Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

[Felch]

I wasn't too concerned when it appeared like we were going to be doing a modest amount of infrastructure stuff.

Building a road is generally a good thing. It's something that people do even when they're not being forced to by other circumstances. Roads make travel easier, connect communities, and provide all sorts of economic benefits. Also they're a reasonable domain of government in general. Building them during a recession is wise timing on the part of the government, since it means that they can build those roads cheaper than they otherwise would. Going beyond that is dangerous territory. Unfortunately, America is full of retards who think only in terms of Republican vs. Democrat, and never even consider supporting a real alternative party. So we're stuck with Dems, instead of getting the Libertarian leadership we desperately need.

[Arrian]

a plan that would create 6.2 million new jobs by the end of 2010, according to a methodology used by President Obama’s own nominee as Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Dr. Christina Romer and one that wouldn't cost as much.

http://republicanleader.house.gov/Ne...umentID=109688

And of course I've read those who explain that the above (that they used the same methodology and it produces 6.2 million jobs) is bull**** spin. Since I can't do the calculations myself, WTF do I do with that info?

Btw, was it or was it not a 100% tax cut plan?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Some more fair criticisms of the bill, IMO:

both chambers included a tax credit for first-time home buyers, a classic hair-of-the-dog solution to a crisis with roots in an artificially inflated housing market; it wouldn't provide stimulus and it wouldn't point the country in a new direction. Similarly, as the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center pointed out, the Senate's $70 billion patch to the alternative minimum tax is "neither timely nor targeted," and "makes no sense as economic stimulus."

*snip*

There ought to be even more money for mass transit, which reduces energy use, increases the competitiveness of metropolitan areas and helps working families, as well as freight rail, which has even greater environmental and economic advantages. Expanded unemployment benefits and food stamps will be excellent stimulus-and they're also desperately needed right now. Retrofitting federal buildings to use less energy will provide jobs now-and reduce federal energy costs in the future.

...there's talk of further subsidizing home mortgages that are already tax-deductible, as if the federal government hasn't done enough to encourage home ownership (and in the process, it can be argued, helped lay the foundation for the current crisis).

*snip*

There's $30 billion for highways, funneled through state transportation departments that love to build unsustainable sprawl roads to nowhere. There's $4.5 billion for the Army Corps, which loves to build water projects that destroy wetlands and induce development in vulnerable floodplains. There's $14 billion for school modernization, $2 billion for rural business loans, $8.4 billion in "state and tribal assistance grants" — and who can say how it will all be spent?

Well, Congress can say. For example, Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman inserted language into the House version limiting energy grants to states that give their utilities incentives to promote energy efficiency. If the federal government is going to spend the money, it ought to promote federal priorities. And Congress could make sure the money is spent productively-and isn't spent counter-productively-by attaching just a few general strings to its stimulus dollars. For instance, there should be "fix-it-first" provisions to prioritize repairs to highways, levees and other infrastructure over new construction, which would create more jobs while reducing future federal obligations. We do need to rescue states to prevent them from raising taxes and firing workers, but just as it was crazy to let bailed-out banks and automakers spend our money however they pleased, it's just as crazy to give carte blanche to bailed-out states...

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Link?

[Arrian]

By the way, Felch...

What Libertarian leader would ever pursue a federal stimulus plan of any kind, including "building roads?" Is there such a thing as a Keynesian Libertarian? It seems to me that a Libertarian leader who actually managed to get elected to high office would, in order to be true to principle, have to immediately set about deconstructing large portions of the Federal government.

What am I missing here? You support infrastructure spending, but think Libertarians are the answer?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Link?

Apologies. It's TIME:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1876535,00.html

I snipped out stuff that complains about Republicans complaining.

-Arrian

[Naked Gents Rut]

There shouldn't be more money in the stimulus for mass transit outside of buses. There's no way in hell that we can build new rail lines quickly enough to actually have a stimulus effect.

[Arrian]

How about repair work on existing mass transit?

-Arrian

[Naked Gents Rut]

I doubt you can allocate any great amount of money to mass transit repairs that are needed but aren't already being carried out, but if you can find some and get them done in the next year, have at it.

[Felch]

By the way, Felch...

