Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (103214)	2/5/2009 12:17:41 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542202

He was using an extreme example to make the idea very clear, not claiming that the real world of federal spending is that extreme. Some government spending is useless (or even counter-productive) even before considering its costs, some doesn't matter much giving about as much benefit as its cost, some is useful even after considering its costs, some is vital. The argument is that after $3+tril in spending (closer to $6tril if you count state and local spending) that we've probably handled most of the vital stuff, and the low hanging fruit in terms of the useful stuff, and that additional spending is more likely to be "doesn't matter much", "useless", or "counterproductive", or at best marginally useful, esp. if the spending is rushed through and done in a highly political fashion. Its not that additional government spending is literally digging up holes and filling them again, or even that its like that attempt in terms of being so obviously useless. The point wasn't made in the two paragraphs you quoted, that was just a setup for the point, the actual point was "The federal budget is about $3 trillion. Is the next $500 billion or so money well spent or money squandered? I think it will be mostly squandered, so I'm against the stimulus. Plenty of people think it would be money well spent. Many people want a role for government closer to that of Europe's. Most of us against increased government spending want to move in the other direction." ---- I wonder is there anyone here who's for the stimulus, but long term want's smaller government? Is there anyone here who's against the stimulus but long term wants larger government? It seems to me that's its mostly about what role you want for the government. If you want government that as a percentage of GDP is like Western Europe, than you support the stimulus. If you don't (and esp, if you want smaller government) your against it (or you want most of it to be in tax breaks). I hope there are people here who do have a different long term view of government spending than their view on stimulus spending. I'd be interested in hearing their arguments. It could provide an interesting change than what you normally get from both sides on this issue.

To: JohnM who wrote (103214)	2/5/2009 12:24:19 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542202

John; That's my point. We had a good argument here recently between Lane and myself as to what constitutes a "stimulus". I think that the "nonsense" author is making that point when he argues between the two philosophies of just spending money to get it in the system or spending money and accomplishing the creation of jobs and getting a return for the tax payer. Why is that not a valid question? What is nonsense about that? Any "economist" who thinks this "choice" accurately reflects the debate among economists today simply doesn't deserve whatever doctorate he/she received. John, this is the debate. Kugman and Ben Stein are saying get the money into the system anyway we can - dig the holes and fill them is. Build houses on one end of the development while we bull doze them on the other. Return to the old way. I and others are saying that this can't be done. So instead of digging that hole (building another house), move these workers into something that needs to be done - build a bridge, a tunnel, a transit system, repair dams, the list is almost endless. That is a real difference. A difference between Krugman and what Americas in middle America really want. AND, it is not nonsense at all. It is a debate Americans deserve.