US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review

[Lemur]

It's from the National Review, a partisan organ that pretty much exists to aid the Republican Party. They're good at what they do, but hopelessly slanted. We aren't going to have an intelligent or enlightening discussion based purely on their spin.

[Marshal Murat]

15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships

Hellz yea!

[woad&fangs]

Just as long as they pass the bill soon I need that Pell Grant money.

[seireikhaan]

Thuy're takin' our tax dollerz!

[HoreTore]

Thuy're takin' our tax dollerz!

Actually, no.

They're taking your children's tax dollars

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It's from the National Review, a partisan organ that pretty much exists to aid the Republican Party. They're good at what they do, but hopelessly slanted. We aren't going to have an intelligent or enlightening discussion based purely on their spin.

It's not that hard to see through the partisanship. Look at the allocations and decide whether it's as evil as they say it is. Unless you're asserting that they're making it up out of whole cloth.

I'd say most of the things on the list probably won't directly stimulate the economy. They deserve a fair vote in a non-emergency piece of legislation.

But whatever. NJ's (hopefully) getting some money for the "stupid states that can't control spending" section. So screw you guys.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's from the National Review, a partisan organ that pretty much exists to aid the Republican Party. They're good at what they do, but hopelessly slanted. We aren't going to have an intelligent or enlightening discussion based purely on their spin.

Oh come on. Not even a try to debate? Now even the National Review is worthless? The article has a list of various programs and causes the money is going to, something I've not seen elsewhere.

But instead of even daring to respond when the lead is a fiscally conservative viewpoint, you just launch some ad hominems and abandon the thread.

Un-*******-believable.

Thanks to the people who, astonishingly, were able to deal with an article not written by someone with identical politics.

Actually, no.

They're taking your children's tax dollars

Well put. Not many people are going to go out and spend when they know this is a one time rebate and we'll be taxed more in the future.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Un-*******-believable.

Thanks to the people who, astonishingly, were able to deal with an article not written by someone with identical politics.

Sorry, CR. However, you're not going to convince me with an article that uses the phrase "various left-wingery". I'm not saying the stimulus is even remotely perfect. Not by a long shot. But don't even dare pretend that was some kind of neutral analysis.

[Lemur]

Now even the National Review is worthless?

Feel free to show me where I said that they were "worthless."

The article has a list of various programs and causes the money is going to, something I've not seen elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the source is purely partisan, so I would honestly need a corroborating source before I would accept their accounting. These are the same people who proudly cited a Congressional Budget Office report that turned out not to exist. That was a week ago. To quote St. Reagan, "Trust but verify."

As I said, they're very good at what they do, but what they do has nothing no bearing on trying to get at the truth of any subject. They exist to aid a particular side in politics. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's naive to treat them like a normal news source.

But instead of even daring to respond when the lead is a fiscally conservative viewpoint, you just launch some ad hominems and abandon the thread.

"Fiscally conservative"? Say wha? If NR were fiscally conservative, would they not have been so under the Bush Administration as well? And yet I remember them being rather muted about the trillion dollar yearly deficit developed under The Decider. That suggests that they are fiscal conservatives only when Democrats are in power. As I said, they are not about reaching any sort of truth, but rather about helping their side to win.

Ad hominem would mean that I'm attacking a person instead of an idea. How is it ad hominem to point out, accurately, that National Review is a purely partisan organ? Please explain.

As for the actual topic, the stimulus/pork bill, I find it a very hard subject to approach with a useful perspective. Obama is betting that Keynesian theories will put the brakes on the downward spiral, but in truth those theories have never been tested. So we're looking at a trillion-dollar gamble on an unproved economic theory. Also, the Congressional Dems have larded up the bill, which only serves to confuse the issue, and was strategically idiotic of them.

On the other hand, I don't hear any reasonable counter-proposal coming from any cohesive group. Republicans saying "tax cuts!" strike me as borderline ridiculous; perhaps if some economist could make a proper argument for their "tax cuts will solve anything" position, I'd understand it better.

