course you think
it is a good idea. There is nothing Democrats have ever done that
you wouldn't. You are endorsing trading away the government's long
term credit worthiness and growth potential of the economy for a
short term theft scheme for Democratic interests. I would call you
immoral, but frankly you don't know enough to be immoral.
Immorality implies a choice and clearly when it comes to supporting
whatever the Dems want to do, you don't have much of a choice.
|2.5.09 @ 3:50PM|#
John, you put that very proposal in your list of "waste" in
the stimulus bill.
OOF! This is like when the crowd at a boxing match goes silent for
a moment, after a really stiff right connects.
What are you tallking about?
I'm talking about this, Einstein:
John | February 5, 2009, 3:27pm | #
Joe,
Take it up with the CBO above. They are saying the plan won't do
any good
followed by:
MAX HATS | February 5, 2009, 3:38pm | #
from the second paragraph:
BO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and
Senate bills will help in the short term
Thanks for the opportunity to write that again. Awesome.
Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on things that won't
directly affect the economy... YOUR OWN LINK, the one you
thought backed you up, the one written by the Moonie Times, SAYS
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
Stop the fight, ref!
|2.5.09 @ 3:52PM|#
BDB,
I don't know who pays attention to Zogby, But Rasmussen is
generally well respected and the ones who are reporting on the
falling support for the national debt aquisition and future
geneneration theft bill.
|2.5.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Who in their right mind EVER gets excited about a Zogby
poll?
Well, see, you go and put conditions on it like that...
You prove on here over and over that you are utterly incapbable
of thinking for yourself or criticizing Democrats. Wah wah
wah, joe is teh mean partisan.
Get back to me when you learn to read.
BDB|2.5.09 @ 3:53PM|#
You're right, Rasmussen is good. They generally got the election right (maybe a tad bit Republican leaning but not much).
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 3:54PM|#
"They're saying the bill will promote growth in the short term,
at a cost over the longer term.
Why can't Johnny read?"
Perhaps he can.
Thus spake Obama:
"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term
spending--it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and
opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and
education."
|2.5.09 @ 3:55PM|#
Again Joe, you could throw money out of airplanes and "stimulate". Further, whatever "stimulation" short term the bill achieved could be achieved at a much lower cost over the long hall. Why on earth support a bill that is bad in the long run? Stop being a jackass and at least try to have a serious conversation rather than act like a four year old. There other people who would like to post on here I am sure and your ravings and my poking you get awfully old.
BDB|2.5.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"joe | February 5, 2009, 3:53pm | #
Gallup has it 50-37 in favor. Gallup did a lot better than
Rasmussen this cycle."
Actually, they didn't. The final Gallup poll had Obama +11. He
didn't even come close to that. Their silly "cell phone effect"
formula padded it for the Dems.
Look:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
The final Rasmussen was O + 6, almost right on the nose.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Fine, keep that and get rid of the rest.
Considering, you might want to read through the rest. Many didn't
seem wasteful to me at all. Granted, I'm a liberal, but many of
those listed were infrastructure improvements, which I thought had
bipartisan support. And if you are okay with the extension of
unemployment, why would you have a problem with assisting COBRA or
Food Stamps?
BDB|2.5.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Liberals tend to slam Rasmussen cause its the official pollster of Fox News and their founder is an evangelical conservative, but they're good with their numbers regardless.
|2.5.09 @ 3:58PM|#
If the bill were anything but unpopular it would have been passed already. It is wildly unpopular with everyone but interests groups. That is why the Senate's nuts are in a vice. If they pass it, they look like shit. If they don't, they have to answer to the interest groups who put them in office. Their only way out is to buy off some Republicans and call the mess "bi-partisian".
|2.5.09 @ 4:00PM|#
"And if you are okay with the extension of unemployment, why
would you have a problem with assisting COBRA or Food
Stamps?"
I wouldn't. But you could do that for a few hundred Billion if
that. I would not object to a plan that had real incentive creating
tax cuts and real money to help people who are affected by the
downturn and that was temporary and not a perminent raise in
spending. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is throwing
money at infrastructure programs that won't turn a shovel of earth
for years and money at every interest group's pet projects and
worse still raising the baseline of spending perminently.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 4:02PM|#
I wouldn't.
But those were also on your list.
26. $30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
27. $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
28. $20 billion for food stamps
What I am getting at is, I don't think that list is very good, and
I don't think you read through it.
|2.5.09 @ 4:04PM|#
True Max, they were. I would say two things. The debate is about whether the bill will stimulate the economy. While those measures are humane and admirable, they really won't do much to stimulate the economy. They are basically like dropping money from airplanes. Second, those increases are perminent not temporary. That is one of the biggest problems with this bill. It is not a temperory emergency measure. It is a perminant rise in spending.
|2.5.09 @ 4:04PM|#
I'm sorry, that's 52-37 in favor.
Is it safe to say that the anti-recovery people have decided to
completely change the subject, and are no longer discussing the
President's description of the economy as "scare-mongering?"
Civil Discourse,
"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term
spending--it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and
opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and
education." The CBO doesn't use "dynamic scoring" that takes
into account the consequences of policy changes, beyond fiscal
policy, on the economy.
John | February 5, 2009, 3:55pm | #
Again Joe, you could throw money out of airplanes and
"stimulate". If this is such an obvious point, why were you
insisting on the opposite above?
Why on earth support a bill that is bad in the long run?
