If and when do you think this stimulus plan will work?

You're still talking about the transfer of deficit to our children, but the cost of the war in Iraq is no different; it's still increasing the debt load for our children.

The two major differences are these:
1) The money spent on the stimulus plan is to help America and Americans
2) Our country is in a economic crisis; doing nothing only will destroy our economy. It's a choice between more deficit or no economy.

it is human nature to want to avoid pain, people will look to government to help them avoid pain. It is the responsibility of the leaders, those who are better educated than average, to know better than to comply. It is their job to lead the way out of pain, to get the needed changes enacted..... working to help the citizens avoid pain and in not dealing with the problems is working in exactly the wrong direction.

if I supported the Iraq war you would have a point. We continually do the wrong thing, the economy, the Iraq war, the not keeping the nations infrastructure modern and in good repair, the not building sustainable systems and way of life.

Better than to comply with what? How do they "lead the way out of this pain?"
What exactly are those "needed changes enacted?"

You are talking gibberish, and you know it.

Whether or not we pick the stimulus we potentially make the same decision.

If the stimulus is needed to avoid a generational depression then not doing it would also be gambling with the future.



Then it doesn't matter if you think not doing the stimulus is going to be good for them either.



Taxes for our deficit spending aren't the only way we can cause financial costs to the future generations.

So this argument is predicated on you being right that the collapse is inevitable and that the stimulus won't help future generations. Don't pretend that your position doesn't contain risk for future generations.

If you are right that the collapse is inevitable you may be right that the stimulus is an unethical burden on the future, but if you are wrong and the stimulus is something that would prevent a financial catastrophe that would affect generations then you are doing the same thing you criticize.

Hawkeye 10--Cicerone Imposter's charge that you are talking gibberish is based on the fact that Cicerone is acquainted with nothing but gibberish. Read his posts. He rarely gives evidence for his absurdities. Now, I think I can back up your "transfer of debt to our children largely from the stimulus plan which is much larger than any expense of our government. Cicerone Imposter MAY respond with his "gibberish" but he will not be able to rebut the evidence I am replicating.

Note:


Blog About SubmitThe Foundry
Stimulus 101: The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan
Posted January 27th, 2009 at 8.52am in Ongoing Priorities.
With countless news stories, papers, editorials and experts giving their view of why Congress should or shouldn’t enact the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan, we thought it would be helpful to give you a short index of why spending does not equal stimulus.

HIGH COST TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS

After Congress appropriates the FY’09 omnibus bill, they may have spent over $1.4 Trillion in less than one month!
The current “stimulus bill” will be the LARGEST SPENDING BILL EVER enacted by Congress, making the New Deal look small, accounting for inflation.
The “Stimulus” Bills Your Family " $825 Billion is equivalent to borrowing $10,520 from EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA. This money has to be paid back.
If all families were asked to equally shoulder the burden of $825 Billon, this debt would be equivalent to what they roughly spend on food, clothing, and health care in an entire year.
If Government Spending solved recessions, we would never have recessions.
BAD IDEAS " “THE DEVIL IN DISGUISE”
The hidden liberal policy agenda inside the ‘stimulus bill’…

Over $142 Billion in Federal education funds: Nearly double the total outlays for the Dept. of Education in 2007 " making good on Reid-Pelosi-Obama education promises to the NEA.
$87 Billion Medicaid bailout: Medicaid is funded by a formula that matches state spending levels with federal dollars. If we keep bailing states out, they will have every incentive to continue irresponsible spending. Fiscally responsible taxpayers in Indiana are now paying for fiscally irresponsible bureaucrats in Illinois.
Expanded Medicaid coverage and SCHIP: Reid-Pelosi-Obama are enacting a nationalized health care policy with no debate. The government will soon be responsible for more health care spending than the private sector, i.e. socialized medicine.
Green Jobs?: The myth of ‘green jobs’ merely means replacing one job lost, with a new job that fits the left’s agenda. It is a zero sum game. More than doubling spending, the stimulus also has over $35 billion for the Dept. of Energy. DOE’s current budget is $23.8 billion.
Family Planning and birth control for children, immigrants and the wealthy, which could also be used as a backdoor to allow federal funding of abortions. How is this stimulus? **UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi agrees this is not stimulus and has removed it from the bill proving these measures are allergic to sunshine.**
Redistribution: Refundable Tax Credits for people who don’t pay taxes.
Pork Spending: Digital TV Coupons ($650 Million), Gov’t Cars ($600 Million), Nat’l Endowment for the Arts ($50 Million), Repairs to National Mall ($200 Million, including $21m for sod).
BAD RESULTS

No Jobs: While they have not been able to support these claims, Pelosi/Obama promise between 3 & 4 million jobs, yet House Tax Committee staff can’t estimate even ONE job will be created.
Ineffective: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 52% of the spending in the ‘stimulus bill’ can even be spent by the end of FY’10. Well short of the 75% benchmark set by President Obama.
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” " FDR’s Treasury Sec. Henry Morgenthau Jr., architect of the New Deal.

You're correct to point out where I've gotten off track and had began to let logic slip from my arguments. Seriously, thank you. You did give a thorough tongue lashing, but it was not wholly undeserved, and I am not resentful as you pointed out several areas were I was engaging in the very thing I was criticizing.

Your paraphrase of my argument is the crux of what I believe. I unfortunately lack the ability to prove it, and when challenged to explain why I believe it to be true I am admittedly and embarrassingly unsure. There is just 'something' about this that feels completely wrong, which is of course not an argument based in logic, nor would I expect anyone to simply take my word for it.

So, thanks.

Here, Maporsche is an argument for you to consider that is not only based on logic but is also based on extrapolated costs. You are concerned with future debts for your children and grandchildren? The evidence below gives a very gloomy outlook for the future.

I have a lot of respect for someone who can do what you just did maporche. Here are some additional thoughts I have:

I don't know that you are wrong in this assessment. And I don't think you should feel bad for not knowing either, the people who claim they do with certainty are speaking out of their asses.

I too fear that this will be a futile gesture, and I too am concerned with the deficit spending's effect on the future. Hell I was worried about that before all of this started.

To me, the biggest worry I have is doing half of the stimulus that is needed. Thomas says 3x this stimulus is what is needed, I personally don't know but I am inclined to agree that this is not enough and I'm a bit frustrated that politicians are taking the easy road and using politically easy numbers (e.g. trying to avoid the "trillion" number in any single bill). I'm all for being cautious with the spend but I am concerned that spending less than enough is worse than spending too much or none at all.

So I too have a big fear that this stimulus won't materially improve things but that the bill will be very real and very material to you and me in the future.

But here's why I support taking drastic action, and it goes to the crux of what we started arguing about: employment rates.

I personally am of the opinion that the most important economic metric is the employment rate. I think all other financial woes pale in comparison to crushing unemployment. I think we can survive almost anything, as long as our employment rate is not at catastrophic levels.

And the rate at which we are loosing jobs right now has very real potential for catastrophe, I'm sure we both recognize this but I think I put much more weight on this than you do and this is what I was first trying to communicate to you about the desirability of addressing the employment problems very swiftly. I believe we are looking at the short-term collapse of the global economy if we keep losing jobs like this, and I don't think we'll just bounce back naturally either and just let it take its course and things will improve after the initial "pain".

We didn't just take the pain and get through the great depression either, there was stimulus, war and a lot of deficit spending to get out of that hole as well. And my guess is that we'd not be able to do it here either without the deficit spending (have a look here), and we'd have to do stimulus at some point anyway. I personally think that it is cheaper to do the fence at the top than the hospital at the bottom, and I think stimulus is easier and cheaper now than it would be at much higher unemployment rates.

In summary:

1) I believe we are on the road to economic ruin right now.
2) I don't know if stimulus (at the quantities we propose) can stop it, but I think we'd need stimulus at some point even if we do collapse (because I don't think things will heal themselves), and think it's cheaper now.
3) I think the rate at which we are loosing jobs is much more scary than the deficit in both the short and long terms.

Now I know I can be wrong about so many of the educated guesses I'm making along the way, and I have no problem if we disagree on that basis, but those are my thoughts. There's significant risk no matter what anyone's position is and we are have no choice but to gamble on some course of action (or inaction).

Robert expressed pretty well how I'm thinking on this current crisis. The huge loss in jobs is the biggest concern. I also believe doing nothing will make things much worse. We got through WWII by spending and creating huge deficits. The foundation of all economies are much different today, but what impacts us also impacts the world. Most of the economists in favor of shoring up their country's banks I believe is the right decision for our times. Without credit, business and consumer buying will disappear. This is a tool any economy must have to survive - from the rich to the poor countries. If there is a simple way to stop the bleeding of jobs, I'm sure the experts would have thought of them and implemented them into the stimulus plan.

I'm still not comfortable with all the add-ons on the stimulus plan; they're spending much more than our economy can handle.

We're all guessing; nobody can solve this problem quickly.

listened to two economists this morning . both said that this problem had been coming down the pike for the last twenty years , but that anyone suggesting "moderation" was not only not listened to but was branded as being "anti-capitalism" , because "the market would work itself out" .
well , the market is in the process "of working itself out" - but most of those that made the mistakes and made their profits , now demand "restraint " .
they believe that it is the ordinary people who should pay the price .

later on read yesterday's business pages with interviews of six economists - university types , bank and government types .
while there was no exact consensus on what "the best way" would be to get out of the ditch , they agreed that throwing away the shovels and sitting the side of the road would not "get the car out of the ditch " ( and not help the economy) .
if we want to get the car (economy) out of the ditch , we'll all have to work at it .
essentially what it means is to keep as many people as possible employed (keep unemployment DOWN ! ) .
perhaps it means lower income for EVERYONE who currently has a job , worksharing ... whatever . essentially we must all work together to get out of the ditch - sitting by the sidelines is going to accomplish absolutely NOTHING !

i mentioned some time ago the example of germany (and japan) coming out of WW II .
if you wanted to eat , you had to work - and food was cabbages , turnips poatoes and bread (if you were lucky ! ) . but after three years (1948) , the currency reform took place and germany started to move up again .
food rationing was over almost immediately and stores started to fill with goods again : germans had toiled for three years essentially without pay , but it surely paid off .

america(and canada) still has its infrastructure , there is plenty of food - all that's needed is work for every ablebodied person !
shouldn't be that difficult to achieve - unless we all throw away our shovels and sit by the side of road .
hbg

if stimulating the current system would avoid a depression then doing so might be a good thing, however since this crisis of confidence is rooted in obvious short comings of the system confidence will not be restored without changing the system. Pouring resources into what we have, keeping a few million employed who otherwise would not be, changes nothing about the outcome. It insulates or partly insulates a small portion of the population from the pain temporarily. This is not worth several trillion dollars of our kids money.

So, then Ribert Gentel, you do not think that the following meets your arguments head on? I would like to know why not.

Blog About SubmitThe Foundry
Stimulus 101: The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan
Posted January 27th, 2009 at 8.52am in Ongoing Priorities.
With countless news stories, papers, editorials and experts giving their view of why Congress should or shouldn’t enact the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan, we thought it would be helpful to give you a short index of why spending does not equal stimulus.

HIGH COST TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS

After Congress appropriates the FY’09 omnibus bill, they may have spent over $1.4 Trillion in less than one month!
The current “stimulus bill” will be the LARGEST SPENDING BILL EVER enacted by Congress, making the New Deal look small, accounting for inflation.
The “Stimulus” Bills Your Family " $825 Billion is equivalent to borrowing $10,520 from EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA. This money has to be paid back.
If all families were asked to equally shoulder the burden of $825 Billon, this debt would be equivalent to what they roughly spend on food, clothing, and health care in an entire year.
If Government Spending solved recessions, we would never have recessions.
BAD IDEAS " “THE DEVIL IN DISGUISE”
The hidden liberal policy agenda inside the ‘stimulus bill’…

Over $142 Billion in Federal education funds: Nearly double the total outlays for the Dept. of Education in 2007 " making good on Reid-Pelosi-Obama education promises to the NEA.
$87 Billion Medicaid bailout: Medicaid is funded by a formula that matches state spending levels with federal dollars. If we keep bailing states out, they will have every incentive to continue irresponsible spending. Fiscally responsible taxpayers in Indiana are now paying for fiscally irresponsible bureaucrats in Illinois.
Expanded Medicaid coverage and SCHIP: Reid-Pelosi-Obama are enacting a nationalized health care policy with no debate. The government will soon be responsible for more health care spending than the private sector, i.e. socialized medicine.
Green Jobs?: The myth of ‘green jobs’ merely means replacing one job lost, with a new job that fits the left’s agenda. It is a zero sum game. More than doubling spending, the stimulus also has over $35 billion for the Dept. of Energy. DOE’s current budget is $23.8 billion.
Family Planning and birth control for children, immigrants and the wealthy, which could also be used as a backdoor to allow federal funding of abortions. How is this stimulus? **UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi agrees this is not stimulus and has removed it from the bill proving these measures are allergic to sunshine.**
Redistribution: Refundable Tax Credits for people who don’t pay taxes.
Pork Spending: Digital TV Coupons ($650 Million), Gov’t Cars ($600 Million), Nat’l Endowment for the Arts ($50 Million), Repairs to National Mall ($200 Million, including $21m for sod).
BAD RESULTS