Here's an interesting take from Bruce Bartlett:

The problem is that fiscal stimulus needs to be injected right now to counter the liquidity trap. If that were the case, I think we might well get a very high multiplier effect this year. But if much of the stimulus doesn't come online until next year, when we are likely to be past the worst of the slowdown, then crowding out will greatly diminish the effectiveness of the stimulus, just as the critics argue...

Thus the argument really boils down to a question of timing. In the short run, the case for stimulus is overwhelming. But in the longer run, we can't enrich ourselves by borrowing and printing money. That just causes inflation.

The trick is to front-load the stimulus as much as possible while putting in place policies that will tighten both fiscal and monetary policy next year.

How we actually accomplish that is way beyond my fiscal/economic understanding. But it certainly sounds reasonable.

As for this "we're robbing our children" outrage: I understand it, and I'm sympathetic to it, but where the **** were you people for the last eight years as a Republican president loaded us up with a yearly trillion-dollar deficit? Is it just me, or are you being freakishly selective?

[LittleGrizzly]

Obama is betting that Keynesian theories will put the brakes on the downward spiral, but in truth those theories have never been tested.

from wiki article

But to many the true success of Keynesian policy can be seen at the onset of World War II, which provided a kick to the world economy, removed uncertainty, and forced the rebuilding of destroyed capital. Keynesian ideas became almost official in social-democratic Europe after the war and in the U.S. in the 1960s.

Keynesian economics have basically been used in the west since 1945, sure you can argue about the effectiveness of keynesian economics but his theories have been widely applied and thus tested... your argument may hold more water if you concentrate on the fact they haven't been tested on this scale..

Since ww2 very few countries have actually followed a free market route such as that advocated by smith, the IMF has put various countries into a smith style economic system, but if you look at the vast majority of countries (or developed ones at least, less sure about 2nd and 3rd world ones) they practice keynesian economics...

[Lemur]

your argument may hold more water if you concentrate on the fact they haven't been tested on this scale..

Fair enough; point taken.

[HoreTore]

As for this "we're robbing our children" outrage: I understand it, and I'm sympathetic to it, but where the **** were you people for the last eight years as a Republican president loaded us up with a yearly trillion-dollar deficit? Is it just me, or are you being freakishly selective?

Hey hey hey!

I was right here in Norwayland laughing my behind off, thankyouverymuch! The reason I'm laughing now isn't because you're spending money, I think that's a good thingy. I'm laughing because nobody wants to pay for all that spending...

Cut the pork, raise the tax, I say!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Feel free to show me where I said that they were "worthless."

You didn't say exactly that, but you did say:

We aren't going to have an intelligent or enlightening discussion based purely on their spin.

Now what does that mean when I'm posting in a forum where the point is debating?

Unfortunately, the source is purely partisan, so I would honestly need a corroborating source before I would accept their accounting. These are the same people who proudly cited a Congressional Budget Office report that turned out not to exist. That was a week ago. To quote St. Reagan, "Trust but verify."

As I said, they're very good at what they do, but what they do has nothing no bearing on trying to get at the truth of any subject. They exist to aid a particular side in politics. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's naive to treat them like a normal news source.

A normal news source? Like what, exactly? The NYT? CNN? MSNBC?

Ad hominem would mean that I'm attacking a person instead of an idea. How is it ad hominem to point out, accurately, that National Review is a purely partisan organ? Please explain.

You're attacking the source, not the article.

As for the actual topic, the stimulus/pork bill, I find it a very hard subject to approach with a useful perspective. Obama is betting that Keynesian theories will put the brakes on the downward spiral, but in truth those theories have never been tested. So we're looking at a trillion-dollar gamble on an unproved economic theory. Also, the Congressional Dems have larded up the bill, which only serves to confuse the issue, and was strategically idiotic of them.

The basis of Keynes' theory is that prices of goods and labor don't adjust fast enough in changing conditions; they don't reach equilibrium, and that the government can fix that through spending. There's not much proof for that, especially since Keynes wrote his theory in 1936, when the gov't of the US was actively trying to not let wages and prices of goods adjust, and interfering in the market so that they did not adjust. So Keyne's argument for government intervention almost becomes an example of why the government shouldn't interfere.