Because it won't be bad in the long run. The CBO is just looking
purely at fiscal effects.
Stop being a jackass... I'm sorry, who was it that decided
to introduce the concept of ass-shoving-up on to the thread?
Grist|2.5.09 @ 4:05PM|#
"Stop the fight, ref!"
Why is it a fight to you, Joe. Really, what is wrong with you? Why
are you so confrontational. What are you afraid of?
|2.5.09 @ 4:09PM|#
BDB,
I'm sure that Rasmussen will, as if by magic, get their "final"
numbers to be close on this, too. As they always do, as if by
magic. A closer comparison would be to look at their tracking
during the campaign, which turned out to be considerably more
favorable to McCain.
If the bill were anything but unpopular it would have been
passed already. It was taken up by the Senate yesterday. Good
Lord, do you know anything about this topic beyond what you wish to
be true?
That is why the Senate's nuts are in a vice. Actually,
Obama and Reid are pushing for a vote tomorrow. They seem to think
they have the votes.
What doesn't make sense is throwing money at infrastructure
programs that won't turn a shovel of earth for years and money at
every interest group's pet projects and worse still raising the
baseline of spending perminently. They could have done a
better job making some of the infrastructure funding more
immediate, I'll grant you that. I'd like to see a bunch of it moved
from capital projects to operations.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 4:10PM|#
While those measures are humane and admirable, they really won't do much to stimulate the economy.
Are you saying people don't spend money from unemployment, or that
they don't spend food stamps? The idea is that all money that gets
thrown put into someones hands or gets assigned to a project goes
into the economy.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 4:11PM|#
"Nice quote civil discourse."
Well, given that I am a bigoted, southern white supremist posing as
a northern Liberal (because a Liberal coud never utter the words
"appease Iran") you might want to consider retracting your
approbation.
|2.5.09 @ 4:11PM|#
John | February 5, 2009, 3:50pm | #
Joe,
If you print a trillion dollars and drop it out of airplanes, that
would in the short term stimulate the economy...
John | February 5, 2009, 4:04pm | #
True Max, they were. I would say two things. The debate is about
whether the bill will stimulate the economy. While those measures
are humane and admirable, they really won't do much to stimulate
the economy. They are basically like dropping money from
airplanes.
So...which is it?
(Psst - you were right the first time. Airplane money, or
smart-bomb money like COBRA and unemployment insurance, stimulate
purchasing by people who wouldn't have any money to spend.)
|2.5.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Grist,
Why, exactly, is "Stop the fight, ref?" worthy of your illustrious
attention, but "Shove it up your ass, joe," beneath your
notice?
Actually, don't answer. I don't really care.
BDB|2.5.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Joe--
I won't deny they have a Republican lean, they do, but not an
outrageous one.
Re: the final numbers thing, they're a bit guilty in that
department too but only by a little bit (1-2 points).
That stupid Investor Business Daily poll is WAY more guilty of both
those things. Remember how they're always accurate in the end, but
had McCain only down by 1 at Halloween? Then all of a sudden, a day
before the election, Obama +5! Lol.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 4:13PM|#
Civil discourse:
I would love to hear why you preferred Hillary Clinton over John
McCain.
|2.5.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Man, there's gotta be a better measure than "better than the IBD
poll."
Anyway, I'd say this is more like a mid-race poll than a final
poll.
|2.5.09 @ 4:17PM|#
Max,
They do, but it is of limited long term value to the economy.
Handing out money is not going to get the economy going. If it did,
we wouldn't be in the shape we are in now. But, more importantly,
doing those things is only a small part of the stimulus bill. As I
said, if you want to spend a hundred billion in a temporary measure
helping the unemployed and a few hundred billion cutting marginal
tax rates, you have my vote. It is spending $800 billion on a
perminent basis that I have an objeciton to.
Joe,
Since civil discourse and Max and BDB are here, there is really no
reason for you to be. Let the big kids talk now and go find
something else to do.
Grist|2.5.09 @ 4:18PM|#
"Why, exactly, is "Stop the fight, ref?" worthy of your
illustrious attention, but "Shove it up your ass, joe," beneath
your notice?"
Because John's remarks like that are rare. Yours, ever
present.
"Actually, don't answer. I don't really care."
Great preemption! Too bad it didn't work.
BDB|2.5.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Well, Obama has done a piss poor job at selling it so far. The Republicans have dominated the narrative, very unlike the campaign which is not what I expected.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Here is the thing: the list you posted is considered the most objectionable stuff in the bill, and already you've conceded many of those (the worst of the worst provisions) are actually good ideas. I'm curious where all these hundreds of billions of terrible waste are, and why I'm not seeing email forwards about that, rather than items like "2 billion on clean coal power plant" that I would figure most people would be for.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 4:20PM|#
joe,
Airplane money, or smart-bomb money like COBRA and unemployment
insurance, stimulate purchasing by people who wouldn't have any
money to spend.
Well, many and probably most would actually have money to spend;
either from their savings, from charity, etc. Indeed, because so
much of that goes on in the economy a lot of the people who gets
funds that way are likely to try to firm up their balance by paying
down debt. So before you could make such a claim you'd have to take
these facts into consideration.
_______________________________________
During the 1960s and 1970s a lot of nations tried to jump start
their economies by massive amounts of government spending. Those
experiments failed, and failed badly. Government spending has
proven to be a failed policy in the development of an economy, and
that should tell us something about its power to "rescue" an
economy.
