I’m getting more than a little tired of Arnold the RINO decrying hypocrites in his ostensible party, who supposedly rail about the Porkustimulus bill, while going out to cut ribbons at events funded by it and taking credit for them. And yet somehow, he never provides an actual example.
I’m willing to believe that such people exist (Republicans do have some repugnant people in the party, Scharzenegger being quite prominent among them), but if you’re going to damn the party to which you claim to belong in such a way, it would seem that, at a minimum, one should offer some evidence for it. Or admit that one is just blowing it out his…abs. And of course, the press (in this case Greta) never calls him on it.
Ethan,
From you: “every budget office, every watchdog organization, and every think tank, conservative or liberal, has crunched the numbers and shown that the stimulus kept this recession from becoming a depression, and is slowly starting to push us toward recovery.”
So I guess the science is settled then?
You folks on the left really need to learn some new lines…
The cookies were delicious, thanks for asking.
No, Scott, the “science isn’t settled.” It won’t be until either the economy’s recovered, or we’re all standing in breadlines. This is unfortunate, but it’s a consequence of always existing in the present. There are ways, though, to acquire and analyze information in such a way as to allow you to project your perception into the future. These methods are divided into disciplines, such as “Economics.” The people who practice these disciplines are generally very knowledgeable, and have devoted significant portions of their lives to study. The “Economists,” as we’ll call them, seem to think that, given the current data and the historical record, we’ve taken the proper steps towards averting disaster.
If we end up in breadlines, they were wrong. But there’s a better-than-even chance they know what they’re talking about.
And Rand, just the headline to that Cato analysis is ridiculous, given the fact that job losses have slowed to a fraction of what they were before the stimulus took effect.
Deliberately rubbing your hand on sandpaper is also irritating, but whose fault is that?
Ethan:
So the congressman is a hypocrit if he opposed the stimus checks and his constituents didn’t return the money. How does that work?
“CBO says stimulus added up to 2.1 million jobs in 4th quarter 2009.”
Employed persons at the end of Q3 2009: 138,768,000
Employed persons at the end of Q4 2009: 137,792,000
Are you claming that without the stimulus the we would have lost 3,076,000 jobs rather than 976,000 jobs?
“job losses have slowed to a fraction of what they were before the stimulus took effect.”
2009 Q4 jobs lost: 976,000
2009 Q3 jobs lost: 1,270,000
2009 Q2 jobs lost: 816,000
2009 Q1 jobs lost: 2,334,000
2008 Q4 jobs lost: 1,833,999
2008 Q3 jobs lost: 747,000
2008 Q2 jobs lost: 405,000
2008 Q1 jobs lost: 0
2007 Q4 jobs lost: 20,000
I’m not sure much of a trend line can be derived from that data.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm
1,833,999 should be 1,833,000 of course
On another note, if Obamacare passes, is it Gerrib’s suggestion to make sure everybody that opposed it doesn’t get healthcare? How Stalinist of him.
Stalin’s my main man, I think everyone should have clubfoot and a creepy mustache. THIS IS THE WAY FORWARD, you’re either with us or against us.
Yeah, I give up.
The report states between 1.1 and 2.1mm jobs. So an error factor of 100 and the disclaimer these numbers could be lower or higher.
The “Economists,” as we’ll call them, seem to think that, given the current data and the historical record, we’ve taken the proper steps towards averting disaster.
Some do, many don’t. As I said, the ones that do don’t really understand how economies work (i.e., they’re leftists). And Robert Samuelson doesn’t seem to think that it did, or is doing, much good, even though he supported a big stimulus. As he says, it was a payoff to Dem constituencies, not a “stimulus.”
I don’t quite understand the “hypocrisy” argument nor why it is meant to be an insult. We are after all speaking of congresscritters. Hypocrisy flows through their noble veins. It is their meat and drink. The air they breath.
It sounds like the Theft Party is upset because the other side scored twice, once politically by opposing yet another theft and then again by horning in on the action. I guess it’s an unfair “have cake and eat it too” moment.
