Bring on the pork ...

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If the govt. wants a piece of that, probably will have to legalize crack.

No. They would get a lot of it back in Lotto purchases.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

But if there is a legitimate economic theory to support that sort of spending as an economic stimulus, then can you really call it pork?

It's a fact that fiscal spending creates demand. The debate is what's more efficient - what has the higher multiplier - money in the hands of the government or in the market. It can be argued that in our current circumstances the government is more efficient, because if the market had money it would be saved/horded and not spent/lent. (Savings!? The horror!) I don't agree, per se, but it's a legitimate position.

Now on the question of stimulus...if it takes more than three years to spend, it's not stimulus; it's funding. 60% of the spending in the current bill is funding.

Funding programs three to seven years out, on money we're borrowing, only increases long-term deficits and *does not* stimulate the economy now.

If we don't care about future defecits...well, ok, as Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

It's a fact that fiscal spending creates demand. The debate is what's more efficient - what has the higher multiplier - money in the hands of the government or in the market. It can be argued that in our current circumstances the government is more efficient, because if the market had money it would be saved/horded and not spent/lent. (Savings!? The horror!) I don't agree, per se, but it's a legitimate position.

Now on the question of stimulus...if it takes more than three years to spend, it's not stimulus; it's funding. 60% of the spending in the current bill is funding.

Funding programs three to seven years out, on money we're borrowing, only increases long-term deficits and *does not* stimulate the economy now.

If we don't care about future defecits...well, ok, as Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead."

This has been my argument all along (without the editorializing). I believe the House did a poor job of crafting the bill, and there are lots of ways to make it better. That said, Tex's argument that the provisions won't do anything is silly.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This has been my argument all along (without the editorializing). I believe the House did a poor job of crafting the bill, and there are lots of ways to make it better. That said, Tex's argument that the provisions won't do anything is silly.

Except that I didn't argue that. Government handouts to favored sectors does not lead to de facto economic prosperity, even if some people have fresh cash put in their hands.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

It's a fact that fiscal spending creates demand. The debate is what's more efficient - what has the higher multiplier - money in the hands of the government or in the market. It can be argued that in our current circumstances the government is more efficient, because if the market had money it would be saved/horded and not spent/lent. (Savings!? The horror!) I don't agree, per se, but it's a legitimate position.

Now on the question of stimulus...if it takes more than three years to spend, it's not stimulus; it's funding. 60% of the spending in the current bill is funding.

Funding programs three to seven years out, on money we're borrowing, only increases long-term deficits and *does not* stimulate the economy now.

If we don't care about future defecits...well, ok, as Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead."

Well said. It's not a stimulus package and not an efficient use of stimulating the economy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Except that I didn't argue that. Government handouts to favored sectors does not lead to de facto economic prosperity, even if some people have fresh cash put in their hands.

Yes, you did argue just that, and now you are reframing the debate (is anyone here surprised?).

You said the following:

I was using the term "legit" in the sense of "legitimate stimulus expenses." I guess we'd have to know more specifics to define exactly how legitimate they are in the broader sense of Washington spending, but regardless, this is not stimulus. This is pork.

Or perhaps you'd like to make the case for how $125m for Washington sewers stimulates the economy.

A "stimulus" isn't the same as "economic prosperity." A stimulus would be a tool used to get us closer to economic prosperity.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes, you did argue just that, and now you are reframing the debate (is anyone here surprised?).

You said the following:



A "stimulus" isn't the same as "economic prosperity." A stimulus would be a tool used to get us closer to economic prosperity.

And you're over-parsing words (is anyone here surprised?). I'm not Death Dancing with you again. Cheers.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes, you did argue just that, and now you are reframing the debate (is anyone here surprised?).

You said the following:



A "stimulus" isn't the same as "economic prosperity." A stimulus would be a tool used to get us closer to economic prosperity.

Are you in favor of this stimulus package?

Do you have any concerns that it won't stimulate jobs as a stimulus should promote? If so, what are they?

[Tex]

It appears the more Americans learn about this pork bill, the less inclined they are to think it will properly stimulate the economy. Via Powerline:

Today's Rasmussen survey indicates that support for the Obama administration's pork-infested spending bill is going up in smoke: currently only 37% favor the measure while 43% oppose it. Here is the downward trend:



Even worse, perhaps, is the fact that half of poll respondents say the Dems' pork-fest "may end up doing more harm than good."

People are catching on to what the bill actually does, and support seems certain to decline further. The Republicans have a winning issue here, one that can take them a long way toward reclaiming their brand. The biggest danger is an untimely collapse by Republican moderates in the Senate who are not in touch with the mood of the voters.

[Tex]