The American Spectator

Bob| 12.7.08 @ 2:43PM

Again, Philip, you oversimplify and misunderstand economic theory. Keynesian theory is not deficit spending but counter cyclical activism. Keynes theories as applied today are significantly different than the original theories Keynes proposed. Monetarist and supply side theories of the Reagan era have also been roundly proven inappropriate as they have resulted in a widening of income distribution, significantly increased deficits, and the loss of disposable income of the middle class. Furthermore, the increases in productivity and outsourcing has caused the "trickle down" effectiveness to diminish to practically nil. Using date from a decade or two ago to prove the point is not only misleading, but idiotic.

The fact is that virtually all economists today indicate the need for some type of deficit spending stimulus. Comparing the amount of federal spending in the '20's to the spending today is again, a simplistic argument of great stupidity. We live in a global world today with lots of international companies, global military requirements, and increased social programs. You are certainly not honest in your conclusions since about half the federal budget is medicare and social security -- and that accounts for the big difference plus the military budget doubling which accounts for the rest. So yes, if you completely get rid of medicare, medicaid, social security and half of the military, you can get federal spending back to where it was. Is this what you are recommending?

It would help discourse here if you guys were honest in your assessments rather than giving a Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh idiotic answer. This is exactly what I have been saying about how the Republican party is becoming increasingly anti-intellectual and less relevant to the concept of reality.

If you want to make an argument regarding a reduction in federal spending, it needs to be accompanied by the programs you want to cut. Otherwise, you will remain a party of incompetents.

W. James Antle III| 12.7.08 @ 4:38PM

Umm, Bob, the fact that our federal spending commitments are much larger than under FDR is precisely Phil's point. He is saying that FDR had a lot more room to increase spending because spending as a percentage of GDP was already so low. Obama does not have as much running room because he is dealing with a government that is much bigger to start with.

I'm afraid this is typical of your "intellectualism": failing to read other people's arguments carefully enough to actually understand them, name-calling, unsupported assertions and appeals to authority, and tiresome hobby horse riding about Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh even when neither person has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Irrelevant, indeed.

Bob| 12.7.08 @ 6:06PM

But, James, for the point to be relevant, it must represent similar circumstances. I did read and understand the argument, but it seems that both of you did not understand the logic you propounded. If not, you are comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps he doesn't understand economics well enough to know the comparison is not valid. Do you?

Besides, the argument about "room to increase spending" assumes some type of relevant limit. What is the argument that the "limit" today is the same as the "limit" in FDR's timeframe? The amount of spending is somewhat offset by the governmental revenues. Furthermore, when you make an argument like this, you also need to finish it by comparing what the money was spent on then vs. now. That was the point I was making since most people reading the blog will not get that far.

The proper point to be made here -- one that supports the conservative agenda -- is about spending and deficits. To significantly cut spending, we must solve the medicare/social security issue. As conservatives, we should be concerned about deficits and spending -- proposing raising the eligibility age and means testing, for example.

It is misleading to make spending points without talking about the major spending categories.

What I dislike, James, are spurious arguments made by people who don't understand what they are saying. They may sound good to "journalists" and "true believers", but they are just untruths in the end. That's why I keep bringing up Palin and Limbaugh, as surrogates for the lack of critical thinking. I also think that rebuilding the Republican party means putting forth solutions, not just complaints and digs at Obama.

Steve| 12.7.08 @ 10:11PM

"Keynesian theory is not deficit spending but counter cyclical activism."
Ha! You're both wrong...it's counter cyclical activist deficit spending...

Steve| 12.7.08 @ 10:51PM

Gimme a break Bob. You mean to tell me we're getting creamed because Obama submitted complete mathematical proofs for his positions?

The geniuses who claim to want to remake the Republican party don't seem to waste much time doing their homework. Rather than setting forth solutions they're blaming the people left who actually still vote for the party after all the damage left in Bush's wake.
The idea that some white-bread wonk like David Brooks can turn the Republicans around is side-splitting. Anti-intellectual even.

Dai Alanye| 12.8.08 @ 12:55AM

By all means let us apply the failed policies of the past to today's problems. Let us rescue mismanaged financial institutions, prop up failing companies, expend huge sums on concrete and rebar.

Let us, in other words, repeat the types of actions that turned a depression into The Great Depression, and inflate the effective money supply while doing so, as a kind of cherry atop the sundae.

It should work this time, because while Obama has apparently abandoned Change, Hope is still in his arsenal, and will overcome the deficiencies of logic.

A child of my acquaintance was offered by my wife the wishbone from our Thanksgiving turkey. Surprisingly, she declined. Turns out she successfully snapped the wishbone from a chicken recently, but had no answer to her wish. So why bother to try again?

There you have it--a bright girl not yet five years old, yet she has a more realistic view of the world than the typical Obama voter.

Bob| 12.8.08 @ 8:31AM

Yes, Dai, whose failed policies are you talking about? The failed policies of the Clinton administration that caused job growth and decreasing deficits or that of the Republican administration and Congress of the past 8 years that has caused one of the largest recessions in history?

It was the supply side economists of the Bush administration, and the anti-intellectual so-con candidates in the Republican congress that caused this problem.

Personally, I believe there are weaknesses with all economic theories that apply temporally. They eventually outgrow their usefulness and another (or revised) theory is created or recreated.

What bothers me is not the specific economic theory that is being applied, but dumb statements made by people who don't have a clue what they are saying. Our party needs to get smarter. We don't need to dumb down...