I ran into this analysis of the methodology used by the CBO in their report:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWVjZTI0Yzg5MTg2YjQ3NDEyYzQ3OTNmNWQ2N2EzN2Y=
This being the case, the numbers produced are meaningless, as they do nothing more than assume the stimulus produces results, and build a model around the assumptions.
Ethan,
What a charmingly Manichean view of Economics…we either recover or are in breadlines? How about we recover more quickly/slowly, or get into long/short breadlines? Sorry, it doesn’t sound too convincing. The predictions made about the effect (or lack thereof) of the stimulus are just that, predictions, and what they are no matter how many eminent Economists (or hacks, it is often hard to tell the difference) you line up, reality isn’t a majority vote kind of thing…
Deliberately rubbing your hand on sandpaper is also irritating, but whose fault is that?
The evil capitalists running a for-profit… Big Sandpaper, naturally.
Comparing your own comment threads to sandpaper…I wasn’t going to touch that one, but Al made it an irresistible thing to point out. I guess to you guys it’s like a big luxurious Santa beard.
And “Some do, many don’t” is a distortion. A big one. Economists with no stated political affiliation seem overwhelmingly to think the stimulus was the right thing at the right time. I seem to find the only economists doubting the stimulus’s effectiveness hanging out on sites like…well, like Pajamas and Cato.
Anyway…the breadlines thing was hyperbole, I didn’t literally mean we’re faced with either record GDP growth or massive 1930’s-mirroring poverty. If, in a year, the economy is still as shaky as it is today, then I’ll very likely be criticizing the stimulus. But it looks to me like hiring is the one area of the economy that’s still seriously weak. And historically, it’s always the last area to recover, despite (somewhat paradoxically) being the primary driver of long-term growth.
Which leads me to another thing: I should clarify, I don’t think the stimulus was a so-called silver bullet. Government spending does not equal a long-term solution. But it seems obvious to me that it stopped our economic tailspin from completely putting the brakes on…well, on everything. Its stated purpose was to stop the collapse and lay a foundation for the return of free market-driven growth, and I think it’s doing that, slowly but surely. Have I suffered under this economy? Yes. Without a doubt. But I’m starting to see light at the end of the tunnel.
Economists with no stated political affiliation seem overwhelmingly to think the stimulus was the right thing at the right time.
You can repeat this all you want, but you have provided no evidence for it.
Its stated purpose was to stop the collapse and lay a foundation for the return of free market-driven growth, and I think it’s doing that, slowly but surely.
I don’t. And many economists agree with me.
Since we are talking about waste of money in California… I was reading the media hype about Bloom Energy today. Then I bumped into this:
http://energycenter.org/index.php/incentive-programs/self-generation-incentive-program
Considering combined heat and power plants work just fine, not to mention efficiently, this seems like a waste of public money to me.
I mean, at least wind power subsidies are providing for actual power generation from existing wind land resources. Ergo you do not need to pay for fuel. Fuel cells must consume hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuel which must come from somewhere else. Bloom Energy’s product in particular requires burning natural gas in order to work. Just like a regular peaking power plant…
President Obama’s stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY’s quarterly survey of 50 economists.
[rolling eyes]
Of course it saved government jobs — the states and public-employee unions would have had to actually tighten their belts if they hadn’t been given a handout, courtesy of the federal taxpayers. The question is, how many private-sector jobs did it save? Or destroy? Or prevent from being created? How can you (or the fifty economists) possible know that we are better off as a nation as a result of this abomination?
Explain to me how it destroyed jobs or prevented them from being created. Please.
I mean…how can you know it’s an abomination? The same logic you’re applying to our arguments applies to yours as well, you know.
Which leads me to another thing: I should clarify, I don’t think the stimulus was a so-called silver bullet. Government spending does not equal a long-term solution. But it seems obvious to me that it stopped our economic tailspin from completely putting the brakes on…well, on everything. Its stated purpose was to stop the collapse and lay a foundation for the return of free market-driven growth, and I think it’s doing that, slowly but surely. Have I suffered under this economy? Yes. Without a doubt. But I’m starting to see light at the end of the tunnel.”
