Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

[DanS]

Is there something particularly wasteful about the Second Avenue line? Just the fact that New York projects are supremely wasteful since everybody needs to be paid off?

[Naked Gents Rut]

Is there something particularly wasteful about the Second Avenue line?

Nothing particularly wasteful (by NYC mass transit project standards), but there's no need to dump federal funds into it given it's questionable worth.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/print/813

[Victor Galis]

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

I see no details about that plan except that claim that it would create 6.2 million jobs. I also don't see the price tag. How many trillions in tax cuts are they proposing in order to get that many jobs?

This bill is one big mass of bloat and I wonder what the rationale is for all of the ridiculousness.

I wasn't too concerned when it appeared like we were going to be doing a modest amount of infrastructure stuff. It wouldn't hurt to spruce up the place and it would have helped the construction industry, which was particularly hard-hit with the housing implosion. But the bill doesn't include much of that stuff. Rather, we have things like huge amounts of pork for the IT industry, which doesn't really need the help right now. And then we have all sorts of health care spending, which puts us on the hook over the long term for massive additional outlays.

It doesn't appear that this bill was well thought out.

That seems like a fair criticism. I really wish the dems would have split it in two. One bill full of immediate spending to projects that will get started in the next few months, and a second bill with longer term stuff and tax cuts.

So we're stuck with Dems, instead of getting the Libertarian leadership we desperately need.

The leadership that would accelerate the transition to third world status?

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.

I might agree with that if the bill was split into short-term stuff and medium-term stuff. As it stands, anything that's no in the bill will probably never get funded as people will complain about the massive spending already undertaken.

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.

I think you overestimate the state of our infrastructure.

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)?

Yes, why not kick the economy while it's down.

[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?

I'd actually like to believe that the folks who end up being the public representatives of American Libertarianism aren't all Randian fundies. I am, in fact, interested in those who seek such positions and *aren't* fundie types. I would consider providing them with some support (financial or otherwise, depending on just how much I like their ideas). I've long wished for stronger 3rd parties.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Yes, why not kick the economy while it's down.

The major problem I see with taming the military industrial complex is that if you were to put it on a diet, you'd toss a lot of people out of work. It's kinda funny, really. The military is a government jobs program.

-Arrian

[Felch]

The leadership that would accelerate the transition to third world status?

What are you talking about? Economic and social liberty is generally associated with more advanced economies and societies. Libertarianism is not anarchy.

Yes, why not kick the economy while it's down.

Again, this just doesn't make sense. Reduce wasteful government spending and then pass the savings on to the working poor. Yeah, that's really kicking the economy when it's down.

Arrian is right about the military being a make-work program, but that doesn't mean that a bloated military is good for the economy. Able bodied, educated people doing nothing productive is actually really bad for the economy. Cutting back on the military doesn't cause long term damage to the economy - instead it puts it on a firmer footing and reduces the burdens of sustaining a massive government program. Short term problems would be solved, just the same as they were after the Civil War, and after WWII.

[Victor Galis]

The major problem I see with taming the military industrial complex is that if you were to put it on a diet, you'd toss a lot of people out of work. It's kinda funny, really. The military is a government jobs program.

-Arrian

But you can cut it and create jobs elsewhere. Or you can cut it when the economy is booming.

What are you talking about? Economic and social liberty is generally associated with more advanced economies and societies.

No, more advanced economies and societies are increasingly heavily regulated. The current crisis happened because government backed off and let the bankers regulate themselves. Yes, liberty is desirable, but without the government to protect rights there would be no real liberty.

Libertarianism is not anarchy.

Just keep telling yourself that.

[Victor Galis]

Again, this just doesn't make sense. Reduce wasteful government spending and then pass the savings on to the working poor. Yeah, that's really kicking the economy when it's down.

I'm absolutely certain that your definition of waste is very wide. You'd almost certainly cut important programs, tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs then toss the money to the four winds.

Arrian is right about the military being a make-work program, but that doesn't mean that a bloated military is good for the economy. Able bodied, educated people doing nothing productive is actually really bad for the economy.

