With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.

[Charles_Main]

There is disagreement. I would say the government would do better to do absolutely nothing than what they're actually doing.

Exactly, Obama would have us believe Irresponsible, and in effective Action is better than No action at all.

 

[Munin]

There is disagreement. I would say the government would do better to do absolutely nothing than what they're actually doing.

Exactly, Obama would have us believe Irresponsible, and in effective Action is better than No action at all.

Yeah, you guys think that a president should just stand and watch as the whole american economy goes to hell. I think I ll never understand that.


You guys don't seem to realize that there never has existed a country where the economy was not controlled by the government, where do you get the idea that it would ever work without it when it has never been proven that it works? You can't just completely cancel out the government.


History has shown us that the government can work to solve economic problems. OK, you guys can't acknowledge that the New Deal has dragged the US out of the Depression but you can not ignore all the other evidence that governments can improve the economy (and that evidence has nothing to do with tax cuts).


You can not ignore the success of the Marshall plan Marshall Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , which was a complete government effort to improve an economy and I don't think you can give evidence that it didn't work.

Can you explain why Germany (82 million inhabitants) makes more exports then the US (305 million inhabitants) if their economic (socialist) policy has "failed" so much compared to the american economic policy?

OK, so I made my point: History has proved that government controlled economies work, because there never have existed any other kind of economies.


Where is the proof that the no-government theory works? What exactly suggests that no government action would be better then what Obama is doing now?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The economy would recover quicker if he did nothing as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars more with this spending package.

The Free Market: Marshall Plan Myth, The

Slaves to the Marshall Myth - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

A Look Behind The Marshall Plan Mythology

 

[Munin]

The economy would recover quicker if he did nothing as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars more with this spending package.

The Free Market: Marshall Plan Myth, The

Slaves to the Marshall Myth - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

A Look Behind The Marshall Plan Mythology

All those theories are pretty to look at but they are nothing more then words if they don't have practical evidence to back it up. None of those theories explains how those countries managed to recover so quickly if it wasn't for the government help and also none of those theories explains how it is that Germany (that was in 1945 still flat) now is able to export more then the US.

I ve red the first link completely and I can tell you that it is complete bullshit. The things that are said in this don't compare to the real facts, they are like a fantasy that goes far beyond the facts that were visible then (in historic files) and even still today (buildings that were part of that recovery: I ve been to Germany and a lot of these countries in Europe so I know what I m talking about).

"As economist Tyler Cowen has noted, the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. In terms of post-war prosperity, then, it eventually paid to be a political enemy of the U.S. instead of a "beneficiary" of international charity."

Countries that had no Marshall plan suffered a lot more then the ones that were part of the Marshall plan, the division between west and east Germany was marked by poverty (this is a fact: witnesses who lived in Eastern Germany and are still alive can confirm this, also difference in buildings that still exist today will show you this).

The complete evolution of after the initiation of the Marshall plan is well documented in historic files and also proves the development. But you don't even need to look so far, If you just look at the recovery that those countries have made in such a short time then it already speaks for itself. The economies of every participant country (except Germany) had grown well past the pre-war levels when this plan was completed : there is no way you can explain this except if you acknowledge the Marshall plan.

 

[Annie]

The economy would recover quicker if he did nothing as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars more with this spending package.

The Free Market: Marshall Plan Myth, The

Slaves to the Marshall Myth - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

A Look Behind The Marshall Plan Mythology

Consider, if this doesn't work, how long will the 'recession/depression' last? If we 'did nothing' how long would it last? Which would be better in the long run, regarding future generations?

Seems as valid a measurement as 'create OR save 4 million jobs'.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The economy would recover quicker if he did nothing as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars more with this spending package.

The Free Market: Marshall Plan Myth, The

Slaves to the Marshall Myth - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

A Look Behind The Marshall Plan Mythology

All those theories are pretty to look at but they are nothing more then words if they don't have practical evidence to back it up. None of those theories explains how those countries managed to recover so quickly if it wasn't for the government help and also none of those theories explains how it is that Germany (that was in 1945 still flat) now is able to export more then the US.