Then why continue spending? When the government spends money it doesn’t have, that puts pressure on credit markets because of its borrowing to pay the spending obligations made by it. That takes money away from private markets or if the government prints more money, raises inflationary pressures. You get more debt and higher inflation when the debt gets too big because servicing the debt adds to the inflationary pressures and Congress generally kicks the debt service cost down the deficit road. Haven’t you people watched any of the Greece financial trainwreck?
I mean…how can you know it’s an abomination?
What an absurd question. I didn’t say I “know” that it is an abomination. That’s called an “opinion.” (Just trying to help you improve your English skills.) Just like the notion that we are better off for it having passed is.
Explain to me how it destroyed jobs or prevented them from being created. Please.
By diverting capital from relatively productive private-sector investments — i.e., the kind that are profitable enough to attract investment from people investing their own money — to relatively unproductive govt spending and particularly pork spending. Money invested in that new highway overpass that no one really wants, and that won’t generate much economic activity beyond that involved in constructing it (but which will generate a few votes for the Congressman who spent someone else’s money on it), doesn’t get invested in a biotech startup that might generate huge compounded productivity gains and thousands of jobs in the future. Otherwise we could make the country fantastically wealthy by merely having the govt spend most of our national income on infrastructure projects.
Here is a template of many arguments with leftists:
YOU: [Leftist policy] is bad because [reasons].
LEFTIST: [Bush / Cheney / another Republican] supported [Leftist policy], therefore your argument is invalid.
YOU: I disagree with [Bush / Cheney / another Republican] on this point. What does any of this have to do with my argument?
LEFTIST: Republicans are hypocrites.
YOU: Many of them are, though they are usually better than Democrats on the issue we’re discussing. Why is [Leftist policy] a good idea?
LEFTIST: [Bush / Cheney / another Republican] supported [Leftist policy], therefore your argument is invalid.
[etc.]
Infrastructure spending is an interesting case. Regardless of the stimulus bill argument, the building of necessary infrastructure is always a good idea. Examples; various countries’ highway networks, the Tennessee Valley project, Hoover Dam… All of which were built with government money to meet a need that private capital either wouldn’t or couldn’t meet. Either because the timescale was too long to suit shareholders (and this constraint is stronger now than in the 30s) or because the resources needed were simply too great.
However, like all government projects money gets wasted even if the job is necessary. I have a very small-scale example from very near to my place of work. My local council (or to be more accurate, its planning bureaucrats) decided that a large area of my town centre ought to be pedestrianised – and then a few months after most of the job was finished, they decided that the area should be further extended towards my premises. This required large amounts of traffic (both motor and foot) chaos because a road junction was being blocked, and cost me personally a great deal of money in lost business.
The total area in question was no more than 250 square yards; the job took six weeks. I have no doubt at all that a similar job being done in (for example) a supermarket car park would have taken a week or less, and most of that time would be waiting for cement to set.
Even if a job needs doing, no government body has any incentive whatsoever to get it done in an efficient and timely manner. The only partial solution I can think of is a rather simple law; any government body contracting a job out is required to put time penalty clauses in the contract. I strongly doubt that this is ever done in US local or federal government contracting; I am just about sure that it never is in the UK.
I mean…how can you know it’s an abomination? The same logic you’re applying to our arguments applies to yours as well, you know.
I think this sort of argument is one of the reasons why economics was developed in the first place. Not all decisions are equal in their costs and benefits.
The general problem with any government spending is that it is inefficient, if for no other reason than money is taken away from the taxpayer who had an interest in seeing that money used for greatest value and given to a bureaucracy which doesn’t have an interest in getting the greatest value out of that money.
There are two particular things about the Stimulus bill to consider in addition to the above problem:
1) Most of it wasn’t stimulus. That is, most of it (somewhere around 70%!) is not spent within the year, which defeats the point of being a stimulus.
2) Most of it was spent in a partisan way to support groups that are typical Democrat constituencies or hobbyhorses, for example, the unions, renewable energy industry, Medicare, education and teacher unions, low income workers, etc.
So we have spending that only superficially addresses the excuse for which it was made and heavily benefits the current political forces. Why shouldn’t it be considered an abomination?
