US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review

[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