Taro T Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 How did Bush just try this? I've seen views on both sides of the FDR New Deal working/not working. So, IMO, to use that as an argument is to get into a histrionics debate. How exactly, is this Bill taking from one and giving to another? In fact, this Bill cuts taxes. I don't see any tax increases in it at all. What it does, in fact, is use money that we don't have. So, perhaps you could say we're taking future generation's money. Certainly, you could argue that adding to the federal deficit to this degree does more long term harm than short term good, but that has nothing to do with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The government has pretty well perfected the art of getting money from thin air. That's why the federal deficit is as large as it is. So to conclude that they're going to recoup the cost of this Bill from higher taxes, implies that they can recoup the costs of all the previous year's spending with higher taxes. I think anyone will say that our deficit is so high, currently, that increased taxes alone will do nothing to decrease it. But, let's just assume taxes aree raised in a year... is it to pay for this bill or to pay for the previous 10 years of spending? Does it really matter? I really have no idea what ruined Japan's economy; but it'd be nice to see some evidence that it was government spending and not some list of other extraneous events. Regardless, just because they couldn't make it work, we should assume we can't either? Again, we really need to know a trillion more details before we could have any real discussion about Japan's economy. Many of those have supposedly been removed from the Senate's version. And the wastefulness of some are entirely up for debate. For example, I don't see forcing the military and government to use electric cars as wasteful. Some American auto maker has to make all those cars, do they not? Tell, Ford that buying 100,000 cars (I just made that number up) is a waste of money and I'm sure they'd disagree. Ok... not enough time to really go through the rest of those reasons. IMO, many of them are highly debatable if not just inaccurate statements. I think there are very good arguments against this bill and/or portions of the bill; I just don't think these are them. In fact, this bill doesn't cut taxes. Every single $ the government spends is a tax. Some of the taxes are collected today, and some in the future; but either way a $ has to come out of somebody's pocket. And whether you are taking from the rich and giving to the poor, taking from the poor and giving to the rich, taking from the middle class and giving to the middle class, or some other permutation, you are "taking from one and giving to another." Someone puts money in (again, either today or tomorrow) and someone else gets to take it out. As you state about, in this case someone in the future will have to pay so we can spend today. (Although I'd be very surprised if there aren't other tax increases for today in the bill as well.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Here's the real stimulus: Cut social programs by 90% and only fund people who have paid in. People who have paid into unemployment should get their money back and people on welfare are on their own unless they have paid in. Drop the Department of Education and let it be a state and local thing Bring our troops home and stop empire building Deregulate business and eliminate corporate taxes Stop subsidizing mortgages and let the free-market determine the rates and down-payments Eliminate the income tax Destroy the "free-trade" agreements Problem solved. Debt free in 10 years and we won't be destroying our children's future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Interesting, now here is the actual CBO estimate in plain English http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=204 and the Inouye sub http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=205 and the more sophisticated one for you number crunchers: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9977/hr1senate.pdf and the Inouye substitue http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 So because you think the overall stimulus bill is bad, that means each and every little part of it is bad as well? There's no chance that something good can come out of it? And generally because they discover something totally outside of what they were actually researching. That's how science works. That's how science has always worked. Oh yeah, i forgot. Something that would increase jobs (funding increases = more faculty jobs, more post docs, etc. its not just grad students) is bad. eh? more graduate students making 22k a year that don't contribute to product development in industry which is really what spurs the economy? more pipet tips and eppendorf tubes sold by VWR? I'm a PhD product of Biomedical/Chemical engineering research also and I'm not seeing it. I suppose if there are any major discoveries, some pharmaceutical company could run with it and make tons of money, however no immediate cash infusion is going to result in a drug that is going to boost the economy within 4 years. On top of that, what STD needs to be cured so badly that it's going to be a huge cash cow? HIV? C'mon man, if you're in the industry then you know that the ancillary knowledge gained in any basic research is usually the most beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Which simply means you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know if I've read one post by you that