Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

[The Mad Monk]

Except not in this climate.

I'm not going to argue about the specific spending provisions, as I've already stated that I believe the immediate stimulus needs to be split from the long-term spending and the latter needs to be justified on its own merits. I happen to like most of the things that are being cut I'm afraid they'll be cut and never come back if they don't really get enough debate time, which they won't if the bill is kept in one piece and rammed through.



We might have to try the create inflation so we can cut real interest rates further approach .

It's easy enough to laugh, but, you tell me what he actually said.

[Victor Galis]

That's fine, they just don't belong in an emergency stimulus bill that has to be passed NOW, NOW, NOW!!

I don't know... if any of those create jobs in the next few months, they belong in the emergency stimulus. The science funding might meet that criteria.

It's easy enough to laugh, but, you tell me what he actually said.

I'm laughing because we might have to print money, which some economists had suggested might not be a bad idea since we're facing possible deflation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't know... if any of those create jobs in the next few months, they belong in the emergency stimulus. The science funding might meet that criteria.

I don't think it is simply about creating jobs, because you could spend $800 billion on hiring people to dig holes and fill them up and that'd be creating jobs in the next few months.

[Ramo]

The education funding and Pell grants would be spent immediately. There are huge holes in education budgets across the country.

And large chunk of the other stuff could be spent fairly soon.

The bulk of the list there that isn't a particularly good immediate stimulus - science funding (i.e. NSF), broadband, some of that energy funding, happen to be great long term investments. I don't see the case for splitting that up into a seperate bill unless you're trying to kill these initiatives.

Let's be honest here. The unifying factor of the programs that the "centrists" want to cut isn't that they're not good stimulus. For example, they want to cut aid to states, which is generally regarded as great stimulus. Rather, these programs have relatively weak political constituencies.

[Agathon]

I don't think it is simply about creating jobs, because you could spend $800 billion on hiring people to dig holes and fill them up and that'd be creating jobs in the next few months.

Or build a bridge that doesn't go anywhere.

[The Mad Monk]

I don't know... if any of those create jobs in the next few months, they belong in the emergency stimulus. The science funding might meet that criteria.



I'm laughing because we might have to print money, which some economists had suggested might not be a bad idea since we're facing possible deflation.

Did those economists consider what usually happens in countries that print money to pay the bills?

[Jon Miller]

There are huge holes in the science budget also.

We haven't been funded for years...

And we have lost scientists and projects over it. Ones that already had resources put into them.

JM

[Jon Miller]

There are huge holes in the science budget also.

We haven't been funded for years...

And we have lost scientists and projects over it. Ones that already had resources put into them.

JM

[DanS]

The biological sciences have been funded handsomely. Priorities have been set.

[Ramo]

Which is why NSF funding should be cut?

And about that NIH funding - terrible investment, that. It's not like we have the most badass biotech industry in the world. Too bad our public servants didn't have the wisdom to throw that into, say, estate tax cuts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The bulk of the list there that isn't a particularly good immediate stimulus - science funding (i.e. NSF), broadband, some of that energy funding, happen to be great long term investments. I don't see the case for splitting that up into a seperate bill unless you're trying to kill these initiatives.

Or rather, let's judge them on their own merits rather than fear-mongering to pass it ASAP without much debate.

[Ramo]

Senators can offer amendments to kill any part of the bill. It's going through significant change as we speak. There is debate. It's not as if the bill were presented to the Senate for an immediate vote.

Functionally, tossing a lot of these programs into a seperate bill is about killing them through process. Since you need 60 votes to do damn near anything in the chamber.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Personally I think a lot of the long term spending would be good (if we can afford it as well.. especially if the Congress goes ahead with plans to "fix" health care this year), but there is far more time for discussion and debate on general budget bills than on this "stimulus", which is meant to prevent the economy from falling into the abyss (by definition a short term thing).

The debate and changes its going through are less than a general budget bill would be and it is recieving all sorts of angry arguments and charges of obstruction for it from the left!

[Ramo]

There have been a good number of amendments put up to vote. And most of the votes to cut spending lost. Putting long term spending (which, again, is a relatively small part of the bill) into a seperate bill is about trying to kill it, not discuss it. If you don't like the spending, that's one thing. But this process trivia is ridiculous.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd rather have it in a seperate bill as I don't think it fits in a stimulus and there can be further time to go over it. I mean seriously, why not put the entire omnibus budget on this sped-up time frame, as there is plenty of time for amendments.