I ve red the first link completely and I can tell you that it is complete bullshit. The things that are said in this don't compare to the real facts, they are like a fantasy that goes far beyond the facts that were visible then (in historic files) and even still today (buildings that were part of that recovery: I ve been to Germany and a lot of these countries in Europe so I know what I m talking about).

"As economist Tyler Cowen has noted, the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. In terms of post-war prosperity, then, it eventually paid to be a political enemy of the U.S. instead of a "beneficiary" of international charity."

Countries that had no Marshall plan suffered a lot more then the ones that were part of the Marshall plan, the division between west and east Germany was marked by poverty (this is a fact: witnesses who lived in Eastern Germany and are still alive can confirm this, also difference in buildings that still exist today will show you this).

The complete evolution of after the initiation of the Marshall plan is well documented in historic files and also proves the development. But you don't even need to look so far, If you just look at the recovery that those countries have made in such a short time then it already speaks for itself. The economies of every participant country (except Germany) had grown well past the pre-war levels when this plan was completed : there is no way you can explain this except if you acknowledge the Marshall plan.

If you want to ignore what's in the links I provided that's fine, but East Germany was poor because it was socialist and was forced to pay reparations to the Soviet Union. Not because it didn't receive funds from the Marshall Plan.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The economy would recover quicker if he did nothing as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars more with this spending package.

The Free Market: Marshall Plan Myth, The

Slaves to the Marshall Myth - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

A Look Behind The Marshall Plan Mythology

Consider, if this doesn't work, how long will the 'recession/depression' last? If we 'did nothing' how long would it last? Which would be better in the long run, regarding future generations?

Seems as valid a measurement as 'create OR save 4 million jobs'.

If we had done nothing the recession might have lasted 1 year, maybe 2. It's hard to say exactly. Taking trillions of dollars from the private sector will only aggravate the situation, and we can say for sure that the problem will be made worse by doing so.

Doing nothing would have been better for future generations because they wouldn't be under the burden of paying back this spectacular debt we're leaving for them, and this only sets more of a precedent for intervening in the markets. Which will of course continue to happen for future generations.

As for the government creating jobs, they can't. More accurately they can't create wealth. Every job the government "creates" comes at the expense of a job in the private sector, which is where wealth is actually created.

 

[Charles_Main]

There is disagreement. I would say the government would do better to do absolutely nothing than what they're actually doing.

Exactly, Obama would have us believe Irresponsible, and in effective Action is better than No action at all.

Yeah, you guys think that a president should just stand and watch as the whole american economy goes to hell. I think I ll never understand that.

Umm no, I want him to use tax cuts and cuts in wasteful spending to bring our Deficit under control and take the pressure of the credit markets and for GODS SAKE stop printing Money.

I have repeatedly suggest an alternative to this bill, which I believe will stimulate the economy far better than this wasteful Bloated, pork laden bill. Simply divide what ever they want to spend by 300 Million. Right not that would be about 2700 dollars for ever man woman and child in America. That would mean a struggling Family of 4 would get 10,800 dollars from this one wasteful bill alone.

You guys keep making it sound like we are saying do nothing at all, when all we are saying is yes we need to act in some way, but if we act in the wrong way(as in a wasteful in effective Spending Bill which will only increase or National Debt by 15% in one swoop)we will only make things worse.

Obama and the Dems are trying to ram rod this through. We are talking about a lot of money we do not have to spend here, and the ramifications of either borrowing it, or printing it are going to be more detrimental to the economy than any stimulus will be worth.

If Obama borrows the over 1.2 Trillion(interest added) to fund this package. That will have a drastic negative effect on the already tight credit markets. If he prints the money he will cause hyper inflation and shrinking GDP.

You guys are actual defending a bill that claims to be able to fix problems brought on by deficit spending, by increasing the rate of said Deficit spending.

All this money, and they have not even got into the bail out of the Mortgage industry. Or for that matter their universal health care. Or the 53 Billion we have in unfunded obligations to the Universal health care, and socialism we already have in the form of SS,Medicaid, and Medicare.

Where is all this money going to come from? Who is going to keep buying this Debt? Are we going to just keep printing Money, as we are doing as we speak? Are we going to ignore what History shows us that will lead to? Was it not Democrats in here who railed against Bushes Spending? Why do you seem to think the best way out of a hole is to dig it deeper?

I am truly dumb founded as to what is going through the typical Liberal Democrats mind right now. I mean they can't be that stupid I think to myself. They have to know that this is going to bankrupt us. They have to know that if we keep this up our currency is going to collapse. Yet they are still in line behind the Dems.

Nothing short of a total over haul of the Tax code, and budget is going to fix the over all problem here, and quick fix spending bills may give us temporary relief but that will come at the cost of making the Over all problem much worse. We spend this Trillion here, and that trillion there ignoring the fact that at this pace the money we are spending will be worthless in just a few short years.

 

[Care4all]

The economy would recover quicker if he did nothing as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars more with this spending package.

The Free Market: Marshall Plan Myth, The

Slaves to the Marshall Myth - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

A Look Behind The Marshall Plan Mythology

Consider, if this doesn't work, how long will the 'recession/depression' last? If we 'did nothing' how long would it last? Which would be better in the long run, regarding future generations?

Seems as valid a measurement as 'create OR save 4 million jobs'.

If we had done nothing the recession might have lasted 1 year, maybe 2. It's hard to say exactly. Taking trillions of dollars from the private sector will only aggravate the situation, and we can say for sure that the problem will be made worse by doing so.

Doing nothing would have been better for future generations because they wouldn't be under the burden of paying back this spectacular debt we're leaving for them, and this only sets more of a precedent for intervening in the markets. Which will of course continue to happen for future generations.

As for the government creating jobs, they can't. More accurately they can't create wealth. Every job the government "creates" comes at the expense of a job in the private sector, which is where wealth is actually created.

WHAT trillions in money was taken from the private sector for the stimulus? Isn't THAT the problem, we are borrowing the money from foreignors.....making the kids and grand kids pay for it? this money is not taken out of our private sector, no?

 

[Munin]

The economy would recover quicker if he did nothing as opposed to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars more with this spending package.

The Free Market: Marshall Plan Myth, The

Slaves to the Marshall Myth - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

A Look Behind The Marshall Plan Mythology

All those theories are pretty to look at but they are nothing more then words if they don't have practical evidence to back it up. None of those theories explains how those countries managed to recover so quickly if it wasn't for the government help and also none of those theories explains how it is that Germany (that was in 1945 still flat) now is able to export more then the US.

I ve red the first link completely and I can tell you that it is complete bullshit. The things that are said in this don't compare to the real facts, they are like a fantasy that goes far beyond the facts that were visible then (in historic files) and even still today (buildings that were part of that recovery: I ve been to Germany and a lot of these countries in Europe so I know what I m talking about).

"As economist Tyler Cowen has noted, the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. In terms of post-war prosperity, then, it eventually paid to be a political enemy of the U.S. instead of a "beneficiary" of international charity."

Countries that had no Marshall plan suffered a lot more then the ones that were part of the Marshall plan, the division between west and east Germany was marked by poverty (this is a fact: witnesses who lived in Eastern Germany and are still alive can confirm this, also difference in buildings that still exist today will show you this).

The complete evolution of after the initiation of the Marshall plan is well documented in historic files and also proves the development. But you don't even need to look so far, If you just look at the recovery that those countries have made in such a short time then it already speaks for itself. The economies of every participant country (except Germany) had grown well past the pre-war levels when this plan was completed : there is no way you can explain this except if you acknowledge the Marshall plan.

If you want to ignore what's in the links I provided that's fine, but East Germany was poor because it was socialist and was forced to pay reparations to the Soviet Union. Not because it didn't receive funds from the Marshall Plan.

I m not completely ignoring those links, I ve red them (as I said). I said that the writers of the articles in those links ignore historical evidence, they are not based upon historical evidence if they completely seem to ignore the existence of it. (You can't just pick what you like out of the evidence and then ignore all the other facts: that is like saying that someone lost a football match because his opponent scored 2 goals while completely ignoring the fact that that guy scored 3 goals).

If you compare the growth of Countries that did had aid from the marshall plan with countries that didn't then you can make a credible comparison. This is not what these guys did, they just looked into statistics and compared some irrelevant statistics: they can't see the big picture: They can't even see the forest, because they are staring themselves blind on the trees.




The articles also represent a lot of things as facts, which they are not.

Let me crack one of the so called "facts" that are in there:

"This fact has been made all-too-apparent in the Bush administration's dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the $87 billion approved for ongoing operations, $21 billion will go to supplying "public goods" to the people of these nations."

Iraq and Afghanistan are the worst examples there are of government, they are in the top 10 of the most corrupt regimes in the world: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html (they are at the very bottom of the list: number 172 & 178)

So what do you expect if you give the 2 of the most corrupt regimes in the world money?
IMAO the guys who wrote these articles are complete morons or a guys who deliberately want to manipulate you.


Also Germany before WWII, when Germany was also in the Great depression (at that time Germany was in a very bad economic state) Hitler actually managed to get the economy back on track by government spending, the military monster in which Germany had developed after that transformation showed that "economic" progress.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Consider, if this doesn't work, how long will the 'recession/depression' last? If we 'did nothing' how long would it last? Which would be better in the long run, regarding future generations?

Seems as valid a measurement as 'create OR save 4 million jobs'.

If we had done nothing the recession might have lasted 1 year, maybe 2. It's hard to say exactly. Taking trillions of dollars from the private sector will only aggravate the situation, and we can say for sure that the problem will be made worse by doing so.

Doing nothing would have been better for future generations because they wouldn't be under the burden of paying back this spectacular debt we're leaving for them, and this only sets more of a precedent for intervening in the markets. Which will of course continue to happen for future generations.

As for the government creating jobs, they can't. More accurately they can't create wealth. Every job the government "creates" comes at the expense of a job in the private sector, which is where wealth is actually created.

WHAT trillions in money was taken from the private sector for the stimulus? Isn't THAT the problem, we are borrowing the money from foreignors.....making the kids and grand kids pay for it? this money is not taken out of our private sector, no?

Eventually these bailouts and spending packages are going to have to be paid for, and the government gets it's money from the American taxpayers. So whether they tax directly, inflate the money supply, or borrow from another country, they're taxing the American people in one way or another.

 

[KMAN]

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

signed by all the below, who I am sure you libs will dismiss as a bunch of Conservative morons.

BURTON ABRAMS, Univ. of Delaware
DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio University
LEE ADKINS, Oklahoma State University
WILLIAM ALBRECHT, Univ. of Iowa
RYAN AMACHER, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J.ARIAS, Georgia College & State University
HOWARD BAETJER, JR., Towson University
CHARLES BAIRD, California State University, East Bay
STACIE BECK, Univ. of Delaware
DON BELLANTE, Univ. of South Florida
JAMES BENNETT, George Mason University
BRUCE BENSON, Florida State University
SANJAI BHAGAT, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
MARK BILS, Univ. of Rochester
ALBERTO BISIN, New York University
WALTER BLOCK, Loyola University New Orleans
CECIL BOHANON, Ball State University
MICHELE BOLDRIN,Washington University in St. Louis
DONALD BOOTH, Chapman University
MICHAEL BORDO, Rutgers University
SAMUEL BOSTAPH, Univ. of Dallas
DONALD BOUDREAUX, George Mason University
SCOTT BRADFORD, Brigham Young University
GENEVIEVE BRIAND, Eastern Washington University
IVAN BRICK, Rutgers University
GEORGE BROWER, Moravian College
PHILLIP BRYSON, Brigham Young University
JAMES BUCHANAN, Nobel laureate
RICHARD BURDEKIN, Claremont McKenna College
RICHARD BURKHAUSER, Cornell University
EDWIN T. BURTON, Univ. of Virginia
JIM BUTKIEWICZ, Univ. of Delaware
HENRY BUTLER, Northwestern University
WILLIAM BUTOS, Trinity College
PETER CALCAGNO, College of Charleston
BRYAN CAPLAN, George Mason University
ART CARDEN, Rhodes College
JAMES CARDON, Brigham Young University
DUSTIN CHAMBERS, Salisbury University
EMILY CHAMLEE-WRIGHT, Beloit College
V.V. CHARI, Univ. of Minnesota
BARRY CHISWICK, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
LAWRENCE CIMA, John Carroll University
J.R. CLARK, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
GIAN LUCA CLEMENTI, New York University
R.MORRIS COATS, Nicholls State University
JOHN COCHRAN, Metropolitan State College at Denver
JOHN COCHRANE, Univ. of Chicago
JOHN COGAN, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
LLOYD COHEN, George Mason University
JOHN COLEMAN, Duke University
BOYD COLLIER, Tarleton State University
ROBERT COLLINGE, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
PETER COLWELL, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL CONNOLLY, Univ. of Miami
LEE COPPOCK, Univ. of Virginia
MARIO CRUCINI, Vanderbilt University
CHRISTOPHER CULP, Univ. of Chicago
KIRBY CUNDIFF, Northeastern State University
ANTONY DAVIES, Duquesne University
JOHN DAWSON, Appalachian State University
A. EDWARD DAY, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
CLARENCE DEITSCH, Ball State University
ALLAN DESERPA, Arizona State University
WILLIAM DEWALD, Ohio State University
ARTHUR DIAMOND, JR., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
JOHN DOBRA, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
JAMES DORN, Towson University
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
FLOYD DUNCAN, Virginia Military Institute
FRANCIS EGAN, Trinity College
JOHN EGGER, Towson University
KENNETH ELZINGA, Univ. of Virginia
PAUL EVANS, Ohio State University
FRANK FALERO, California State University, Bakersfield
EUGENE FAMA, Univ. of Chicago
W. KEN FARR, Georgia College & State University
DANIEL FEENBERG, National Bureau
of Economic Research
HARTMUT FISCHER, Univ. of San Francisco
ERIC FISHER, California State Polytechnic University
FRED FOLDVARY, Santa Clara University
MURRAY FRANK, Univ. of Minnesota
PETER FRANK,Wingate University
TIMOTHY FUERST, Bowling Green State University
B. DELWORTH GARDNER, Brigham Young University
JOHN GAREN, Univ. of Kentucky
RICK GEDDES, Cornell University
AARON GELLMAN, Northwestern University
WILLIAM GERDES, Clarke College
JOSEPH GIACALONE, St. John’s University
MICHAEL GIBBS, Univ. of Chicago
OTIS GILLEY, Louisiana Tech University
STEPHAN GOHMANN, Univ. of Louisville
RODOLFO GONZALEZ, San Jose State University
RICHARD GORDON, Penn State University
PETER GORDON, Univ. of Southern California
ERNIE GOSS, Creighton University
PAUL GREGORY, Univ. of Houston
EARL GRINOLS, Baylor University
DANIEL GROPPER, Auburn University
R.W. HAFER, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
ARTHUR HALL, Univ. of Kansas
STEVE HANKE, Johns Hopkins University
STEPHEN HAPPEL, Arizona State University
RICHARD HART, Miami University
THOMAS HAZLETT, George Mason University
FRANK HEFNER, College of Charleston