doesn't accuse somebody else of being ignorant about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 11. Obama should take a lesson from our ex-retard in chief, Bush. You CAN'T spend your way out of a recession. You can only spend your way into one. Shouldn't our current president have learned from the last idiot? If Bush is a retard and idiot for doing something and now Obama is doing it, isn't Obama a retard and idiot, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 If Bush is a retard and idiot for doing something and now Obama is doing it, isn't Obama a retard and idiot, too? Ahhh... YES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Ahhh... YES! And isn't Obama an even BIGGER retard and idiot than Bush is because Obama learned nothing from Bush's bad judgment? Not to mention that Obama hires tax cheats to fill his cabinet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 And isn't Obama an even BIGGER retard and idiot than Bush is because Obama learned nothing from Bush's bad judgment? Not to mention that Obama hires tax cheats to fill his cabinet. Ahhhh, yes. Aren't you gonna ask me a very important question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/t...se-the-stimulus Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus As with medicine, the first rule of law making should be first, do no harm. The "stimulus" bill fails this test spectacularly. Among so many other reasons to tell your U.S. Representative and Senators in Washington to oppose the stimulus, the Top 10 are: 1. The Stimulus Will Not Work Our history is replete with examples of "stimulus" spending failing to move our economy toward prosperity--Bush just tried it, Ford tried it. Even Christina Romer, Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers agrees. Romer wrote in a study, "Our estimates suggest that fiscal actions contributed only moderately to recoveries." The New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and Obama's stimulus package won't end this recession. In fact, two UCLA economists published a study in 2004 finding FDR's similar New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression by seven years. It fails because you don't increase economic output by taking a dollar from one person and giving to another. The idea of "stimulus" spending falls for the " broken window fallacy"--the allure of what is seen versus what is not seen. We will see the jobs created by the government spending. What we won't see are the jobs lost because consumers have less money to spend because the government got the money its spending from us--the only place it can get money. 2. The Stimulus follows the same plan that ruined Japan's economy Japan, after a dramatic market crash and a drop in real estate prices responded with government spending not unlike what the US Congress is considering today. In fact, they had 10 stimulus bills between 1992 and 2000, spending billions on infrastructure construction, building bridges, roads, and airports as well as pouring money into biotech and telecommunications. While many countries enjoyed booming economies and falling unemployment during this time, Japan had a lost decade, seeing its unemployment more than double. They spent double the US level of GDP on infrastructure, and now have a lousy economy and have one of the highest national debts in the world. After 10 stimulus packages, Japan has gone from having the second biggest economy in the world by a long shot, to being well behind the new number two, China, and is close to falling behind India. We do not want to follow their lead. 3. The Stimulus is full of Wasteful Projects While we were told the stimulus bill would focus on rebuilding America's infrastructure--mainly the roads and bridges--only 5% of the current bill goes to such projects. The rest of the bill goes to pet projects like: * $400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases * $200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars * $34,000,000.00 to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters * $75,000,000.00 for a program to end smoking which, if successful will bankrupt the State Children's Health Program Democrats are about to pass (SCHIP) that is paid for by cigarette taxes * $650,000,000.00 for digital TV coupons * $50,000,000.00 for the National Endowment for the Arts These programs are just the 2008 version of the " midnight basketball" program that derailed Bill Clinton's attempt to ram through a "stimulus" bill in 1992. Despite that bill failing, the economy quickly recovered and the economic boom of the 1990s began. 4. The Government Can't Afford the Stimulus President Bush pushed the government deep into a $1.2 trillion deficit this year, the third time he has set a record for biggest deficit ever, and President Obama's stimulus bill follows his lead, piling on more debt. The deficit in 2008 amounted to about 8 percent of GDP. The entire debt is about 35 percent of GDP. Even for those who do still believe in Keynesianism, it is important to remember his theory didn't start with the government already over a trillion dollars in the hole, he was generally operating from balanced budgets. 5. We Can't afford the Stimulus How much is $825 billion? The Heritage Foundation has calculated that that comes to over $10,000 per American family. To further put that in context, on average, families annually spend: * $2,230 on apparel and services * $3,595 on health care * $4,322 on food at home * $11,657 on shelter 6. The Stimulus is Bigger Than the Economic Output of Most Countries If this bill were a country, it'd be the 15th largest country in world, ranking between Australia and Mexico. It is bigger than the economies of Saudi Arabia and Iran combined. In fact, the $875 billion it calls for is more than all the cash in the United States. 