The American Spectator

Les Grossman| 2.23.09 @ 12:51PM

Uh, excuse me, this is not a new development. Brooks jumped the fence several months ago. He is 'one of them,' now. No great loss. Lets not turn him into the next Andrew Sullivan, where his every dopey utterance gets kicked around on the right-side blogs.

JohnnySquares| 2.23.09 @ 1:27PM

Brooks and other spendulus pumpers are curiously unconcerened about the "destabilizing" effects of hanging the weight of a trillion dollars around the neck of the people who did play by the rules, who did the right thing, who were prudent, who didn't put those Superbowl tickets on their HELOC, who chose the State College, whose first car was a GEO Metro.

No, Brooksy and the other spendulus pumper flakes don't want to hear about those people.

Government is planting the seeds of the next generations ruination because the worst generation, the baby boomers, are retiring into the teeth of the meltdown- and those self righteous baby boomers simply must have their comfy retirement homes in Florida.

Bob| 2.23.09 @ 1:49PM

Antle, you've oversimplified again. But I guess with posters who refuse to look at actual data, that's par for the course. The difference between Taylor's argument and Brooks is the difference between micro- and macroeconomics. Brooks was making the macro argument that any plan that addresses the entire system will have both positive and negative consequences. This is akin to stopping all welfare because a small percentage of recipients commit fraud or refusing to reduce capital gains rates because the benefit will accrue to some who got bailout money. You and Taylor were making the micro argument which does not apply to this plan. Taylor's argument is like looking out your front door and saying the earth must be flat because it is obvious.

No government plan -- spending or tax cuts -- is large enough to solve a consumer demand problem. Part of this reduction in demand is real, but the bulk of it is psychological as any economist, right or left, will tell you. That's where FDR's famous "fear" line came from. The hope from the spending plan, tax cuts, or the mortgage plan is to change the psychology of demand.

I've shown on a number of occasions that tax cuts are not stimulative -- but spending is not much better. You cannot look at graphs of GDP and make the tax case as the greatest growth in GDP came under the Clinton tax increases. It isn't government that makes our economy go, it is private enterprise. Reagan's term coincided with the growth of the personal computer and increased gains in productivity over the next 20 years. Reagan did not stimulate that, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs stimulated that. They were not affected significantly by tax cuts as both of their margins were huge and they stockpiled cash.

Thus the babble we see here is aimed at the mindless, not the knowledgeable reader. I've been a business executive for over 3 decades and can tell you that virtually all large investment decisions are based on a long term ROI of the project.

Did Brooks talk about this elegantly? No. But then, neither did any of you. This whole situation is highly complex and defies simple explanations.

As for me, I would have preferred a non-ideological pragmatic approach. Each spending or tax cut proposal will have an ROI factor and a timeframe. I would have broken down the package into three components -- immediate, mid-term, and long term as it will take a number of years for this turnaround to occur. I would have put 40% of the package for immediate return, 35% for mid-term, and the rest for long term research/infrastructure. That's how we would have positioned it as a business proposal and it is business that needs to bring us out of recession.

W. James Antle III| 2.23.09 @ 2:06PM

Bob, you are once again arguing with a bunch of things you imagine I have said rather than anything I have actually said. Why don't you get yourself another plate of Applebee's salad bar and wait to lecture me on my next non-lighthearted post?

Bob| 2.23.09 @ 2:34PM

James, you said Brooks represented "mindless babble" and "centrism without substance". I explained why there was some substance in his babble and that it was not "mindless". To say that without explanation would indeed be mindless. Did I imagine "mindless babble" or "centrism without substance" or did those words just appear on my screen? With those words, you have taken a position, haven't you?

Yes, I've responded with some items, as an explanation of my position, without you SPECIFICALLY addressing them in this post. But I think it is time that true conservatives look at reality and the data and stop being ideological nitwits. There are great conservative solutions to these issues that never get explored because of ideological fantasies. I believe the best solution to the housing issue is to get Fannie and Freddie to offer great rates and financing terms to ALL responsible people who are actually qualified for loans plus an incentive for people to buy foreclosed properties as a primary residence. With the fed rate so low right now, this is possible with a decent spread and, for all intents and purposes, Fannie and Freddie are nationalized already.

Where are the Republican ideas and not the "mindless babble" about tax cuts and liberal spending?

W. James Antle III| 2.23.09 @ 3:40PM

Bob, if David Brooks had said anything close to what you said, I would have argued with him rather than made fun of him. He didn't. It was all Just Do Something establishment rhetoric and no substance.

Most importantly, I don't think you can simply dismiss the moral hazard, since individuals, businesses, and governments spending money they don't have is a major cause of this systematic crisis. But I think those are some very fine policy suggestions you have made.

Unfortunately, you want to have some argument between what you imagine David Brooks has said and policy positions that you imagine I hold. I find that to be a fairly pointless exercise.

Bob| 2.23.09 @ 5:22PM

Here's the issue, James -- I believe people, in general, are tired of this political back and forth. The problem with the tenor of your comments is that it furthers the proposition that Republicans/Conservatives are only interested in partisan politics and not forming a true conservative agenda. I believe both sides will talk about a "moral hazard". You talk about the problem of spending money we don't have and Dems talk about Republicans cutting taxes and increasing the debt. THERE IS MORAL HAZARD IN BOTH POSITIONS. So instead of calling each other names and claiming mindless rhetoric, the emphasis needs to change to an objective analysis of the data and a solution oriented dialog.

So here's my proposition. Why can't a publication like AmSpec be a solution leader rather than a partisan hack that is analytically wrong some of the time? Why don't you spend time talking about Brooks position on issues than commenting on his diatribe? That is what leadership is all about.

Red Phillips| 2.23.09 @ 6:08PM

There is no more annoying Establishment/Beltway creature than the hectoring centrist. Except when the centrists pretends to be a conservative. Brooks is a particularly obnoxious example of this.