The American Spectator

Liberal Reader| 10.31.09 @ 10:15PM

Wow, Bandow. You're catching on.

A tanking economy creates enormous problems that are very difficult to address; the efficacy of solutions is difficult to measure.

This is why it's easy to be a conservative: just throw up your hands and say, "The government is the problem," while neighborhoods, families, communities go to pieces.

Liberals don't have that luxury: when they take over the government, it's because people want the government to try to correct problems the market can't correct.

And you're right: pumping billions into the economy may not work overnight. It might TAKE a few months, and all the while, people like you are going to whine.

But when Obama took over, the economy was shedding nearly 1 MILLION jobs a month; now we're losing about 250,000. That's not great, but sure as hell is better.

The stimulus does appear to have helped keep many teachers on the job, keeping classroom sizes lower than they would otherwise have been.

But overall you're right: we just don't know the extent it helped, or precisely what it avoided.

What you CANNOT argue with is this: we've pumped about 250 billion dollars into the economy that would not otherwise have been spent. That is economic activity that wouldn't have occurred. NO ONE was spending any money, but as a result of the stimulus, people are starting to, and that will lead to jobs.

Curtis Rasmussen| 10.31.09 @ 11:04PM

We are in the worst recession since the 1973-75 one overseen by arguably the worst president in the last 75-100 years, Jimmy Carter. We are close to exceeding that one, making this recession the worst in the last 50 years.

The socialist Obama has quadrupled the deficit from Bush, artificially lengthening the recession. Instead of allowing taxpayers to make individual decisions on spending, he has shoved a 787 billion pork and admin money sucking stimulus down our throats. The stimulus has a serious negative impact on productivity compared to individual spending choices and investment. Keynesian economics has never worked, and will not work now.

I can't wait until inflation kicks in as the Feds print mountains of money to cover their runaway spending. Inflation, the hidden tax, will take money from the taxpayer by making all goods and services cost more as the dollar weakens.

Come back from fantasy land, Lib Screeder moron. The government never pumps money into the economy, hard working taxpayers do and would have a lot sooner and more responsibly had the government not taken it in the first place.

Truth to Power| 10.31.09 @ 11:25PM

Well said Curtis. The liberal misleader suffers from the fantasy that the people live off the government instead of the reality that the government lives off the productivity of its people. President Obama and our corrupt congress take money from their people and borrow the rest to pay their bribes to their friends. Then stooges like the liberal misleader try to pretend it is a good thing. What a mindless clown.

Liberal Reader| 10.31.09 @ 11:47PM

Truth --

You have a convenient simplification to fall back on (another thing that makes it easier to be conservative than liberal). But it doesn't accord with reality.

Last year, at around this time, the capitalist, free market collapsed. It's heart stopped. Huge banking institutions went belly up. Everyone stopped spending money. The only entity that COULD spend money -- the only one with enough credit -- was the government. You think Paulson is a socialist? The government bailed out the economy and prevented a much more terrible catastrophe than occurred. The fact is, people in both parties acted fairly responsibly and fairly competently and as a result we've been spared the worst of what was a hellish crisis.

Nick| 10.31.09 @ 11:57PM

Marxist Reader,

$250 billion? Really?

Oooooo! That's really huge, huh?

Actually, that is less than 2% of GDP. 1.7% to be precise. (That's Gross Domestic Product, for those of you in Rio Linda.)

Not really that much when you look at the big picture. But you bleeding heart libs never look at the big picture, do you.

You just try to make it to the next battle, never looking back at all the damage your "good intentions" caused.

Jacob| 11.1.09 @ 8:03AM

The fact is Obamahas spent almost a trillion and a half extra through TARP,stimulus and normal budget increases.A huge hcunk of the spending went to unions who already have what they need and won't spend the money on anything but drugs,alcohol and gambling.The teaching bureaucracy has cashed in big time under Obama and they're not buying either. $100 billion down the green energy rathole. Small business and indivduals could have done weatherproofing old homes dirt cheap,instead the government is having to pay union scale wages to get the work done. Private sector contractors would have been real jobs.The stimulus is producing non growth government jobs,not private sector ones you need for a real recovery.