BDB|2.5.09 @ 4:21PM|#
He could get the Republicans to go along with some TRUE infrastructure spending. But as long as crap like the National Endowment for the Arts, "community development" (whatever that means) and NASA (really, NASA?) are in there, this bill is crap and will not pass.
BDB|2.5.09 @ 4:22PM|#
"rather than items like "2 billion on clean coal power plant"
that I would figure most people would be for."
I thought liberals didn't believe in clean coal? Or is that just a
sop to Appalachian Dems?
BDB|2.5.09 @ 4:23PM|#
"During the 1960s and 1970s a lot of nations tried to jump start
their economies by massive amounts of government spending. Those
experiments failed, and failed badly."
Don't forget Japan in the 90s, Seward. They have debt approaching
100% of their GDP and precious little to show for it today.
MAX HATS|2.5.09 @ 4:23PM|#
Environmentalists are against it, but I don't think anyone has a ready made alternative to coal.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 4:24PM|#
"I would love to hear why you preferred Hillary Clinton over
John McCain."
McCain is a doddering idiot. That whole "I am suspending my
campaign" thing was the epitome of stupid. Same with 'Bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..." And if I had a penny for every time he
said "My friends..." I could cover the cost of the stimulus package
all on my own. And still have plenty left for hookers and
booze.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Max Hats,
Are there a bunch of very precisely defined recipients in the
spending that is proposed? I suspect that there are. If so, that is
where you will most likely find the pork. By definition spending on
such projects is suspect because it is where the bootleggers like
to hang out; where public choice theory is most keen in its
insights.
|2.5.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Remember how they're always accurate in the end, but had
McCain only down by 1 at Halloween? Then all of a sudden, a day
before the election, Obama +5! Lol.
How can you remember all of this stuff?
Since civil discourse and Max and BDB are here, there is really
no reason for you to be. Let the big kids talk now and go find
something else to do. You started with me, punk. Second
thoughts?
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 4:28PM|#
"I'm curious where all these hundreds of billions of terrible
waste are"
Right here:
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/
BDB|2.5.09 @ 4:29PM|#
"How can you remember all of this stuff?"
I didn't, I checked the RCP poll archive, and the IBD number was so
ridiculous I remembered all the screaming from Republicans over
it.
Mrs. Zobgy|2.5.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Who in their right mind EVER gets excited about a Zogby
poll?
[raises hand]
|2.5.09 @ 4:31PM|#
BDB | February 5, 2009, 4:19pm | #
Well, Obama has done a piss poor job at selling it so far. The
Republicans have dominated the narrative, very unlike the campaign
which is not what I expected.
I agree, though I think today is going to mark a turning point.
He's actually making an effort to sell it, with interviews and
speeches, which he inexplicably failed to do so far. I'll just note
that the people opposed to the stimulus are motivated to decry how
terrible and unfair he's being.
Seward,
Well, many and probably most would actually have money to
spend; either from their savings, from charity, etc. Indeed,
because so much of that goes on in the economy a lot of the people
who gets funds that way are likely to try to firm up their balance
by paying down debt. Actually, the research on this indicates
otherwise. The more targeted money is towards lower income people,
the more likely they are to spend it. The more targeted towards
upper income people, the more likely they are to save or invest
it.
During the 1960s and 1970s a lot of nations tried to jump start
their economies by massive amounts of government spending. Those
experiments failed, and failed badly. Government spending has
proven to be a failed policy in the development of an economy, and
that should tell us something about its power to "rescue" an
economy. Does not follow. Spending as a long-term economic
development strategy is a different beast from spending as a
short-term stimulus effort.
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 4:32PM|#
If you guys could do me a big favor and pop on over to this project
and cast votes against it, I would appreciate it. (Note: it's
130mil for 150(!) jobs!)
Anyway, that site is irritating me because a bunch of the "most
critical projects" just happen to be in Cincinnati, which is highly
suspicious.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 4:32PM|#
From http://www.stimuluswatch.org/ (page 1):
$375,000,000 for a Las Vegas Performing Arts Center - Construct a
new Performing Arts Center within the City's Union Park
Development. Las Vegas NV $375,000,000
|2.5.09 @ 4:34PM|#
BDB,
Obama has been pro-"clean coal" since the primaries. Whether he
adopted this position as a sop to Appalachia or not, it's not
something he's doing to get this bill passed.
Grist | February 5, 2009, 4:30pm | #
"You started with me, punk. Second thoughts?"
Geeze! What an a-hole!
LOL, I was actually told to shove something up my ass, and nothing.
I am told to shut up and let the adults talk, and nothing. But THIS
- my goodness, this cannot be allowed to stand!
Grist funny. Me likey.
|2.5.09 @ 4:36PM|#
$375,000,000 for a Las Vegas Performing Arts Center -
Construct a new Performing Arts Center within the City's Union Park
Development. Las Vegas NV $375,000,000
Construction is one of the most effective stimulatory strategies -
it takes a lot of labor to build things.
You're not even trying to argue that the proposals aren't stimulus
anymore.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 4:36PM|#
"which he inexplicably failed to do so far"
No, it's easy to explain. America has elected its first affirmative
action president. He is not qualified. He lacks the requisite
leadership skills. Never had 'em, never will.
|2.5.09 @ 4:36PM|#
Its all in the emphasis:
BO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House
and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much
government debt that within a few years they would crowd out
private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross
Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had
done nothing.
