Leaders should heed economists' advice; more government spending not a solution

[Doomsday101]

A recent "Another View" said that "we the people" must support the "stimulus" bill being rushed through Congress by President Obama. It is "blind stupidity courting disaster" and "reprehensible" for any congressman to resist this bill, the writer darkly intoned.

The writer says "if one were rational, one would welcome this package." I say the starting point for rationality is understanding what is contained in it -- which almost no one does (even as they are told that they "must" vote for it ignorantly and blindly -- right now.

Harvard economist Larry Summers said last year that "a poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured." Any stimulus, he said, should be quick-acting and focused. But the present "stimulus" bill is a typical Washington pork-barrel bill, chock full of spending on interest groups that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. The CBO says that only 7 percent of the spending in the bill would hit the economy this year. More than $290 billion of the money won't be spent before 2011 at the earliest.

Respected New York Times columnist David Brooks describes the current bill as "a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord ... (with) no fiscal exit strategy ... instead, permanent spending commitments are entailed with no permanent funding stream to pay for them." He notes that Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton's budget director, has called for cutting out of the bill its mega-billions for Democrat political constituencies, which should not be "put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package."

Are Democrats Summers and Rivlin "reprehensible" for raising these legitimate issues about the stimulus package?

The Another View writer says that anti-"stimulus" arguments are "bogus," concluding that "only increased government spending will revive our economy. Who else has the kind of resources to save us?"

Where does the writer think the government gets those resources? It gets them from reaching into our pockets -- which depresses one part of the economy just as much as the "stimulus" boosts another part -- which is why most "stimulus" bills don't work.

The writer says it is "stupidity" to question the stimulus bill. But last week 200 economists signed a newspaper advertisement that said "(W)e 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, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production."

Among the signing economists were one from Harvard, two from University of Pennsylvania, four from Cornell, six from University of Chicago, two from Stanford, five from Duke, one from Johns Hopkins, one from Notre Dame, four from NYU, etc., and among the bunch three Nobel Prize winners. That isn't a list of "stupid" people.

Hippocrates said that the first obligation of a physician is to "do no harm." The same principle applies to those proposing this package. There is much "harm" in it, and it is intelligent and honorable to oppose it until that harm is removed.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Who do you listen to? Do you listen to the economists who believe in Free Market or do you believe the economists who believe in Liberal government principles through Government control?

[JBond]

To late now...Bush let the genie out of the bottle and then we elected a crazy leftist and this is the result.

Welcome to the Socialist States of Amerika.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

Who do you listen to? Do you listen to the economists who believe in Free Market or do you believe the economists who believe in Liberal government principles through Government control?

I think it is BS when he says all the economist agree with his plan, many agree something needs to be done I seriously doubt most think throwing billion at the problem is going to solve anything and in the long term will only hurt us worst than we are seeing today as inflation will hit us square in the eyes as the money we are printing hand over fist is becoming more and more worthless

[sbark]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

Who do you listen to? Do you listen to the economists who believe in Free Market or do you believe the economists who believe in Liberal government principles through Government control?

......how bout' beleiveing some 650 economists from Libertarian Cato.org


President Obama says that "economists from across the political spectrum agree" on the need for massive government spending to stimulate the economy. In fact, many economists disagree. Hundreds of them, including Nobel laureates and other prominent scholars, have signed a statement that the Cato Institute has placed in major newspapers across the United States.

• Read the text of the ad in HTML with additional signers
• Read the full text of the ad from the newspapers [PDF]

beleiving Obama and his ilk.......are very much like beleiving Al Gore and his ilk on Global Warming..........the motive, weapon & opportunity....all there

[theogt]

I would say the vast majority of economists support a stimulus package.

Certainly Summers is. Rivlin recently testified in support of the stimulus package.

Brooks (who isn't an economist) actually supports the stimulus as well. He would just like spending to be focused differently.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by theogt

I would say the vast majority of economists support a stimulus package.

Certainly Summers is. Rivlin recently testified in support of the stimulus package.

Brooks (who isn't an economist) actually supports the stimulus as well. He would just like spending to be focused differently.

Alice Rivlin, the first head of the Congressional Budget Office, recently testified before Congress that the anti-recession package should be distinguished from programs that will add to federal spending for many years. She recommended that Congress pass the stimulus package quickly and delay long-term programs until their elements could be carefully planned.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by theogt

I would say the vast majority of economists support a stimulus package.

Certainly Summers is. Rivlin recently testified in support of the stimulus package.

Brooks (who isn't an economist) actually supports the stimulus as well. He would just like spending to be focused differently.

I don't know that I would say a vast majority support this. I believe that their are some who do. I definatly believe that a vast majority believe the current bill is probably bad for our economy but I don't have numbers to support that.

I do, however, believe it is a bold face lie to say that most Americans support this Bill. They support anything that they believe might help the economy but in no way do I believe the majority of Americans have faith that this bill does that for them.

I guess we will see shortly. It's pretty much done so I guess we will see what happens.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

I don't know that I would say a vast majority support this. I believe that their are some who do. I definatly believe that a vast majority believe the current bill is probably bad for our economy but I don't have numbers to support that.

I do, however, believe it is a bold face lie to say that most Americans support this Bill. They support anything that they believe might help the economy but in no way do I believe the majority of Americans have faith that this bill does that for them.

I guess we will see shortly. It's pretty much done so I guess we will see what happens.

Yup. It's a done deal, so it doesn't matter.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by theogt

Yup. It's a done deal, so it doesn't matter.

Done deal? Not quite yet it now has to be reconciled between the house and the senate and the 3 republican who voted for it in the senate have already said if it gets changed they will not vote for it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by theogt

Yup. It's a done deal, so it doesn't matter.

This is about as rediculous a comment as I've seen of late.

It's pretty much a done deal, that is true. It matters a great deal IMO.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

This is about as rediculous a comment as I've seen of late.

It's pretty much a done deal, that is true. It matters a great deal IMO.

It's "ridiculous." And, no, whether economists supported it after it's passed has no consequence whatsoever on the future.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by theogt

It's "ridiculous." And, no, whether economists supported it after it's passed has no consequence whatsoever on the future.

At night, not last night. Your comments, IMO, were foolish but that's only my opinion.

I am a terrible speller so please, feel free to follow behind all of my posts and correct the spelling. One less menial task I will have to bother with.

Thanks in advance.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

At night, not last night. Your comments, IMO, were foolish but that's only my opinion.

I am a terrible speller so please, feel free to follow behind all of my posts and correct the spelling. One less menial task I will have to bother with.

Thanks in advance.

No offense, but I don't think there's such a thing as "terrible spellers," rather only people that lack attention to detail.

But maybe that's just me being "foolish."

[trickblue]

Originally Posted by theogt

It's "ridiculous." And, no, whether economists supported it after it's passed has no consequence whatsoever on the future.

Originally Posted by theogt

No offense, but I don't think there's such a thing as "terrible spellers," rather only people that lack attention to detail.

But maybe that's just me being "foolish."

Technically, shouldn't the period be after the quotation marks?