Not as bad as actually doing nothing. I'd rather see more space exploration or other things, but you can't fire all the military and instantly rehire them as something else. This is the sort of discussion you should entertain in good times, not right now. It's also something that has to be carefully planned.

Cutting back on the military doesn't cause long term damage to the economy - instead it puts it on a firmer footing and reduces the burdens of sustaining a massive government program. Short term problems would be solved, just the same as they were after the Civil War, and after WWII.

Right now with the amount of job losses, piling more on can't possibly be a good idea. Even if it's just frictional unemployment, that's going to have a serious negative impact. Now if you cut the military and refund all that money in tax cuts... God help us all.

[Arrian]

To clarify: I meant the problem with trying to tame the MIC *now* is that it's a jobs program and we're in a nasty recession.

You do it during good times. But it's a political third rail. You want to cut military spending? You traitorcommie.

-Arrian

[Felch]

No, more advanced economies and societies are increasingly heavily regulated. The current crisis happened because government backed off and let the bankers regulate themselves. Yes, liberty is desirable, but without the government to protect rights there would be no real liberty.

Degenerate and failing economies are increasingly heavily regulated. Compare the experiences of Tanzania with Hong Kong. Tanzania experienced decades of peace and economic hardship under the socialist leadership of Dr. Julius Nyerere. While I respect Dr. Nyerere's good intentions, his flawed policies halted economic development in a lush country, one that is stupendously rich in natural resources. Hong Kong was ravaged by the Second World War, but by applying free market principles it managed to become wealthier than its colonial overlord, in spite of being a barren pile of rocks.

Which country is more economically advanced?

If you want more examples, compare North and South Korea, or East and West Germany. The more intrusive the government is in the market, the worse it is for economic development.

Just keep telling yourself that.

Are all left-wingers Communists? Are all right-wingers Fascists? We already discussed this, but instead of being reasonable you willfully choose to make an ass of yourself. Libertarianism, like any other political ideology, lies along a spectrum. I believe that reducing government involvement in people's lives creates long-term benefits. You seem to feel otherwise. But because you'd rather make snide remarks that showcase your ignorance and bias, you wind up looking like a complete and utter tool.

I'm absolutely certain that your definition of waste is very wide. You'd almost certainly cut important programs, tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs then toss the money to the four winds.

My definition of waste is the same as any rational person's. I would look for an analysis of the costs of the program and compare those to the benefits of the program. I would also factor in the opportunity cost of applying scarce resources, and the societal impacts of the programs unintended consequences. How do you define waste?

Not as bad as actually doing nothing. I'd rather see more space exploration or other things, but you can't fire all the military and instantly rehire them as something else. This is the sort of discussion you should entertain in good times, not right now. It's also something that has to be carefully planned.

Nowhere have I implied that it would be instant or painless. But it is a necessary step for reforming our economy. Look at Japan. Before World War II, they sunk massive resources into their military, and therefore remained a stunted economy in spite of their best efforts. After World War II, and the demobilization forced on them by the United States, they became a world class economy. Their economy has been trouble for the past two decades, but that isn't to say that the solution is to reconquer China.

Right now with the amount of job losses, piling more on can't possibly be a good idea. Even if it's just frictional unemployment, that's going to have a serious negative impact. Now if you cut the military and refund all that money in tax cuts... God help us all.

How would tax cuts - targeted at the lower income brackets - hurt the economy? Seriously, explain this. Most people I know make enough to live on, but would certainly be better off if they weren't paying for a couple dozen aircraft carriers and subsidizing the defense of our wealthy allies.

I honestly don't expect a serious reply from you. Just more generic "God help us all" type of bull****. But if you do care to take this seriously, I'm happy to do the same.

[Kidlicious]

Cut all government spending! Down with the government! Woohoo!

[Kidlicious]

I'm not sure how the software took you off ignore, but you're a fukking moron who should have been killed at birth. You are going back on. And I hope you die. Fast.

