The stimulus that wasn't

[Mornac]

• Tweet

The Stimulus That Wasn’t
By DINESH D'SOUZA

So our spender-in-chief now wants to use another $50 billion in taxpayer money for “stimulus.”  How stupid do we have to be to go along with this?

Let’s refresh.  We already had an $800 billion stimulus together with other ancillary spending programs that altogether are going to cost America close to a trillion dollars.  That’s 1,000,000,000, 000.

Obama assured us that when the government spends this kind of money it will get the economy moving again.  According to the Department of Labor, unemployment was at 7.7 percent in January 2009 when Obama took office.

Now it is just over 9.5 percent.  Some stimulus!

In proposing all this spending, Obama invokes the theories of John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas about stimulus and deficit spending were very influential in the way that Western nations responded to the Great Depression.

What is often forgotten is that Keynesian solutions proved to be a disaster.  The Depression started in 1929.  Multiple stimulus efforts

If you want to know why stimulus programs usually don’t work, ask yourself this question: from where does the government get the funds to stimulate? The answer, of course, is from the private sector.  In some form or another, the government has to take money from taxpayers in order to spend that money itself.

Now imagine that you take $100 from me and spend it.  How have you stimulated anything?  Sure, you have more cash to spend then you did before, but now I have less cash to spend than I did before.  So when the federal government uses taxpayer funds to repair roads or fund artists or build bridges to nowhere, it is taking away money that could have been used for other things, such as starting new businesses, making new things, and hiring more employees.

In my view the stimulus is less about boosting the overall economy than a transfer of spending power from the private sector to the federal government.  That’s Obama’s agenda.

The deeper question is why.  What’s motivating this man?  To get the full answer you need to get my new book The Roots of Obama’s Rage.  It’s out October 4 but you can preorder it here.  But a glimpse of the answer can be found in the new issue of Forbes that is just hitting newsstands.  That article is here–and over the weekend former House Speaker and rumored presidential candidate Newt Gingrich called it the most “stunningly insightful” article he’s read on Obama in six years.

http://blogs.forbes.com/dineshdsouza/2010/09/13/the-stimulus-that-wasnt/

[Pepsi]

take a look at a bit you cut out

The Depression started in 1929.  Multiple stimulus efforts produced no lasting result.  The economy did not recover until the 1940s.  War and the subsequent rebuilding of Europe proved to be the only “stimulus” that worked.

The war ultimately took the country out of the depression.   from an economic standpoint the war was in fact a massive government stimulus, bigger than anything FDR had done, in terms of government stimulus, previously.

It wasn't tax cuts or the private sector which took the country out of the depression.   it was massive government stimulus.

So the writer inadvertently makes the case that there is not enough government stimulus, which is in line with many economists, such as Krugman.

[johnhp]

Where would the economy be without the stimulus?  The problem is not the stimulus.  The problem is the idiots in charge at the beginning (Bush Admin) and the failure to produce a significantly strong stimulus bill that would thoroughly do the job and sustain a recovery.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/research_desk_where_would_unem.html

[Velleity]

Mornac, please tell me what "Keynesian economics" means.

I have asked Boffo many times and he never answers. Camplaigner offers incomprehensible babble instead of a clear, intelligible answer. Biscuithead is completely lost and can only muster a string of dumb insults about people's physical appearances.

But I know you to be a thoughtful "conservative" even though you're a fundie of some sort of recidivist Catholic nature. So you wouldn't post stuff about "Keynesian economics" without understanding exactly what it is and how it differs from other schools of economic thought.

So, please. I actually do know the answer to this question and it's not real difficult. No, it's not reckless spending. It's something else. Show me you actually understand the talking points that you have cut and pasted here for us.

Of course if you actually did explain this you would contradict your own think tank wanker, Koch brothers funded, Pravda-like disinformation. But I have confidence in you. Let's hear your objectively reasonable thoughts. You have been hiding them for too long.

[johnhp]

Vell,

You should stop taunting him.

[Velleity]

Vell,

You should stop taunting him.

I would never do such a thing. Mornac is a bright fellow, unlike Boffo, Biscuthead, or Camplaigner. Certainly he has done his homework and he would never invoke a condemnation of Keynesian economics based on a straw man argument like the one Boffo employs.

No, he can tell me exactly and succinctly exactly what the policy is and why it's wrong. After all, it's economics 101. I'm sure he could do it.

[johnhp]

I would never do such a thing. Mornac is a bright fellow, unlike Boffo, Biscuthead, or Camplaigner. Certainly he has done his homework and he would never invoke a condemnation of Keynesian economics based on a straw man argument like the one Boffo employs.

No, he can tell me exactly and succinctly exactly what the policy is and why it's wrong. After all, it's economics 101. I'm sure he could do it.

You are just being cruel to him now.  i bet you a lunch at Wow Bao no meaningful answer is forthcoming.  Granted not the biggest bet ever, but, or course, i think too big a wager would be unseemly.

[Pepsi]

let's pose a simple question to Mornac:  what brought America out of the Great Depression?

[johnhp]

let's pose a simple question to Mornac:  what brought America out of the Great Depression?

His answer with this as with everything....16^th century Catholicism.  He does not care about temporal paradoxes.

[Velleity]

i bet you a lunch at Wow Bao no meaningful answer is forthcoming.

I have confidence in Mornac! I accept your challenge.

Come on Mornac. I know you can do it--give a straight answer to a simple question. Make me look good here, will ya?

[johnhp]

I have confidence in Mornac! I accept your challenge.

Come on Mornac. I know you can do it--give a straight answer to a simple question. Make me look good here, will ya?

i think i may have the Mongolian been and the spicy peanut noodle salad.  i thank you for the lunch in advance.

[Observer]

take a look at a bit you cut out

The war ultimately took the country out of the depression.   from an economic standpoint the war was in fact a massive government stimulus, bigger than anything FDR had done, in terms of government stimulus, previously.

It wasn't tax cuts or the private sector which took the country out of the depression.   it was massive government stimulus.

So the writer inadvertently makes the case that there is not enough government stimulus, which is in line with many economists, such as Krugman.

So, do you think we should start a World War to help out Obama's failed economic policies?

[Velleity]

So, do you think we should start a World War to help out Obama's failed economic policies?

You're another one with a bevy of unfounded conclusions.

[Pepsi]

So, do you think we should start a World War to help out Obama's failed economic policies?

No, of course not.  The point is government stimulus is what got us out of the great depression - lots of it, bigger than what FDR had done.   

conservatives argue, as they did during the depression, that no government stimulus is going to help the economy get out of a depression or deep recession as we are in now.   Even when trying to make this argument they support the opposite conclusion - noted here.   MORE stimulus is needed, now.

[Observer]

No, of course not.  The point is government stimulus is what got us out of the great depression - lots of it, bigger than what FDR had done.   

conservatives argue, as they did during the depression, that no government stimulus is going to help the economy get out of a depression or deep recession as we are in now.   Even when trying to make this argument they support the opposite conclusion - noted here.   MORE stimulus is needed, now.

That post is just... insane.