No Jobs: While they have not been able to support these claims, Pelosi/Obama promise between 3 & 4 million jobs, yet House Tax Committee staff can’t estimate even ONE job will be created.
Ineffective: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 52% of the spending in the ‘stimulus bill’ can even be spent by the end of FY’10. Well short of the 75% benchmark set by President Obama.
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” " FDR’s Treasury Sec. Henry Morgenthau Jr., architect of the New Deal.

nobody that I have heard advocates doing nothing. The debate is between those who think that we can spend our way out of this mess on our kids charge card, and those who think that we have systemic problems that must be fixed before progress can be made.

the employment is important, as it plays into mass psychology. but I not only see no value in letting people feel better about the economy that we have made then is justified, I see such efforts as a disservice to mankind. I respect honesty and brave hearted dealing with problems, I don't respect running from problems or mass delusion.

Hamberger wrote:

essentially what it means is to keep as many people as possible employed (keep unemployment DOWN ! )
end of quote-

Not, if those jobs are makework jobs which will not last long like the Jobs during the Great Depression.

from "The Forgotten Man--P. 393

quote

"...the New Dal's emergency jobs were short term, lasting months, not years.so people could not settle into them..the jobs lasted about as long as a politician's attention span--a few months"

Hawkeye 10 wrote:
quote
nobody that I have heard advocates doing nothing. The debate is between those who think that we can spend our way out of this mess on our kids charge card, and those who think that we have systemic problems that must be fixed before progress can be made.
end of quote
That is right on target--an argument made by the esteemed Economist- Dr. Thomas Sowell.

this must be done, but so far throwing money at the banking system has not done the job, and there is no reason to expect that it will. You can not get the system working until everyone has faith in the system again. The only way to do this in a reasonable amount of time is to nationalize the banks. So long as we don't do that we show through our actions that we don't "get it". The destruction caused by the failure of the financial system will continue no matter what we spend until we the people take over the banks.

I agree with this statement, but it raises some concerns.
IF the govt is able to provide work for every ablebodied person (and we all know they cant), or if this stimulus plan can provide the jobs, you are then faced with another problem.
What do you do with those that simply refuse to take a job?

Thats part of the problem facing this country today.
Too many people come out of school and expect to start as the CEO of a company, instead of starting in the mailroom.
There are plenty of jobs out there, but too many Americans refuse to do them,
Claiming they dont pay enough, are beneath them, arent what they went to school for, etc.



I 100% agree with this, and think its what the govt should do now.
Even if this stimulus plan does create the jobs, if someone refuses to work they get no welfare, ADC, or any other type of
govt handouts.
Just doing that would put millions of people back to work, IMHO.

As for this......that sure sounds good in theory, but in reality it isnt possible.
You will always have people who refuse to work, or who for whatever reason cant work.
How are you going to keep as many people employed as possible?
Many of the jobs that have been lost are skilled labor.
Do you really want to put someone in a job they have no training or experience for, just to keep them employed?

And lets face it,many of the jobs that have been lost are because of technological advances.
IMHO, much of this stimulus plan regarding jobs sounds like the govt is going to subsidize the buggy whip industry,even though nobody uses buggies anymore.

Hawkeye 10 wrote:



this must be done, but so far throwing money at the banking system has not done the job, and there is no reason to expect that it will. You can not get the system working until everyone has faith in the system again. The only way to do this in a reasonable amount of time is to nationalize the banks. So long as we don't do that we show through our actions that we don't "get it". The destruction caused by the failure of the financial system will continue no matter what we spend until we the people take over the banks.

end of quote.

Why do you think Obama is resisting this move,, Hawkeye 10- Is he ignorant or is it just that he does not have the guts to do so?

Before we can fix whats broken, we need to know exactly what is broken.
Whats needed is not a "shotgun" approach to solving the problem, but a more precise approach.
To throw money at everything that MIGHT be broken is to ginore what is truly broken.
You cant fix anything if you are trying to fix everything.