On the other hand, I don't hear any reasonable counter-proposal coming from any cohesive group. Republicans saying "tax cuts!" strike me as borderline ridiculous; perhaps if some economist could make a proper argument for their "tax cuts will solve anything" position, I'd understand it better.

These one time rebates aren't going to help much; likely less than 50% will be spent, the rest saved or used to pay off bills. And heaven forbid we cut taxes on the rich.

Here's an interesting take from Bruce Bartlett:

The problem is that fiscal stimulus needs to be injected right now to counter the liquidity trap. If that were the case, I think we might well get a very high multiplier effect this year. But if much of the stimulus doesn't come online until next year, when we are likely to be past the worst of the slowdown, then crowding out will greatly diminish the effectiveness of the stimulus, just as the critics argue...

Thus the argument really boils down to a question of timing. In the short run, the case for stimulus is overwhelming. But in the longer run, we can't enrich ourselves by borrowing and printing money. That just causes inflation.

The trick is to front-load the stimulus as much as possible while putting in place policies that will tighten both fiscal and monetary policy next year.

How we actually accomplish that is way beyond my fiscal/economic understanding. But it certainly sounds reasonable.

I don't buy the need for huge loads of spending as 'overwhelming' and neither do a lot of economists.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth

Specifically, in the realm of taxes, we need to cut the corporate tax (higher than most of 'socialist' Europe), the capital gains tax, and broadly cut down the huge amount of regulation that makes it much more difficult for small businesses.

As for this "we're robbing our children" outrage: I understand it, and I'm sympathetic to it, but where the **** were you people for the last eight years as a Republican president loaded us up with a yearly trillion-dollar deficit? Is it just me, or are you being freakishly selective?

I've been against Bush's big government spending for a long time, at least from the medicare increase.

CR

[Don Corleone]

It's from the National Review, a partisan organ that pretty much exists to aid the Republican Party. They're good at what they do, but hopelessly slanted. We aren't going to have an intelligent or enlightening discussion based purely on their spin.

If those are the new rules around here, then kindly refrain from sharing stories from the Atlantic, Mother Jones, the Economist or other similar news contemplative magainzes from the other side.

I mean really, Lemur. " Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. I just called to say 'You're Black!'" You post 'news' items from firedoglake.com, and you have the nerve to call National Review 'hoplessly slanted' and say that any discussion of their news items won't be intelligent.... Oh brother, where for art thou?

[Lemur]

[K]indly refrain from sharing stories from [...] the Economist or other similar news contemplative magainzes from the other side.

The Economist is from the "other side"? For real? Then what on earth is your side?

I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about a plain statement of fact. All I said was that we (a) shouldn't base our discussion purely on that source, and (b) that I would need corroborating evidence before I took what they had to say as true.

If I opened up a thread with nothing more than a long screed from Daily Kos, I expect you'd ask for backup as well.

Check out any of the factual bits of what I've posted. It's all legitimate, and if it isn't I'll happily retract. Here's another source on the non-existent CBO report that NRO went on about.

The truth of the matter is that the bailout and the stimulus are huge, complex things, and I'd like to hear actual experts talk about it, and try to get to some sort of picture of what's appropriate and what isn't; what's potentially effective versus ineffective. Bloviation about "Left-Wingery," kinda lowers the level of discourse right off the bat.

Instead of eating your daily breakfast of outrage over my calling NRO exactly what it is, why not clue us in to what you think about the recession (depression?) and the various plans offered to bridge it.

-edit-

Oh, and Don, my links were to (in order): National Review, Washington Monthly, Wikipedia, Forbes, and now The Colorado Independent. If one of those sites is hosted by Firedoglake.com, I'm not aware of it.

[Don Corleone]

The Economist is from the "other side"? For real? Then what on earth is your side?

I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about a plain statement of fact. All I said was that we (a) shouldn't base our discussion purely on that source, and (b) that I would need corroborating evidence before I took what they had to say as true.

If I opened up a thread with nothing more than a long screed from Daily Kos, I expect you'd ask for backup as well.