Dunno about you, but I read that to mean "more harm than good."
Seward|2.5.09 @ 4:38PM|#
joe,
Actually, the research on this indicates otherwise.
What research?
Spending as a long-term economic development
strategy...
Actually, the spending was supposed to provide a short-term boost
that would lift these economies out of their doldrums. The
literature on the subject is rather clear on that matter;
centralized planning was meant to spur quick take offs in the
private sector.
...is a different beast from spending as a short-term stimulus
effort.
Actually it does follow. There is no such thing as short-term
government spending. Government spending over time beats the rate
of inflation and constantly expands. This is true
trans-nationally.
Kolohe|2.5.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Obama has been pro-"clean coal" since the primaries. Whether
he adopted this position as a sop to Appalachia or not,
He did it as a sop to downstate Illinois coal; it's a position he's
had IIRC, since running for the US Senate.
Obama didn't do very much pandering to appalachia, which was
probably wise, as he was politically obliterated there every stage
of the process.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 4:41PM|#
"Construction is one of the most effective stimulatory
strategies - it takes a lot of labor to build things.
You're not even trying to argue that the proposals aren't stimulus
anymore."
Right, because Vegas needs yet another performance venue.
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Construction is one of the most effective stimulatory
strategies - it takes a lot of labor to build things.
Wouldn't the most effective stimulus be to hand out gift cards?
Seriously, you have to spend them at a particular store, so you
cannot save them. Hand out gift cards with an expiration date
within 90 days.
Cash is stimulatory; everything else is just busywork.
Kolohe|2.5.09 @ 4:44PM|#
$375,000,000 for a Las Vegas Performing Arts Center -
Construct a new Performing Arts Center within the City's Union Park
Development. Las Vegas NV $375,000,000
Construction is one of the most effective stimulatory strategies -
it takes a lot of labor to build things.
You're not even trying to argue that the proposals aren't stimulus
anymore.
Because god knows there aren't enough places in Vegas to see a
show.
The Nevada economy is addicted to construction; this ain't even
giving them methadone, this is giving them more smack.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 4:44PM|#
joe,
Let me get this straight; Las Vegas needs another venue when fewer
people are venturing to Las Vegas to gamble, etc. And the taxpayers
need to pay for it no less.
I guess in one that sounds stimulative, in other it is rather a
waste of resources.
|2.5.09 @ 4:46PM|#
If you think about it, Obama's just continuing the policies of
the Bush administration.
Lower taxes and spend more while funnelling money borrowed from
China to your supporters.
The only difference is that instead of Halliburton, the money is
going to labor unions and "green energy" companies.
BDB|2.5.09 @ 4:47PM|#
"Green" snake oil will be the next bubble.
In 2019 people will make jokes about plug-in hybrids and wind farms
the way we joke about Pets.com now.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 4:48PM|#
joe,
I would note that you would get roughly the same "stimulative
effect" - I'll call it waste - if one were have a lot of people
move to the coast, have them build nice homes and then paid some of
them to dig sand off the beach and paid others take that sand and
put it back on the beach.
Civil Discourse|2.5.09 @ 4:49PM|#
The Angry Optimist, Kolohe, and Seward
And that was just on page one!
Again, here is the link (it's simply amazing!):
From http://www.stimuluswatch.org/
|2.5.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Joe is actually a young boy around middle school age. I don't
know why he won't admit it, because it's nothing to be ashamed of
and he's a damned smart twelve or thirteen year old - downright
precocious, in fact. I wish more young people shared his passion
for politics and world affairs. He's obviously read a great deal
and his parents are probably very involved in his education.
Grown men, of course, don't say things like "Heh, PUMA tears are
almost as yummy as neocon tears", nor do they think anyone's
impressed by a guy who acts like online political debate is some
kind of cage fighting event.
I am concerned, though, with the amount of time joe spends online.
It can't be good for his grades.
sage|2.5.09 @ 4:50PM|#
Let me get this straight; Las Vegas needs another venue when
fewer people are venturing to Las Vegas to gamble, etc. And the
taxpayers need to pay for it no less.
Seward beat me to it. Vegas is on the decline. But more generally,
this is in the same category as taxpayer-funded sports arenas; team
owners don't want to pay for the construction themselves because
they tend to lose value. And why pick up the tab when you can have
the taxpayer take care of it?
justahunch|2.5.09 @ 4:51PM|#
BDB | February 5, 2009, 4:19pm | #
Well, Obama has done a piss poor job at selling it so far. The
Republicans have dominated the narrative, very unlike the campaign
which is not what I expected.
Great PR guys make lousy executives? Pretty much axiomatic. Even
Clinton was lousy at it for most of his first term, improved
immensely once the trouble makers in his own party were dispensed
with in the 94 elections. Obama may be adaptive enough to grow.
We'll see.
|2.5.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Seward,
Have you ever noticed that you make a lot of unsupported, general,
conceptual points, and then demand citations whenever anyone else
does so?
Anyway, a little googling for "multiplier effect" would take you
where you want to go.
The literature on the subject is rather clear on that matter;
centralized planning was meant to spur quick take offs in the
private sector. Now you're talking about central planning?
Because a minute ago, you were talking about spending.
There is no such thing as short-term government spending.
