02-11-2009, 02:12 PM
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Let's look at this from a simple point of view, while I concede that both sides agree something must be done. We're essentially saying at root, that the answer to a crisis that is based on borrowing too much money, is....to borrow more & as much as we can! Does that make sense to you?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you are framing the argument incorrectly. While the crisis was instigated by too much borrowing, the problem now is clearly one of spending. There isn't enough of it. And, again, a lack of spending causes a spiral into enormous problems. While borrowing more money will create it's own set of problems, it pales in comparison to the results of a lack of spending.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Not only do I think you're grossly over simplifying the question, but you flat out didn't answer it directly and decided to dodge the question and pair it with an example that isn't even remotely close to the size, scope, scale, or costs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to go point by point with you on this (although I will add I think your view of Clinton's anti terrorism stance is skewed), suffice to say I DID answer the question. My points about Clinton were not to paint him as our protector, but rather to point out that the idea that Bush's actions are automatically justified because "he kept us safe" is flawed. There are a million reasons why we haven't been attacked (I believe the CIA's view is that Al-Quada simply turned their attention elsewhere), and it is quite possible Bush's actions had nothing to do with it. So asking "how many times were we attacked" gets us nowhere in discussing the validity of his actions.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->So your arguement is that you believe that government controlled spending of our tax dollars on pet projects that they control (be it at the federal or state level) rather than putting more of that money back into the hands of the rightful owners of that money at a 2:1 ratio is the right way to handle this? We're fundementally disagreed on that subject.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My argument is that the point of a STIMULUS package is to stimulate the economy. Spending our tax dollars on pet projects does a MUCH better job of that than tax cuts. That is essentially a fact. Is that the best way to run an economy? No. Is it the best way to create a stimulus package? YES.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Also, the other metric that you're not dealing with here is timing. There is no quicker way to get money into people's hands than by tax cuts. This is non-debatable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WRONG. This is completely and totally debatable. And pretty simply dispelled. Let's say you get a tax cut of 500 dollars. You can get it in one of 2 ways. You can pay less taxes over the course of the year, at which point you would have 500 dollars in your pocket at the end of the year. Or you can get a rebate. At which point you would have 500 dollars in your pocket almost immediately. In either case, and this is crucial, there is absolutely NO guarantee you will do anything with that money other than put it in the bank. Or under your mattress. This does NOTHING to help the economy.
On the other hand, if the spending programs are OK'd, within 3 months you have programs created to spend that money. Jobs are immediately created. The people with jobs now have money to spend. By it's very nature, a SPENDING bill guarantees spending. Tax relief does not.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You want one other final fact? Ask those SAME economist experts that were advising FDR on his stimulous plan to get us out of the great depression for "the new deal" which is nearly the same template that is being used by the Obama administration, and you will read over and over again that they feel that that it was a total failure...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, WRONG. The only people saying this either have an after their name, or write for a right wing blog. PLENTY of economists will tell you over and over that the New Deal was a success. Paul Krugman, who just won a Nobel prize in Economics will tell you the only time the New Deal stopped working was when FDR STOPPED spending, to balance the budget. The idea that the New Deal failed, while arguable, is a Right wing meme that started pretty recently. It's possible they are right, but they are in the minority on this one, and I certainly would not have any problem finding an economist who thinks it worked.
I think you are framing the argument incorrectly. While the crisis was instigated by too much borrowing, the problem now is clearly one of spending. There isn't enough of it. And, again, a lack of spending causes a spiral into enormous problems. While borrowing more money will create it's own set of problems, it pales in comparison to the results of a lack of spending.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Not only do I think you're grossly over simplifying the question, but you flat out didn't answer it directly and decided to dodge the question and pair it with an example that isn't even remotely close to the size, scope, scale, or costs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to go point by point with you on this (although I will add I think your view of Clinton's anti terrorism stance is skewed), suffice to say I DID answer the question. My points about Clinton were not to paint him as our protector, but rather to point out that the idea that Bush's actions are automatically justified because "he kept us safe" is flawed. There are a million reasons why we haven't been attacked (I believe the CIA's view is that Al-Quada simply turned their attention elsewhere), and it is quite possible Bush's actions had nothing to do with it. So asking "how many times were we attacked" gets us nowhere in discussing the validity of his actions.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->So your arguement is that you believe that government controlled spending of our tax dollars on pet projects that they control (be it at the federal or state level) rather than putting more of that money back into the hands of the rightful owners of that money at a 2:1 ratio is the right way to handle this? We're fundementally disagreed on that subject.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My argument is that the point of a STIMULUS package is to stimulate the economy. Spending our tax dollars on pet projects does a MUCH better job of that than tax cuts. That is essentially a fact. Is that the best way to run an economy? No. Is it the best way to create a stimulus package? YES.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Also, the other metric that you're not dealing with here is timing. There is no quicker way to get money into people's hands than by tax cuts. This is non-debatable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WRONG. This is completely and totally debatable. And pretty simply dispelled. Let's say you get a tax cut of 500 dollars. You can get it in one of 2 ways. You can pay less taxes over the course of the year, at which point you would have 500 dollars in your pocket at the end of the year. Or you can get a rebate. At which point you would have 500 dollars in your pocket almost immediately. In either case, and this is crucial, there is absolutely NO guarantee you will do anything with that money other than put it in the bank. Or under your mattress. This does NOTHING to help the economy.
On the other hand, if the spending programs are OK'd, within 3 months you have programs created to spend that money. Jobs are immediately created. The people with jobs now have money to spend. By it's very nature, a SPENDING bill guarantees spending. Tax relief does not.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You want one other final fact? Ask those SAME economist experts that were advising FDR on his stimulous plan to get us out of the great depression for "the new deal" which is nearly the same template that is being used by the Obama administration, and you will read over and over again that they feel that that it was a total failure...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, WRONG. The only people saying this either have an after their name, or write for a right wing blog. PLENTY of economists will tell you over and over that the New Deal was a success. Paul Krugman, who just won a Nobel prize in Economics will tell you the only time the New Deal stopped working was when FDR STOPPED spending, to balance the budget. The idea that the New Deal failed, while arguable, is a Right wing meme that started pretty recently. It's possible they are right, but they are in the minority on this one, and I certainly would not have any problem finding an economist who thinks it worked.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.