Check out any of the factual bits of what I've posted. It's all legitimate, and if it isn't I'll happily retract. Here's another source on the non-existent CBO report that NRO went on about.

The truth of the matter is that the bailout and the stimulus are huge, complex things, and I'd like to hear actual experts talk about it, and try to get to some sort of picture of what's appropriate and what isn't; what's potentially effective versus ineffective. Bloviation about "Left-Wingery," kinda lowers the level of discourse right off the bat.

Instead of eating your daily breakfast of outrage over my calling NRO exactly what it is, why not clue us in to what you think about the recession (depression?) and the various plans offered to bridge it. And while you're at it, why don't you see if you can pull in some sources that aren't complete and utter crackpots.

-edit-

Oh, and Don, my links were to (in order): National Review, Washington Monthly, Wikipedia, Forbes, and now The Colorado Independent. If one of those sites is hosted by Firedoglake.com, I'm not aware of it.

Now I may be wrong, but wasn't the impetus for your John Yoo=TortureBoy thread the firedoglake.com blog entry that you actually posted at the bottom of it?

And I'm not saying I don't enjoy the Atlantic or the Economist. I do, they're very well reasoned, well thought out positions that they're advocating. But they do come from one side of the playing field.

If you want my honest opinions on the recession, the need for stimulus and my consideration of the merit of the items proposed so far, I'll be happy to offer those. My intent was to say that if you're going to brand something like National Review as a partisan rag full of hacks, then expect it to come full circle. As for National Review flubbing the CBO report citation, which was wrong, where is your outrage when the NYTimes has another Jason Blair episode? Nope, then it's 'honest mistake', and for the record, Jason Blair really did invent his stories, and I still think that his editors went to press knowing it. But when it's National Review cites a report that hasn't been released yet, you start with the dispersions.

It's that old double standard thing, amigo. It really gets under my skin.

[HoreTore]

And I'm not saying I don't enjoy the Atlantic or the Economist. I do, they're very well reasoned, well thought out positions that they're advocating. But they do come from one side of the playing field.

Yes, The Economist is a hardcore capitalist newspaper. I honestly didn't know you'd turned socialist on us, Don Corleone...

But you're more than welcome among our ranks!

[Lemur]

Now I may be wrong, but wasn't the impetus for your John Yoo=TortureBoy thread the firedoglake.com blog entry that you actually posted at the bottom of it?

My sources for the OP in that thread were, in order: Wikipedia, informationclearinghouse.info, The Wall Street Journal and Firedoglake.com. The latter wasn't even quoted, I just offered the link as bonus reading.

If you want my honest opinions on the recession, the need for stimulus and my consideration of the merit of the items proposed so far, I'll be happy to offer those.

Yes, please.

My intent was to say that if you're going to brand something like National Review as a partisan rag full of hacks [...]

Where did I talk about "hacks"? I said "they are very good at what they do." Twice. There are some very talented, bright people at National Review. And they work for a dedicated partisan organ. Why is that so hard to hear? Why is it even in dispute?

And once again, if The Economist is from the "other side," what side is that, exactly?

[LittleGrizzly]

And I'm not saying I don't enjoy the Atlantic or the Economist. I do, they're very well reasoned, well thought out positions that they're advocating. But they do come from one side of the playing field.

Ill admit i don't know these so ill just ask, would they use phrases like various left wingery and other things you would more expect from someone like rush, the impression i got from Lemur was that NRO was more bias and partisan than these others you mentioned, if you really go into deatil theres little that has no partisan or bias so i can only assume he meant the level of bias and partisanery rather than its exsistence at all...

[Don Corleone]

Now, as for the matter of the stimulus itself... I think all sides are being disingenous. Non-partisan economic think tanks seem to agree the most rapid results will come from direct government spending, but the most enduring efforts would be tax cuts. In other words, it would appear that both sides might be onto something.

I see a lot of demogoguery going on from all sides. I see a lot of Lefty policies being inserted into the stimulus under the auspices of a stimulus bill. Not that some of them, like child healthcare, aren't good ideas, but if you want the bill approved quickly, keep the number of items in it down. There's also the provision that any institution that allows prayer or worship services on its grounds will be excluded.