Government spending over time beats the rate of inflation and
constantly expands. This is true trans-nationally. And another
shift of the goal-posts, from talking about the effects of
short-term spending to insisting that it doesn't exist.
Grist|2.5.09 @ 4:55PM|#
"I don't know why he won't admit it, because it's nothing to be
ashamed of and he's a damned smart twelve or thirteen year old -
downright precocious"
I think fifteen is more like it. And for fifteen, not so smart.
|2.5.09 @ 4:56PM|#
Civil Discourse, Seward,
Are you aware the "Is it stimulus?" and "Is this construction
project needed?" are two different questions? Like I said, you
aren't even trying to argue that it's not stimulatory
anymore.
Wouldn't the most effective stimulus be to hand out gift
cards? Yes. In this case, however, there is an effort being
made to get something in return for the money spent, as opposed to
"digging holes and filling them in."
Concern Stubby is concerned. Yawn. Still, good to see such interest
in talking about me. Economic policy is so dull!
|2.5.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Grist | February 5, 2009, 4:55pm | #
"I don't know why he won't admit it, because it's nothing to be
ashamed of and he's a damned smart twelve or thirteen year old -
downright precocious"
I think fifteen is more like it. And for fifteen, not so
smart.
This, of course, is someone who ventured onto the thread for the
purpose of saying how objectionable he finds personal
insults.
Still, at least he's talking about me. We all know how important it
is to talk about me.
|2.5.09 @ 4:58PM|#
BDB | February 5, 2009, 4:57pm | #
I swear joe has the largest hatedom of any blog commentator I've
ever seen.
Yankees fans used to boo the shit out of Ted Williams.
But not Denny Doyle.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 5:07PM|#
joe,
Have you ever noticed that you make a lot of unsupported,
general, conceptual points, and then demand citations whenever
anyone else does so?
No, but I have noticed this behavior from you. Oh, and when asked
for a citation I more than readily give it.
Anyway, a little googling for "multiplier effect" would take
you where you want to go.
A little searching for it will tell you that the record of the
stimulative effects of such spending mixed and there is significant
disagreement within the field of economics over what is and is not
proper stimulus, whether there is any net stimulus, etc.
Now you're talking about central planning? Because a minute
ago, you were talking about spending.
Centralized planning is exactly what Keynesian stimulus spending
is. Now it isn't as totalistic as what was done in the Soviet Union
with five year plans and the like, but that is what it is. We will
spend money here, here and here, and this will "create" this many
jobs here, here and here. It is also as backward looking as
centralized planning always is; just like Keynes was trying to
create the "perfect" world prior to WWI (that is nearly a direct
quote I must add) so the current stimulus package is trying to
re-create the economic world prior to 2006.
And another shift of the goal-posts, from talking about the
effects of short-term spending to insisting that it doesn't
exist.
Well, I never claimed that it was something that did exist; so I am
not quite sure where I shifted the goal posts. Indeed, I've been
rather consistent in my claim that short term spending leads to
long term spending because short term spending creates vested
interests who wield political power. So if I shifted any goal posts
it must happened prior to this coversation.
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 5:07PM|#
joe, I have to admit that your detractors got you on the "Vegas
not needing another performance platform" thing.
Gift cards! The TAO stimulus plan.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 5:09PM|#
joe,
Are you aware the "Is it stimulus?" and "Is this construction
project needed?" are two different questions?
Actually, they seem to be two sides of the same coin to me.
Fundamentally make work projects can't possibly be stimulative for
fundamentally sound economic reasons that ought to be rather
obvious.
Kolohe|2.5.09 @ 5:11PM|#
When analysis shows that infrastructure spending has an increased multiplier effect, it normally presuposes that the bulk of it is in stuff like transportation and utlities (either building new stuff or making existing stuff better). Building a structure in a location where there are many structures of the same type would give the stimulus of military spending - not zero (more precisely, not < 1.0), but not the best either.
|2.5.09 @ 5:12PM|#
No, but I have noticed this behavior from you. You seem
to have me confused with someone else. I very rarely ask for
citations.
A little searching for it will tell you that the record of the
stimulative effects of such spending mixed and there is significant
disagreement within the field of economics over what is and is not
proper stimulus, whether there is any net stimulus, etc. So,
you DON'T actually want to know about how construction stacks up
against other forms of spending in its stimulatory effect. OK, then
don't ask me about it.
Centralized planning is exactly what Keynesian stimulus
spending is. Not necessarily. A big tax holiday can be used as
Keynesian stimulus. Spending on purely public projects, like
repairing roads, too. Neither of those can be fairly characterized
as "central planning" as the term is commonly used.
just like Keynes was trying to create the "perfect" world prior
to WWI (that is nearly a direct quote I must add) so the current
stimulus package is trying to re-create the economic world prior to
2006. I don't think that's true. There would be much more
devoted to propping up housing prices, for example.
Gilbert Martin|2.5.09 @ 5:14PM|#
Who cares whether the CBO says the plan will stimulate the
economy or not?
There are no more of an expert on the validity of Keynesian
economic theory than Krugman - which is to say not at all.
Every dollar the government spends is a dollar it has taxed,
borrowed or inflated away from someone else. The government
spending or "investng" (as the politicians like to call it) it on
something doesn't do anything more than if it had alternativly been
spent or invested by whoever had it before the government yanked it
out of his hand.
|2.5.09 @ 5:14PM|#
TAO,
joe, I have to admit that your detractors got you on the "Vegas
not needing another performance platform" thing. Why? I never
wrote anything one way or the other about the subject of whether
Vegas needed another performance arena; I just noted that
construction is, in fact, stimulatory. But if you say so.
Seward,
Actually, they seem to be two sides of the same coin to me.
Fundamentally make work projects can't possibly be stimulative for
fundamentally sound economic reasons that ought to be rather
obvious. Wow. Just for shits and giggles, would you mind
giving me the definition of "stimulus" as you understand it?
|2.5.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Yeah! The CBO doesn't know any more about economics than the
winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics.
You tell 'em, Gil!
Gilbert Martin|2.5.09 @ 5:17PM|#
The people who hand out Nobel Prizes don't know anything about it either.
Fresno Bob|2.5.09 @ 5:28PM|#
Check this
out.
Talk about inflation!!
Stimulus of any size or strategy = preemtive FAIL.
|2.5.09 @ 5:28PM|#
From http://www.stimuluswatch.org/ (page 1):
$375,000,000 for a Las Vegas Performing Arts Center - Construct a
new Performing Arts Center within the City's Union Park
Development. Las Vegas NV $375,000,000
I actually happen to know a bit about that project, being that my
old boss in the management there. According to what he has told me,
a majority of the center is already paid for by a private
foundation and private giving. The city is donating a sizable chunk
with infrastructure and there is a taxi tax dedicated to the
project.
SLD: I don't agree with the the tax and city funding, but in no way
is this $375 million coming from the Feds unless something has
changed in the past few weeks.
|2.5.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Wouldn't the most effective stimulus be to hand out gift
cards? Seriously, you have to spend them at a particular store, so
you cannot save them. Hand out gift cards with an expiration date
within 90 days.
Cash is stimulatory; everything else is just busywork.
Yeah because getting Americans to buy more Chinese products will do
wonders for our economy.
Not at all like that "busywork" of repairing a crumbling
infrastructure and bringing the country into the 21st century.
Might as well ask workers to doodle all day long.
Of course you obviously favor neither idea, otherwise having a
libertarian defend government handouts over fair pay for honest,
useful work would be silly.
Cryochamber #9|2.5.09 @ 5:35PM|#
I knew Ted Williams. I worked for Ted Williams. I kept Ted
Williams' head cool.
And you, sir, are no Ted Williams.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 5:36PM|#
joe,
So, you DON'T actually want to know about how construction
stacks up against other forms of spending in its stimulatory
effect. OK, then don't ask me about it.
Actually, I was curious what you'd bring to the table on the
matter; because there isn't a clear consensus on the matter. That
is the point I was going to get to.
Not necessarily. A big tax holiday can be used as Keynesian
stimulus.
That is still a form of planning. Indeed, such efforts, while not
effective, are always justified with the X number of jobs they're
supposed to produce, etc. Furthermore, in the real world, a tax
holiday will always come with all manner of loopholes, caveats,
etc. just like the current tax system, trying to nudge the economy
this or that way. You see these sorts of things in state sales tax
holidays, BTW. So a real world tax holiday is pretty clearly a form
of centralized planning.
Spending on purely public projects, like repairing roads,
too.
Public projects like that actually one of the purer forms of
centralized planning actually; indeed, that's part of the reason
why cities, counties and states bid for such stuff - so they can
"plan" where the growth will be, etc.
I don't think that's true. There would be much more devoted to
propping up housing prices, for example.
What, two trillion wasn't enough? Gee, how much has the Fed tried
to keep housing prices from sliding over the past two years? How
much have we tried to save commercial banks which should have been
orderly liquidated? Indeed, how much rhetoric do we hear about
keeping people in their homes, etc.? Indeed, that the TARP was
applied to the auto companies in order to save them illustrates how
backward looking this process is.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 5:40PM|#
joe,
Wow. Just for shits and giggles, would you mind giving me the
definition of "stimulus" as you understand it?
Well, at base, I'm just a freshwater sort of guy.
|2.5.09 @ 5:40PM|#
From the Smith Center web page (LV Performing Arts
Center):
Our private funding campaign was launched by the Donald W.
Reynolds Foundation with a landmark gift of $50 million in 2005, in
honor of their chairman, Fred W. Smith, and his wife, Mary. Since
then, The Reynolds Foundation has continued their generosity,
pledging an additional $100 million challenge grant. This gift is
the largest philanthropic donation in state history, and combined
with their initial contribution, makes for the second largest
donation to the performing arts in the United States.
Considerable groundwork has already been laid with unique public
and private partnerships. The City of Las Vegas has provided the
land, infrastructure, and parking for the facility. In addition,
the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and State Legislature
collaborated on a car rental fee which will result in a bond of at
least $125 million.
BTW, it's a $475,000,000 project.
http://www.lvpacfoundation.org/fact.php
Fresno Bob|2.5.09 @ 5:42PM|#
Regarding the link above. That level of debt cannot possibly be
paid off. EVER.
Never the less, that geen line IS coming back down towards earth.
$1 trillion stimulus is a purely symbolic "we're doing something"
gesture. It's like trying to stop an oncoming freight train by
shooting spitballs at it. FAIL.
|2.5.09 @ 5:46PM|#
Considering, you might want to read through the rest. Many
didn't seem wasteful to me at all.
Then they should be considered and voted on separately, on their
own merits, and do just fine.
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 5:47PM|#
Yeah because getting Americans to buy more Chinese products
will do wonders for our economy.