Haha. You're the one who thinks everyone expects the same thing. I was just pointing out how obviously that is false.

[Kidlicious]

The aggregate of everybody's expectations is often pretty accurate.

I know it sounds like a that old story about asking a million people the length of the emperor's nose, but it's different. Everybody is looking at the same situation from different angles, and so we all have different views. But in the aggregate, it's likely that we have a pretty good understanding.

What in the world does this mean? Accurate?

[Victor Galis]

Degenerate and failing economies are increasingly heavily regulated. Compare the experiences of Tanzania with Hong Kong. Tanzania experienced decades of peace and economic hardship under the socialist leadership of Dr. Julius Nyerere. While I respect Dr. Nyerere's good intentions, his flawed policies halted economic development in a lush country, one that is stupendously rich in natural resources. Hong Kong was ravaged by the Second World War, but by applying free market principles it managed to become wealthier than its colonial overlord, in spite of being a barren pile of rocks.

Which country is more economically advanced?

The problem there is that you're ignoring the difference between quantity and quality. "Free markets" require an awful lot of regulation to maintain.

If you want more examples, compare North and South Korea, or East and West Germany. The more intrusive the government is in the market, the worse it is for economic development.

Again, you focus on quantity distinction and ignore quality altogether. West German and South Korean governments were fairly active in their own economies, they didn't suck at it like the commies.

Are all left-wingers Communists? Are all right-wingers Fascists? We already discussed this, but instead of being reasonable you willfully choose to make an ass of yourself. Libertarianism, like any other political ideology, lies along a spectrum. I believe that reducing government involvement in people's lives creates long-term benefits. You seem to feel otherwise. But because you'd rather make snide remarks that showcase your ignorance and bias, you wind up looking like a complete and utter tool.

I believe Libertarians are all anarchists because the American spectrum is shifted way to the right of where it should be. You can make arguments that are sensible in theory, but in practice if you identify yourself as a Libertarian you would take those arguments to what I consider extreme conclusions. Don't get me wrong Republicans are far too right-wing at this point for my taste, and Democrats are... well, somewhat incompetent. They didn't put up a reasonable fight during the Bush years, and now they seem to be blowing the leadership bit too. If not for the two party system, I'd hope they would also lose.

My definition of waste is the same as any rational person's. I would look for an analysis of the costs of the program and compare those to the benefits of the program.

But we would invariably assign different values to the costs and the benefits. You would like the tax rate to be lower, no doubt and would value being able to cut programs and give money back higher than say, me.

I would also factor in the opportunity cost of applying scarce resources, and the societal impacts of the programs unintended consequences. How do you define waste?

Much the same way, but as mentioned above, the disagreements would come in the details. It all comes in how we value the benefits, and I don't just mean the intangibles like security, environmental protection, etc. I mean, how much is a job worth?

But it is a necessary step for reforming our economy. Look at Japan. Before World War II, they sunk massive resources into their military, and therefore remained a stunted economy in spite of their best efforts. After World War II, and the demobilization forced on them by the United States, they became a world class economy. Their economy has been trouble for the past two decades, but that isn't to say that the solution is to reconquer China.

I think Japan did a whole lot of other things post WWII, and its wages were very low. I think if you get rid of the MIC in this country without a plan, you're just going to lose those jobs and never see any benefits. There's nothing that says that resources have to be fully utilized.

How would tax cuts - targeted at the lower income brackets - hurt the economy? Seriously, explain this. Most people I know make enough to live on, but would certainly be better off if they weren't paying for a couple dozen aircraft carriers and subsidizing the defense of our wealthy allies.

You cut jobs to give money to people who aren't going to spend it all. Even if they did, you lose jobs now for a the possibility of jobs later. In the meantime, the loss of jobs accelerates the vicious cycle we're in. Moreover, I don't trust the current government to actually give the tax cuts to the poor.

[Felch]

What in the world does this mean? Accurate?

Accurate is an adjective. According to dictionary.com it means, "free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact." Thanks for the question.