7. Central Planning like the Stimulus Doesn't Work, Ask the USSR If centrally planned government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War. If government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth we would be in the middle of the Bush Boom right now. It doesn't. Working, saving, and investing leads to economic output and increases in productivity lead to growth. As economics professor Steven Horwitz said, "The stimulus plans assume consumption is the source of growth. It is not. It is the consequence of said growth." 8. Remember the $750 Billion Bailout from this Fall? It was just a couple months ago when we were told if we would just quickly hand over $750 billion to the Treasury Secretary to bailout his friends on Wall Street, he would make the economy all better. That didn't work, and neither will an additional $825 billion. 9. This Money Doesn't Grow on Trees And this has nothing to do with paper money being made of cotton and linen. The only way the government gets money is through taxing, borrowing, or printing--that is, it has to take it out of the economy in order to put it back into the economy. If government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If it raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul - probably with interest. If it prints the money, inflation decreases the value of the dollar for every American - robbing Paul to pay Paul. 10. Economists do NOT Agree this is a Good Idea No matter how many times supporters of the bill say it, economists do not all agree this bill is a good idea. In fact, hundreds of economists have come out against it, including Noble Laureates, who signed a letter the Cato Institute ran as a full page ad in several major newspapers opposing the stimulus. Still more economists submitted statements to the US House of Representatives opposing the stimulus proposal. Holy crap. This steaming hunk of propaganda is so slanted to the right my laptop alomst fell of the coffee table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 C'mon man, if you're in the industry then you know that the ancillary knowledge gained in any basic research is usually the most beneficial. Yes, I agree with you there. At the same time, I still stand by my point that dumping extra funding in will not stimulate the economy because any benefits will take many many years to see. If we want to really "stimulate" the economy NOW as the president and politicians claim, then any money being put into that stimulus bill needs to have immediate impact. Extra funding for research is another fight for another time. Now let's say that this extra funding would somehow stimulate the economy through creation of new jobs...how long would it really take? How long is it going to for the money to get divvied up to each funding agency? How long will it then take for PI's to then apply for those grants? They can't hire any more post-docs or take on extra students until that funding is guaranteed. Seems like it's at least a minimum of 2-3 years to fully process. Also, don't forget that when a PI gets funding from something like an RO1, the school takes a huge chunk. I guess some of that money could go towards hiring new faculty but I would not say that is money well spent to boost the economy quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I don't know if I've read one post by you that doesn't accuse somebody else of being ignorant about something. Actually, he has been relatively tame lately. Some say (I have my doubts) that he was even relatively nice back in the early days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Actually, he has been relatively tame lately. Some say (I have my doubts) that he was even relatively nice back in the early days. He hibernates in the winter. And he just has a very low tolerance for stupidity, of which there is a hell of a lot on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 If Bush is a retard and idiot for doing something and now Obama is doing it, isn't Obama a retard and idiot, too? No, that makes everyone an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 No, that makes everyone an idiot At least we're not all retards, though. That's a relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I just ordered a book by Larry Winget titled "People are idiots and I can prove it". This guy gets it. He's not into the kindler, gentler crap. The synopsis contains sage advice such as the secret to losing weight- Eat less, exercise more. He states that people who don't pay their bills on time lack integrity. Good stuff that goes counter to todays touchy, feeley victim attitude that is being pushed hard by Motherment as I write. It sounds like required reading for the whiners here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 I just ordered a book by Larry Winget titled "People are idiots and I can prove it". This guy gets it. He's not into the kindler, gentler crap. The synopsis contains sage advice such as the secret to losing weight- Eat less, exercise more. He states that people who don't pay their bills on time lack integrity. Good stuff that goes counter to todays touchy, feeley victim attitude that is being pushed hard by Motherment as I write. It sounds like required reading for the whiners here. Read Bernie Goldberg's new book, also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts