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?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DinoDoc View Posta 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
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.
So we're stuck with Dems, instead of getting the Libertarian leadership we desperately need.
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 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.
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)?"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
Comment
-
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?
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Comment
-
Yes, why not kick the economy while it's down.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Victor Galis View PostThe leadership that would accelerate the transition to third world status?
Yes, why not kick the economy while 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.John Brown did nothing wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arrian View PostThe 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
What are you talking about? Economic and social liberty is generally associated with more advanced economies and societies.
Libertarianism is not anarchy."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Felch View PostAgain, 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."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
Comment
-
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.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Victor Galis View PostNo, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.John Brown did nothing wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TCO View PostI'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.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Felch View PostThe 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.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Felch View PostDegenerate 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.
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.
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?
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.
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."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious View PostWhat in the world does this mean? Accurate?John Brown did nothing wrong.
Comment
Comment