I see a pathetic lack of address of the fundamental core issue in all of this: homeowners ability to live with the mortgages they currently have. How banks are allowed to collect 50Billion in TARP payments and still refuse to restructure mortages, which probably hurts themselves as much as the mortagees, is beyond me. The plan Lindsey Graham is floating about funding $30 billion to the FDIC to restructure mortages seems brilliantly simple. And yet, because Lindsey Graham made the mistake of propsing it himself, instead of giving it to a Democratic colleague, it's being shelved.

The core issue driving deflation is consumer confidence and disposable income. Nothing I've seen in the stimulus package from any side even begins to address that.

And oh, by the way, I'm really opposed to making Jillian and Allison, and their kids, pay for the of our generation and our parents.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, do you want me to focus on the stimulus package and TARP reform, or do you really want to continue the NR debate, even though you keep telling me to drop it (though you're the one that brought it up). I suspect you're pissed that I didn't let you do a drive-by on it, and that's why you keep trying to get the last word, then say "now, back to the topic". If we're going to stay on topic, then let's stay on topic.

You said the NRO editors are good at what they do in a tongue-in-cheek sense. You had just gotten done saying they're an advocacy machine for the Republican party, and then you say "and they're very good at it".

They would describe themselves as thoughtful essayists that consider current events from a particular perspective. They don't make any bones about that, but the key point is thoughtful essayists on current events, not Republican shills.

Now, if it makes you feel better to dismiss everyone out of hand that doesn't subscribe to your world-view, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But I'm not going to let it walk by unquestioned.

And as for the Economist, they advocate free-trade and globalization (things I agree with), but they also take some pretty strong stance on the need for central banks, controling currencies and interfering in functioning markets (things I don't) . In other words, they take an editorial stance. Does that somehow dismiss their viewpoint as invalid? Should I say something like "they're an advocacy rag for the world bank, and they're very good at what they do"?

[Lemur]

[D]o you really want to continue the NR debate, even though you keep telling me to drop it (though you're the one that brought it up).

I'm sorry, when did I tell you to drop it?

And as for the Economist, they advocate free-trade and globalization (things I agree with), but they also take some pretty strong stance on the need for central banks, controling currencies and interfering in functioning markets (things I don't) . In other words, they take an editorial stance.

Most publications take some sort of editorial stance. As another poster pointed out, it's a question of degree. Do you see any functional difference between The Economist and National Review? (I'm assuming you're read enough of both to offer an informed opinion.)

I thought your point about "homeowners' ability to live with the mortgages they currently have" was very astute. I have wondered about that myself; why do you read and hear about banks (a) jacking up interest to unpayable levels, (b) refusing to negotiate with the homeowner, and then (c) foreclosing? It makes no economic sense on any level. Obviously, people who bought more property than they could handle will have to lose their homes, and that sucks, but what about people who get the (a) (b) (c) treatment? Would a mere $30 billion in the FDIC have stopped that bleeding, as Graham proposed?

-edit-

You said the NRO editors are good at what they do in a tongue-in-cheek sense. You had just gotten done saying they're an advocacy machine for the Republican party, and then you say "and they're very good at it".

Forgot to address this. Why do you declare that I'm being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic? I think they are very good at what they do. And they make no bones about being a partisan organ. A memorable quote from the election season past: "Obama's the enemy — a far-left Democrat. We should be attacking him at every weak point. That's politics. A pro-Obama emailer whines to me that the Pastor Wright business is 'a Swift Boating of Obama.' Well, duh!"

Here's a not-terribly balanced post from today: "The economy began to collapse when the Democrats captured the House and Senate and we then knew that the lower tax rates on individuals, capital gains, and dividends would end after 2010. We are in the early stages of the Reid/Obama/Pelosi recession and nothing they are even talking about doing will help."

Do these strike you as the sorts of things you would read in Newsweek, The Economist or any mainstream news magazine?

[Devastatin Dave]

Here's a very telling statement from John "Did you know I served in Vietnam" Kerry said about the importance of passing this legislation...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog..._whats_the.asp

Our country is dead...