Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

[Naked Gents Rut]

Anyone want to bet that GePap had to look up who Robert Barro was? I'll put down $20...

Sachs argues that there isn't much of a long term plan at work, and I would agree with that - why Congress should have ignored Larry Summers and added more long term cpaital spending on more infrastructure.

Did you even read the piece? His argument is that we don't have a clue how we're going to handle this mountain of debt over the medium-term.

[DaShi]

Anyone want to bet that GePap had to look up who Robert Barro was? I'll put down $20...

You're so obvious, it's sad.

[Naked Gents Rut]

What am I supposed to think when all GePap seems to know about one of the most respected and influential economists in the world is that he is a fellow at the Hoover Institution?

[DaShi]

Do you really think people are that stupid or is this a sign of your own limits? Actually, I'm willing to bet you don't even know what I'm talking about right now.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Do you really think people are that stupid

Obviously. You're not giving me any reason to think otherwise.

[DaShi]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't know. Good.

[DaShi]

Do you really think people are that stupid

Obviously. You're not giving me any reason to think otherwise.

Oh, and it's cute that you thought this was clever.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Well, at least you're admitting that you think I'm cute now. Shouldn't be long before you open up about your raging mancrush on me.

[DaShi]

Sorry, but I know that your heart belongs to another. :yawn: This is boring, though I'm not surprised your enjoy it. It's easy and self-gratifying.

[Victor Galis]

Anyone want to bet that GePap had to look up who Robert Barro was? I'll put down $20...

Sachs argues that there isn't much of a long term plan at work, and I would agree with that - why Congress should have ignored Larry Summers and added more long term cpaital spending on more infrastructure.

Did you even read the piece? His argument is that we don't have a clue how we're going to handle this mountain of debt over the medium-term.

The advantage of being able to borrow in your own currency means you can just print money to pay it back. I'm more scared of the short term economic collapse than the long term ramifications.

[GePap]

What am I supposed to think when all GePap seems to know about one of the most respected and influential economists in the world is that he is a fellow at the Hoover Institution?

Yeah, I had to look him up, because I have no reason to care about him, as I did not study the dismal science.

That I did not know who Barro was doesn't change your track record of being wrong when it comes to the big issues facing the country.

[Impaler[WrG]]

A third of the stimulus are tax cuts. There's a very large FICA tax credit in the legislation. The problem that the Republicans have is that not enough of those tax cuts are going to the rich (which would have very limited stimulative effects).

As much as I believe in progressive taxation and that lower FICA taxes would be a part of that I am under no impression that lower FICA taxes will stimulate the economy as much as spending. Everyone knows that upper class tax cuts are very likely to be saved (thus causing no stimulus), lower class tax cuts are less likely to be saved but in even these times some of it would be saved (in anticipation of future un-employment). But spending on infrastructure is ALWAYS spent by definition and its spent domestically ware as tax-cut money spent on consumer goods will be from over-seas (this is called 'leakage').

[Dinner]

Now people like DanS talk about being proflegate in government spending (while supporting little expenditures like the Iraq War)...cause we all know that those huge Bush tax cuts led us into a golden age of long lasting prosperity.....

I mean, the last thing we should be doing is investing in our future. That is just CRAZY!


The biggest problem with the current stimulus package is that far too much of it continues to be tax cuts, as opposed to direct spending.

I have to agree. Obama made ~40% of the bill tax cuts to encourage Republicans to support the bill and what did it get him? Not a single Republican voted for the bill. The truth is no matter how much he reaches out to them, no matter how much he gives them, not matter how much he tries to work with them the Republicans will always reject him simply because he's not a Republican. Their goal is to simply be obstructionists at this point. It doesn't matter what he proposes they will always be against it because the Republican leadership has decided that being obstructionists and attempting to block everything is their grand strategy. They have no intention of even attempting to solve any of America's problems or offering genuine solutions. They will simply continue to ideologically dogmatic demanding we follow the same failed polices which got us into this mess and rejecting any other idea out of hand.

What we need is to just stop trying to pander to them because they'll never support anything Obama does so why try? Americans have soundly rejected the failed policies of the past and the Republicans can either accept that or take a hike.

[Ramo]

As much as I believe in progressive taxation and that lower FICA taxes would be a part of that I am under no impression that lower FICA taxes will stimulate the economy as much as spending.

That's somewhat dependent on the type of spending that we're talking about, but in general I agree. My point isn't that this is the best policy, but that the Republican objections here are ludicrous. Their problem isn't that there aren't enough tax cuts, but that there aren't enough tax cuts for the rich.

oh, and Ramo, NGR's articles have both been from the Washington Post, not WSJ.

I was referring to the other thread. He quoted a WSJ editorial which very explicitly cited other infrastructure projects (he even posted that part of the piece), an incomplete list I should add..

[Patroklos]

Americans have soundly rejected the failed policies of the past and the Republicans can either accept that or take a hike.

I am pretty sure at this point that Oerdin is a bot.

In any case, don't buy too much into the "it won't be spent until 2010" thing as far as the infrastucture goes. The money may in fact not be spent until then, but bids will be requested regardless. In this day and age large infrustucture projects are not just rushed, there are years of engineering/eviromental/legal reviews that have to happen before hand. But as long as firms know such projects are going to happen and their bids are accepted orders will be placed and workers hired in advance.

The fact remains, however, that if it isn't infrustucture or tax cuts it is not stimulus and should not be in the bill. You Democrats here, if you are as sincere as you pretend about stimulus, should be appalled at your legeslators watering down this bill in any way and especially with obvious pork. All the Republicans are saying is that if you are going to have a stimulus plan, have a damn stimulus plan. Come on, is anyone here going to actually argue that reprograming that 300M from STD prevention to levy repair won't have a greater stimulating effect?