Like the Founders, I’m on the side of individualism and human liberty.
Whose Founders were those? Most of the founders of the U.S. endorsed the complete negation of human liberty.
Most of the founders of the U.S. endorsed the complete negation of human liberty.
Stop being an historical ignoramus. All of the Founders favored human liberty. The problem was that some (though not all) conveniently chose to define Africans as non-human.
Of course it saved government jobs
Actually, there are fewer people on the government payroll today than there were when Obama took office. So you can conclude either:
1) Obama has shrunk the size of government in absolute terms, and should be a hero to the tea party movement and all other fans of small-government
or
2) The government would have shrunk even more without the ARRA, and Obama should be judged by the difference between what happened and what would have happened otherwise.
I don’t expect many here to choose the first conclusion. But if you choose the second you are endorsing the very logic that the administration (and all the major economic forecasters) use when they talk about ARRA and private jobs: that private jobs have been lost, but far more would have been lost without the stimulus.
All of the Founders favored human liberty. The problem was that some (though not all) conveniently chose to define Africans as non-human.
So the founders thought they favored human liberty. That is hardly the same thing.
I believe that I support human liberty, gun rights, bipartisanship, the best interests of the State of Israel, etc., as I define all those things. And my definitions are far more defensible than one that denies the humanity of Africans. But I can’t imagine you blithely stating that “like Jim, I’m on the side of human liberty.”
I share the Founders’ views of human liberty. I don’t share all of their views on the definition of human. I suspect that I share few of your views on anything.
Heh, Jim, you think you support these things. And at the least, your definition of “bipartisanship” (defined as the party in control of both branches of Congress goofs around for a few months trying to get its own soldiers in line) is probably as whacked out as defining blacks as non-humans (or 3/5ths human?).
If the founders wanted to completely negate human liberty, then how does one explain the bill of rights?
I think Jim is just depressed after watching Democrats fail at coming up with a good rational for healthcare reform. So now, he graps at fantasy arguments that the world is somehow different than he believed. Perhaps he thinks the US is ungovernable, and always has been.
If the founders wanted to completely negate human liberty, then how does one explain the bill of rights?
The bill of rights did not prevent the U.S. government from stripping millions of humans from any and all forms of liberty. If it had, it would not have been ratified.
Perhaps he thinks the US is ungovernable, and always has been.
The routine supermajority requirement for passage of legislation is a modern phenomenon.
Again, I ask if the founders wanted to completely negate human liberty, why did they pass the bill of rights? Jim has failed to answer the question, yet it was his proposition.
And does the requirement for a supermajority make the US less governable today than it was under Bush? Clinton? Hell, Obama, Reid, Pelosi had the supermajority. I think they are the ones uncapable of governing. Indeed, many people here suggested they weren’t ready to govern, and morons like Jim claimed they were.
Again, I ask if the founders wanted to completely negate human liberty, why did they pass the bill of rights?
They only wanted to negate it for millions; they passed the bill of rights because it did not apply to those millions.
And does the requirement for a supermajority make the US less governable today than it was under Bush?
Yes — check out the trend in the number of cloture votes over the last four Congresses.
You keep saying that Jim but you have provided nothing to back up your claim that the founding fathers wantedto completely negate human liberty. Do you have anything to back up your claim besides your own statement?
And so you’re admitting that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are uncapable of governing. It took you long enough. Some of us have been telling you for 2 years that they weren’t ready to take the lead.
Do you have anything to back up your claim besides your own statement?
They set up a system of government that gave millions of people the legal status of livestock, denying them of any and all liberty. They did not do it by accident, it was a conscious decision (e.g. see the discussion in Ellis’s Founding Brothers). Is this somehow news to you?
And so you’re admitting that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are uncapable of governing.
Where did I say that? Things have been getting worse since the 90s, under the leadership of both parties.
And why would you include Pelosi in that list — the House has passed the ARRA, comprehensive health care reform, cap-and-trade, and many other major bills, all in a bit more than a year. Pelosi’s performance has been a tour-de-force. The dysfunction is limited to the Senate, but even then the Senate has overcome obstruction to pass the ARRA, the new jobs bill, and health care reform.