What Libertarian leader would ever pursue a federal stimulus plan of any kind, including "building roads?" Is there such a thing as a Keynesian Libertarian? It seems to me that a Libertarian leader who actually managed to get elected to high office would, in order to be true to principle, have to immediately set about deconstructing large portions of the Federal government.

What am I missing here? You support infrastructure spending, but think Libertarians are the answer?

-Arrian

I hate waiting in traffic.

Also I explained why a libertarian government would use the downturn to invest in roads. Lower costs. We're not against legitimate government services, just the stupid Republican wars, and the Care Bear economics of the Democrats.

Libertarianism, like the right-left dichotomy, is a range. Some people who lack all sense of proportion want to do away with all government and have private corporations run everything. They're free to hold that opinion, but please don't assume that they speak for me. I want a government that stays out of my business and just keeps things humming along in the background. Build roads during economic slumps because it's cheaper, not because economic stimulus is a legitimate goal. Provide law enforcement to guarantee contracts and catch violent criminals, not to bust people for smoking weed or driving fast.

Why not take this opportunity to demolish a large part of the government? Reduce military spending, do away with the DEA and ATF, and let the lower income Americans keep more of what they earn. I want to see tax cuts, but I think that you can do more help for more people by targeting them at the lower income brackets. Would you support eliminating the income tax for the working poor (<$50,000)?

[Arrian]

Btw, I should have noted that I'm not against the idea of ripping out portions of the government (I'm with you on the military and the war on drugs).

I wasn't accusing you of being a loony Libertarian. I know there are sensible types who are or lean Lib. I have my moments, certainly, and I think I'm sensible. Recall, however, that I asked about Libertarian LEADERS who would be sensible. Show me one, and I'm interested.

-Arrian

[DanS]

There shouldn't be more money in the stimulus for mass transit outside of buses. There's no way in hell that we can build new rail lines quickly enough to actually have a stimulus effect.

While mostly true, you can increase the pace of spending on already-planned items. F.e., the pace on the silver line to Dulles Airport could probably be quickened somewhat. Likewise, the work on the new subway line in Manhattan. Lastly, you can start the planning process on more lines. That would pay the engineers rather than the line construction workers, of course.

Then there's lots of equipment (durable goods) that you can buy. Adam Smith always talks about the antiquated switching for Amtrak in the New York area. New cars are mostly purchased from foreign vendors -- I guess you would have to take a closer look to see if there's some domestic work to be done. There are small things you can do like cleaning and painting stations. These items tend to be put off for decades and there's no better time than the present to take care of them.

Don't want to make the scale of this stuff sound bigger than it is, but there are some items you can take care of. But this bill doesn't appear to be primarily related to anything like infrastructure, so it doesn't really warrant much support from me. To be sure, I wouldn't be enthusiastic about it anyway.

[Felch]

Btw, I should have noted that I'm not against the idea of ripping out portions of the government (I'm with you on the military and the war on drugs).

I wasn't accusing you of being a loony Libertarian. I know there are sensible types who are or lean Lib. I have my moments, certainly, and I think I'm sensible. Recall, however, that I asked about Libertarian LEADERS who would be sensible. Show me one, and I'm interested.

-Arrian

Perhaps I should rephrase. As soon as Americans stop being such a bunch of retards and declare me their dictator for life, all problems will be solved. Happy now?

[RGBVideo]

By the way, Felch...

What Libertarian leader would ever pursue a federal stimulus plan of any kind, including "building roads?" Is there such a thing as a Keynesian Libertarian? It seems to me that a Libertarian leader who actually managed to get elected to high office would, in order to be true to principle, have to immediately set about deconstructing large portions of the Federal government.

What am I missing here? You support infrastructure spending, but think Libertarians are the answer?

-Arrian

Or maybe all people wanting a smaller government (libertarians, if one wants to call himself that) aren't "true to principle", or fundamentalist, libertarians looking for the solution involving the least possible government intervention for all issues (hey, there's actually a word for it: anarchist), just like all "left-wingers" aren't communists and all "right-wingers" aren't fascists?

[Naked Gents Rut]

Likewise, the work on the new subway line in Manhattan.

The last thing we need to do is waste more money on the Second Avenue subway line.

Don't want to make the scale of this stuff sound bigger than it is, but there are some items you can take care of.

I don't disagree. I don't think that the majority of people who are calling for more mass transit in the stimulus are thinking about small and sensible projects like the ones you listed, however.