Do you have a problem with Chinese people, Tony? Are you some kind
of bigot?
Yes, I am being serious.
bringing the country into the 21st century.
If America ain't in the 21st century, no nation is
in the 21st century, Chumly.
Of course you obviously favor neither idea, otherwise having a
libertarian defend government handouts over fair pay for honest,
useful work would be silly.
Yo, Tony, T-dizzle, dawg, listen up: If you (and the American
people) want an infrastructure bill, write a
fucking infrastructure bill. Infrastructure does
not belong in a stimulus bill, for many
reasons.
I'm coming up with the most effective way to stimulate the
economy...you know, 'cause that's what we're talking about?
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 5:48PM|#
Why? I never wrote anything one way or the other about the
subject of whether Vegas needed another performance arena; I just
noted that construction is, in fact, stimulatory. But if you say
so.
You said that by responding to someone's point that said project
was a waste!
joe, you could try just admitting that you acted like you were
*defending* that particular project, or you can just admit that you
made a non-sequitur in the hopes of attracting attention.
your choice, cholly.
|2.5.09 @ 6:08PM|#
"Green" snake oil will be the next bubble.
In 2019 people will make jokes about plug-in hybrids and wind farms
the way we joke about Pets.com now.
Possibly. But it won't be private investors cause that would
require venture capitalists to actually believe it could make
money.
We might be talking about government-run windfarms like Superfund
though. Giant expensive publicly funded boondoggles.
|2.5.09 @ 6:11PM|#
I'd like to repeat my suggestion that we traverse the country in
the Good Year blimp, dumping out cash over populated areas.
That would be stimulatory too.
Why bother with the whole make-work part? Wouldn't people be better
off spending their time educating themselves or working on
something else?
MNG|2.5.09 @ 6:28PM|#
"Do you have a problem with Chinese people, Tony? Are you some
kind of bigot?"
If I want to see my fellow Americans do better more than I want to
see Chinese folks do better, does that make me a bigot?
How about if I root for the American Olympic team against the
Chinese Olympic team? Bigot?
And yes, I'm serious.
Fresno Bob|2.5.09 @ 6:30PM|#
I'd like to repeat my suggestion that we traverse the
country in the Good Year blimp, dumping out cash over populated
areas.
It's helicopters, man. Helicopters, not blimps. Sheesh,
get with the program.
MNG|2.5.09 @ 6:30PM|#
When Eisenhower built the interstate system, didn't that have a positive effect on the U.S. economy.
|2.5.09 @ 6:37PM|#
It's helicopters, man. Helicopters, not blimps. Sheesh, get
with the program.
I'm torn. Blimps just convey "fat and bloated" so much more
clearly. But on the one hand, helicopters have that whole aura of
national emergency war and disaster about them.
Quick, men! We have to get these bags of cash to Minneapolis by
sundown, or there will be food riots and cannibalism!
Fresno Bob|2.5.09 @ 6:48PM|#
Blimps just convey "fat and bloated" so much more
clearly
This is an excellent point that I had not considered. Plus, Ben
"Blimp" Bernanke has a nice little ring to it. Not quite as snappy
as "Helicopter" Ben, though.
MNG|2.5.09 @ 7:11PM|#
Shouldn't it be black helicopters with UN insignia? They dump money but take YOUR GUNS!
Ham\'n\'SwissBagFritos|2.5.09 @ 7:25PM|#
The Angry Optimist | February 5, 2009, 5:47pm | #
Yeah because getting Americans to buy more Chinese products will do
wonders for our economy.
Do you have a problem with Chinese people, Tony? Are you some kind
of bigot?
Yes, I am being serious.
To which
MNG | February 5, 2009, 6:28pm | #
"Do you have a problem with Chinese people, Tony? Are you some kind
of bigot?"
If I want to see my fellow Americans do better more than I want to
see Chinese folks do better, does that make me a bigot?
How about if I root for the American Olympic team against the
Chinese Olympic team? Bigot?
And yes, I'm serious.
MNG responds.
So, are you Tony? Doubling our pleasure are you?
Minneapolitan|2.5.09 @ 7:25PM|#
"Quick, men! We have to get these bags of cash to Minneapolis by
sundown, or there will be food riots and cannibalism!"
Food riots maybe, but cannibalism? No way. The city is lousy with
rabbit, squirrel, deer.
But in any case, by all means please bring the bags of cash.
MNG|2.5.09 @ 7:33PM|#
Nope, I just wondered what in Tony's original comments was
supposed to elicit the charge of "bigot".
I've had many discussions on H&R where folks tell me that there
is no such thing as a "national resources" there is just the
resources on my land, and your land, and that other guy's land,
etc. That for me to want "America" to retain many of "its" natural
resources, even though I do not own them, is crazy. During
immigration debates I'm often told that borders are just "lines on
maps" and that there is no such thing as "American" culture and
such. And I've heard this kind of thing about how, you know, the
Chinese worker has to eat just like the American worker, so why
support the former versus the latter. And so I'm curious as to how
libertarians see "America" and how they feel about it...
Lee Burt Aryan|2.5.09 @ 7:37PM|#
"And so I'm curious as to how libertarians see "America" and how
they feel about it..."
It's a land with too many Joe-like citizens. Way too many.