Robert| 11.1.09 @ 8:50AM

Yeah, that makes sense, the government takes (forces us to give) 250 billion, spends it (money that we would have spent willfully, or may not have chosen to spent, by our choice, and now we have economic activity that would not have occurred otherwise. Wow, what a concept. The government takes money that we (taxpayers) don't have to spend, they spend it, and now "people are starting to" spend more money, I believe that was what led us to this disaster, the goverment and people spending money they didn't have. No, it really didn't make sense before and it still doesn't, no matter how many ways you try to spin it.

Trey The Redneck| 11.1.09 @ 12:43PM

Seriously, how long can the President and the Dems keep blaming George Bush for the economy? Will it ever end. Not unless the economy gets better and then we will have to hear how the government was just so fantastic. Eventually markets self correct, a broken clock is right twice a day and the President might be Around long enough for when the economy gets better. But it is clear that the programs are not working.

edward del colle| 11.2.09 @ 10:56AM

please don't pander to the education unions, dear lib reader! they are a mediocre lot on balance!there is no metric of saved jobs, that is intellectual dishonesty! the AP reported that the obama administration exaggerated the quote jobs created or saved! GDP growth was domainated by cash for clunkers and the $8,000 first time buyer home credit. these are one time events, and the bureaucracy can't even make good on payments to car dealers!! more government effeciency! incentives or stimulus must have the perception of permanent changes to the landscape!

Jeff Perren| 11.2.09 @ 1:26PM

No government spending can, on balance, create more jobs than it wipes out by coercively removing capital from free individuals and giving it to others. That's Mises 101.

More importantly, the fact that the money is coercively taken - in the form of taxes, inflation (a hidden tax), or (in this case) borrowing - only creates more problems and violates individual property rights in the process.

Keynesianism has never worked in practice; it only violates the rights of all. Abandon Progressivism in all its forms. It's impractical and immoral.

Roy| 10.31.09 @ 11:25PM

Actually, it's pretty hard work when you identify the government as the problem. You have to work on getting the government the hell out of the way against the ideologues and entrenched interests determined to tighten government's chokehold yet further.

Liberal Reader| 10.31.09 @ 11:44PM

I'm sure it's hard for you to sit at a computer and regurgitate what you heard on Rush Limbaugh, but that doesn't mean it is difficult by objective standards.

Liberal Reader| 10.31.09 @ 11:37PM

Curtis --

Carter was president from 77-81, not 73-75. But you're right: the economy was very bad when he was in office, and he didn't do much to fix it.

Historians would certainly cavil with the idea that Carter caused that recession. Energy costs had a great deal to do with it, as did lingering costs of Viet Nam. (Our current mess is due in part to almost 2 trillion dollars being spent in Iraq, the most foolish blunder on the part of any president in the last century.)

How you can think Obama somehow caused this recession is beyond me. You can be forgiven for not knowing history, although it certainly is embarrassing for you. But the economy went into FREE FALL last year; both Bush and Paulson believed we were heading for a Great Depression, and because Bush and Paulson acted, and because Obama after them acted, we're NOT going into a Depression. Instead, we're started slowly to come out of a very very tough recession.

I'm sorry if this doesn't jive with the Glenn Beck view of the world you're cultivating, and I know how uncomfortable facts make you. Deal with it.

Curtis Rasmussen| 10.31.09 @ 11:58PM

Don't feed the troll or his sock puppets:

Raul
Jeremiah
Lib Reader
S.L. Toddard (concern troll)

Stan Redmond| 11.1.09 @ 5:13AM

The government did not pump billions in to the economy. The government took billions from producers and gave them to non producers. YES, the government is the problem. Private credit companies did not run out and make a business decision to loan money to people who have no business taking on debt. You can trace all of our downturn on government regulations and interference. Dare I say, all the manufactured crises Obama is running around touting are government caused.

And I sue wish I had the fortitude to be a liberal. But no, I get up every morning, go to work, pay my taxes, and pay my bills. It's not right that you aren't paying for my responsibilities. I wish I were smarter than everyone with my liberal arts degree so that I know best how to spend your money. I wish I had the power of the law to force those mean wealthy people to pay their "fair share" in taxes. But no. I'm just a lazy conservative being responsible for me and mine and I expect everyone else to be responsible for themselves. My feeble mind can't comprehend the reightousness in taking from one to spend on another. Silly me thinks my 50% tax rate is too damned hi. Silly conservative me thinks I deserve to keep the money I've earned through my toil. Silly me wants government to get the hell out of my way and stop stealing my money to give to failed corporations and deadbeats. Whoas me, where's my sackcloth.

Rick H.| 11.1.09 @ 5:55AM

By their own numbers they "created or saved" jobs by spending 150B/650K = $230,000 per job. That's before you consider the fact that government ALWAYS overstates the benefits and understates the costs of its programs.

Here's a better solution. Instead of stealing/printing money and throwing it at individuals at an expense of $230,000 apiece, why not hold a raffle whereby everybody who filed a tax return with an AGI of less than some amount is entered in a raffle and 15 million people are given $10,000 apiece.

Of course, that would NEVER be considered because the whole point of liberalism is feelgoodism with other people's money and the raw power of being able to steal people's money to feed that ill gotten feelgoodism. If democrats are so noble and concerned about "the little guy" how come so many of them end up rich after their stint in "public service"?

Rick H| 11.1.09 @ 5:58AM

It goes without saying that not wasting the money at all would have been the better solution but I was throwing out something better than what was done.

Steve Lee| 11.1.09 @ 9:00AM

Stan Redmond is right "The government is the problem." The Clinton-Bush "Free Trade" policies that were supposed to "Create millions of high-paying jobs in the export industries" instead caused entire industries to relocate overseas, exporting millions of American's jobs to China and Vietnam.
Another factor that is going to limit the economic recovery at what manufacturing companies that remain in our country is the "PLC" effect, the millions of "programable logic controllers" that have replaced workers in many producton processes, so without a massive increase in demand for what is still being made in our country it will be a long time: Before Companies Start Hiring Again

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.1.09 @ 9:59AM

Actually, I would not fault Rockwell Automation, GE, or any other PLC manufacturer for the problems. Ideally, automation should increase production and lower costs, making the country more prosperous. Prosperity then leads to new job generation, just not the same ones as before on the production floor.

I do fault America's penchant for cheap, throwaway foreign goods coupled with costly U.S. government intervention and debt.

If we'd forego buying all the cheap crap and stop the FEDS from taxing us to death, then quality American companies would have the capital to start hiring again.

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.1.09 @ 10:08AM

Have you noticed how hard it is to find products with 'made in America' on them? I keep yelling at my wife to stop bringing home all the cheap Chinese crap, but she tells me that she can't find an American equivalent.

We're doomed to perpetual poverty without a strong manufacturing base. A service economy merely shuffles money around while product creation increases wealth. That's why I'll always work for companies that manufacture product and sell it.

Liberal Reader| 11.1.09 @ 1:35PM

Curtis --

Here again is an issue upon which conservatives and liberals ought to agree.

When I was a boy, the ONE issue that united all "conservatives" was the call to buy American.

Think about it: when have you EVER heard Rush or Glenn Beck or anyone at the American Spectator encourage you to look for the sticker, Made in the USA, as we used to be encouraged to do?

It's a dead issue; corporate swine have overrun "conservatism," the Republican party, and even much of the Democratic Party (the DNC especially).

It's an odd change and very telling.

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.1.09 @ 4:09PM

This troll's posts are getting laughable. Time to ignore.

Liberal Reader| 11.1.09 @ 12:40PM

Steve --

Here is an issue on which SOME conservatives and some liberals agree. Clinton's corporate give-aways led to the destruction of American manufacturing jobs, as did the policies of Reagan and both Bushes.

If America does not manufacture things, America will fall.

It's as simply as that.

I've always believed that those conservatives who want to see the middle class of this country thrive might join with those liberals who have the same priority.

There really is NO other issue but that health and well-being of the middle class: all democracy's future and hope is pinned on this single issue.

If the economy is not FOR the middle class, if the economy does not EMPLOY the middle class in high-paying, reliable jobs, it's the ECONOMY and those few at the top who do benefit from it that must be changed.

This is the central tenet of traditional, old left liberalism.

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.1.09 @ 3:37PM

Lib screeder must have looked up 'concern troll'. He also sounds like a useful idiot that wants the FEDS to mandate the means of production in this country.

Marxist douchebag.

Liberal Reader| 11.1.09 @ 5:27PM

Hey Curtis?

Go fuck yourself.

Angel| 11.1.09 @ 11:05PM

There you go again, LR/Jeremiah/Raul. You are a filthy-mouthed moron, and you're probably the Marxist idiot who took a shot at Mrs. Dobbs. Nice aim.

weirdone | 11.1.09 @ 10:28AM

To all you Libs out there. The Democrats took over both houses of Congress in 2006 and approved everything GWB spent. When Bush left office the deficit was $248.2 billion, unemployment was 4.4% and the budget was 2.9 trillion for 2009 the year Obama took office. The numbers today look a little different don’t you think? But don"t let facts cloud your vision.

Pete| 11.1.09 @ 11:57AM

Here's where your money is going:

http://apnews.excite.com/artic.....REI80.html

Liberal Reader| 11.1.09 @ 12:42PM

Weirdone --

That's the weirdest, lamest excuse for the disaster that has ensued after Republican control of DC I've ever read.

You DO understand that conservatives have by and large controlled the overall debate in Washington DC since 1980, don't you?

If you don't, you don't understand conservatism OR liberalism.

Bob| 11.1.09 @ 1:44PM

Yadda... Yadda..... Yadda....

It doesn't make any difference who holds office in Washington. Reagan and Bush were responsible for the largest increases in our national debt in our history. The government grows whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. Republicans cut taxes and grow the government. Democrats raise taxes and grow the government. If you are going to grow the government, doesn't it sound more responsible to raise the taxes to pay for it?

And what is it you're going to cut? Let bridges crumble? Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Get rid of Medicare so more seniors will die sooner? Let the poor die off faster? Not fix potholes? We certainly won't cut the subsidies to industry under Republicans or the money given to environmental causes for Democrats.

The reason government only gets larger is that you can only get elected by giving goodies to those that will give you money. Re-election is more important that our country to politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. The problem with stalemate is that nothing is ever cut.

Both sides have the facts wrong. Bush was responsible for a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit. The official budget did not include the wars, and that is the difference. At least, under Obama, the wars are included in the budget.

I hope Obama lives up to his promise regarding being fiscally responsible. If he doesn't, he deserves to be voted out. It is too early to make that judgment, however, unless you are an unintelligent partisan and know little about economics.

In the end, we need to get rid of professional politicians on both sides. Term limits are good. Campaign reform to encourage average people to run sounds good. Listening less to Fox and MSNBC sounds good. Getting rid of extreme right religious conservatives sounds good. Getting rid of left wing environmental wackos and bleeding hearts also sounds good. But then, blogs like AmSpec and DailyKos wouldn't exist... Where is the fun in that????

Gina| 11.1.09 @ 11:06PM

Go back under your slimy rock, Bob the moron.

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.1.09 @ 1:50PM

In the end, we need to get rid of professional politicians on both sides. Term limits are good. Campaign reform to encourage average people to run sounds good. Listening less to Fox and MSNBC sounds good. Getting rid of extreme right religious conservatives sounds good. Getting rid of left wing environmental wackos and bleeding hearts also sounds good. But then, blogs like AmSpec and DailyKos wouldn't exist... Where is the fun in that????

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.1.09 @ 3:44PM

This statement never came from me. Please ignore.

Curtis Rasmussen| 11.1.09 @ 3:34PM

The above statement never originated from me. Please ignore.

Angel| 11.1.09 @ 11:08PM

LibReader/Bob is getting desperate. Loser.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.1.09 @ 3:47PM

Folks, Lib writer is simply a tool for George Soros.

...you know...the guy making billions shorting the US dollar.

So he is a liar and thief, and a doesn't even have the credentials to be a decent troll.

asd| 11.1.09 @ 8:53PM

he is a liarhe ,is a liar
2 day dietlida daidaihua

Tag44| 11.2.09 @ 6:19AM

Thanks for the post and for sharing the very resourceful information here.

Stan Redmond| 11.2.09 @ 1:07PM

You know, now that I think about it socialism created a lot of great jobs. Pol Pot filled the farms with workers. The workers paradise in Siberia put lots of people to work in the mining industry. Mao's socialist planning had factories running so well that workers didn't even have time to repair machines. Heck, even Germany's economy grew under national socialism. It's fabulous.

Lauren| 11.2.09 @ 4:02PM

So how effective was the stimulus again? http://www.newsy.com/videos/wh.....r_scrutiny