And why would you include Pelosi in that list — the House has passed the ARRA, comprehensive health care reform, cap-and-trade, and many other major bills, all in a bit more than a year. Pelosi’s performance has been a tour-de-force.
Yes, it’s been such a tour-de-force that she’s rammed through a bunch of leftist crap that, with the exception of Porkulus, has failed to become law. Brilliant. Just when our opinion of your opinions couldn’t get much lower, you are defending the hyperpartisan moron, Nancy Pelosi.
Sorry Jim, I thought you said they wanted to completely negate human liberty.
Complaining about slavery in 2010 seems a bit anachronistic to the current discussion. Is that really the argument you want to make? The US founding fathers didn’t ban slavery, therefore they hated liberty, and therefore Obama is unable to govern the US with a supermajority?
Pelosi’s performance has been a tour-de-force.
Yeah, she gave Rangel his chairmanship after claiming the most ethical Congress ever. No wonder she’s looking at losing her majority after only 4 years.
Not to mention that she had a strong majority, and passed most of that insane crap without any significant support from across the aisle. Yes, a legislative genius, that Nancy Pelosi. No wonder another genius like Jim so admires her.
rammed through
I.e. she led a process that resulted in major bills that attracted majority support. That’s the definition of successful legislative leadership.
The US founding fathers didn’t ban slavery, therefore they hated liberty, and therefore Obama is unable to govern the US with a supermajority?
Rand put himself on the side of the founders; I was just reminding Rand that the founders were no friends to human liberty.
without any significant support from across the aisle
Why is that an interesting standard for success? By that way of thinking any party can made the leader of the other party a failure by withholding its votes. It’s results that matter, not the letter after the names of the Aye votes.
You don’t have to like Pelosi, or the bills she passed, to acknowledge her success in passing them.
…she led a process that resulted in major bills that attracted majority support. That’s the definition of successful legislative leadership.
No, the definition of successful legislative leadership is to pass bills that actually become law. Any moron can pass legislation in their own house when they have a strong majority. As Nancy Pelosi proved.
Why is that an interesting standard for success?
Because it means that a) the legislation will prove more able to pass both houses and b) will be have more broad-based support and be more popular and less likely to be overturned in the future. But who am I to argue with political genii like Nancy Pelosi and Jim, most of whose cherished objectives to wreck the country have failed this year because of their hyperpartisanship?
I was just reminding Rand that the founders were no friends to human liberty.
Why would you continue to remind me of nonsense? I’ll have to remind you, apparently, because you are very slow, that they were friends to human liberty — they just disagreed with you and me on what constitutes a human. In that they were men of their times, but it doesn’t mean that they didn’t create the most revolutionary structure to defend human liberty up to that time (and in fact since, other than that fundamental flaw).
Remember when Rand declared the VA and NJ elections to be death blows to health care reform in the House? Pelosi then got the bill through, with votes to spare.
Remember when Rand declared the VA and NJ elections to be death blows to health care reform in the House? Pelosi then got the bill through, with votes to spare.
All the more proof that she’s a fool, who will likely forfeit her coveted position this fall. You (and she) don’t seem to understand that she is Speaker of the House, not Speaker of the Democrat Party. The party has a majority leader — his name is Steny Hoyer. The great social legislation of the past — civil rights, medicare — was approved, and became law, with bipartisan support, because the speakers of that era knew how to gain it. Nancy Pelosi is a moron and an ideological party hack.
Ah, more proof of Nancy Pelosi’s “brilliant legislative leadership.”
Jim’s heroine.
Hear that sound, Jim? It’s all of us laughing at you, with your head stuck up her fundament.
It’s all of us laughing at you, with your head stuck up her fundament.
Right you are, Rand. That link is full of Congressional leadership FAIL: Failure to handle corruption. Failure to control legislation.
And note, nothing in that story has anything to do with cloture votes or supermajority problems. Pelosi is simply unable to govern her fellow Democrat congressmen. All the more evidence that Jim is Transterrestrial’s village idiot.