Kolohe|2.5.09 @ 7:49PM|#
maybe taking this outta context a little but:
"there is no such thing as "American" culture and such."
first, this is a strawman. What is being said is there's no point
*defending* American culture, because, like all cultures, it's in a
constant state of flux. Furthermore, being among the most syncretic
in nature of world cultures - in fact, syncretism being a defining
characteristic of American culture - 'standing athwart history' (as
a culture warrior) is actually antithetical to what American
culture is supposed to be about.
cunnivore|2.5.09 @ 7:52PM|#
I'd like to repeat my suggestion that we traverse the
country in the Good Year blimp, dumping out cash over populated
areas.
Meh, I'd prefer it to be dropped from the Ron Paul Blimp, if only
for the crushing irony.
Ham\'n\'SwissBagFritos|2.5.09 @ 7:53PM|#
the Chinese worker has to eat just like the American worker,
so why support the former versus the latter. And so I'm curious as
to how libertarians see "America" and how they feel about
it...
Thankfully, Smith and Ricardo were closer to the mark than Hobbes
and Malthus. The Chinese and American workers are not eating at the
expense of the other person.
MNG|2.5.09 @ 8:15PM|#
Not necessarily Kolohe. I'm not sure that someone can't admit that syncretism is the nature of American culture (even though I would argue that is overblown: until quite recently American culture was pretty dominated by WASP institutions) and still be able to choose some point among the changing culture and say "let's freeze right here, it's nice right as it is, thank you." It's like when you were a kid and you would make a "super-drink" out of various fountain drinks, a little Pepsi, a little Root beer, a little Mountain Dew, but wait, that's enough, no Mr. Pibb, you have to stop somewhere...
Neu Mejican|2.5.09 @ 8:31PM|#
(even though I would argue that is overblown: until quite
recently American culture was pretty dominated by WASP
institutions)
I would argue that your view of how dominant WASP institutions were
is overblown...
I would argue, that is, but I am gonna go eat dinner
instead.
|2.5.09 @ 8:53PM|#
Why does Baracky keep calling this a "stimulus" bill? NPR says this too. Anyone else remember the "so-called surge"? You would if you listened to NPR. Just between you and me I think they're a little marxist over there at the NPR.
Kolohe|2.5.09 @ 9:39PM|#
WASP institutions have dominated American *politics*.
American *culture* is practically defined by the way it deviates
from WASPyness. (From the first Thanksgiving to rock-n-roll)
And I totally understand the point of view of 'this mix is the
correct one'. It's the standard Buchanan/Derbyshire
paleoconservative one. I understand it, but disagree with it,
because they are making a mistake on the same axis, but in the
opposite direction, as the multicuturalists who are against the
'melting pot' paradigm.
economist|2.5.09 @ 10:03PM|#
"Not at all like that 'busywork' of repairing a crumbling
infrastructure and bringing the country into the 21st century.
Might as well ask workers to doodle all day long."
I'm all in favor of repairing infrastructure. That's actually
something I support. What pisses me off is all the riders inserted
into the bill, and the fact that even the actual infrastructure
budget is motivated more by politics than by a sober and reasoned
assessment of the costs and benefits, to the economy in the long
term, of specific projects.
|2.5.09 @ 10:28PM|#
HAHAHAHA
You have GOT to be kidding if you are complaining that Obama is
using fear tactics. Especially if you are republican.
WHAT??????
You f-ing republicans followed practically EVERY tactic of Joseph
Goebbels:
You burned down the Reichstag (Twin Towers) and blamed the
communists (Muslims) to seize power...
You crushed your citizens with the "Patriot" Act and spied on EVERY
CITIZEN as we know know....
You tortured countless innocent people and murdered thousands or
millions....
You envoked fear EVERYWHERE and screamed boogie man every chance
you got for false b--sh-t based nonsense.
You destroyed our economy and took TRILLIONS.
And now you are calling Obama a fear monger as he tries to pick up
the pieces of the disaster you created?????
If I had my way, I'd hang every single member of the Bush
Administration by Hitler's piano wire nooses. Good thing we live in
a Democracy with Obama at the helm.
How DARE you, republicans who are accusing Obama of fear tactics.
YOU really are a threat to our nation more than every force on the
planet and by the Grace of the Constitution you shall be allowed to
continue to live freely. But.... we are onto you and laws are being
passed to keep your crap from happening again. I'd suggest you move
to an iceberg somewhere and watch it slowly melt with the global
warming you deny and laugh about. Have a nice day.
|2.6.09 @ 12:33AM|#
Actually the 100 year recession is exactly what he's promising. He's sending out signal - via the far left - that without this massive "stimulus" (aka wholesale socialist reworking of the entire economy) we will essentially *never* recover from this recession. He, and his MSM allies, have basically staked their reputation on that. So if the bill doesn't pass, and the economy recovers on its own (as it always does, when private enterprise is left alone) then basically the whole Ivy League Socialist program is discredited. Da Stakes Is High Yo!
|2.6.09 @ 12:34AM|#
The comments of "Raaa" above says it all. There you have it Reason readers. A representative of the Obama constituency. Now do you get it?
|2.6.09 @ 12:53AM|#
RAA: "You burned down the Reichstag (Twin Towers) and blamed the
communists (Muslims) to seize power..."
This is why we can't take the left seriously. First you have the
nutjobs who spout stuff like this, then you have the ones who egg
them on, then you have the rest of the left who simply let it slide
because as foul as these cretins are, they're on their side.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245