SCOTT HEIN, Texas Tech University
RONALD HEINER, George Mason University
DAVID HENDERSON, Hoover Institution,
Stanford University
ROBERT HERREN, North Dakota State University
GAILEN HITE, Columbia University
STEVEN HORWITZ, St. Lawrence University
DANIEL HOUSER, George Mason University
JOHN HOWE, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
JEFFREY HUMMEL, San Jose State University
BRUCE HUTCHINSON, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
BRIAN JACOBSEN,Wisconsin Lutheran College
SHERRY JARRELL,Wake Forest University
JASON JOHNSTON, Univ. of Pennsylvania
BOYAN JOVANOVIC, New York University
JONATHAN KARPOFF, Univ. of Washington
BARRY KEATING, Univ. of Notre Dame
NAVEEN KHANNA, Michigan State University
NICHOLAS KIEFER, Cornell University
DANIEL KLEIN, George Mason University
PAUL KOCH, Univ. of Kansas
NARAYANA KOCHERLAKOTA, Univ. of Minnesota
MAREK KOLAR, Delta College
ROGER KOPPL, Fairleigh Dickinson University
KISHORE KULKARNI, Metropolitan
State College of Denver
DEEPAK LAL, UCLA
GEORGE LANGELETT, South Dakota State University
JAMES LARRIVIERE, Spring Hill College
ROBERT LAWSON, Auburn University
JOHN LEVENDIS, Loyola University New Orleans
DAVID LEVINE,Washington University in St. Louis
PETER LEWIN, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
W. CRIS LEWIS, Utah State University
DEAN LILLARD, Cornell University
ZHENG LIU, Emory University
ALAN LOCKARD, Binghampton University
EDWARD LOPEZ, San Jose State University
JOHN R. LOTT, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
JOHN LUNN, Hope College
GLENN MACDONALD,Washington
University in St. Louis
HENRY MANNE, George Mason University
MICHAEL MARLOW, California
Polytechnic State University
DERYL MARTIN, Tennessee Tech University
DALE MATCHECK, Northwood University
JOHN MATSUSAKA, Univ. of Southern California
THOMAS MAYOR, Univ. of Houston
DEIRDRE MCCLOSKEY, University of Illinois at Chicago
JOHN MCDERMOTT, Univ. of South Carolina
JOSEPH MCGARRITY, Univ. of Central Arkansas
ROGER MEINERS, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
ALLAN MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University
JOHN MERRIFIELD, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
JAMES MILLER III, George Mason University
JEFFREY MIRON, Harvard University
THOMAS MOELLER, Texas Christian University
JOHN MOORHOUSE,Wake Forest University
ANDREA MORO, Vanderbilt University
ANDREW MORRISS, Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL MUNGER, Duke University
KEVIN MURPHY, Univ. of Southern California
DAVID MUSTARD, Univ. of Georgia
RICHARD MUTH, Emory University
CHARLES NELSON, Univ. of Washington
WILLIAM NISKANEN, Cato Institute
SETH NORTON, Wheaton College
LEE OHANIAN, UCLA
LYDIA ORTEGA, San Jose State University
EVAN OSBORNE, Wright State University
RANDALL PARKER, East Carolina University
ALLEN PARKMAN, Univ. of New Mexico
DONALD PARSONS, George Washington University
SAM PELTZMAN, Univ. of Chicago
TIMOTHY PERRI, Appalachian State University
MARK PERRY, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
CHRISTOPHER PHELAN, Univ. of Minnesota
GORDON PHILLIPS, Univ. of Maryland
MICHAEL PIPPENGER, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
TOMASZ PISKORSKI, Columbia University
BRENNAN PLATT, Brigham Young University
JOSEPH POMYKALA, Towson University
WILLIAM POOLE, Univ. of Delaware
BARRY POULSON, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
BENJAMIN POWELL, Suffolk University
EDWARD PRESCOTT, Nobel laureate
GARY QUINLIVAN, Saint Vincent College
REZA RAMAZANI, Saint Michael’s College
ADRIANO RAMPINI, Duke University
ERIC RASMUSEN, Indiana University
MARIO RIZZO, New York University
NANCY ROBERTS, Arizona State University
RICHARD ROLL, UCLA
ROBERT ROSSANA,Wayne State University
JAMES ROUMASSET, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
JOHN ROWE, Univ. of South Florida
CHARLES ROWLEY, George Mason University
JUAN RUBIO-RAMIREZ, Duke University
ROY RUFFIN, Univ. of Houston
KEVIN SALYER, Univ. of California, Davis
THOMAS SAVING, Texas A&M University
PAVEL SAVOR, Univ. of Pennsylvania
RONALD SCHMIDT, Univ. of Rochester
CARLOS SEIGLIE, Rutgers University
ALAN SHAPIRO, Univ. of Southern California
WILLIAM SHUGHART II, Univ. of Mississippi
CHARLES SKIPTON, Univ. of Tampa
JAMES SMITH,Western Carolina University
VERNON SMITH, Nobel laureate
LAWRENCE SOUTHWICK, JR., Univ. at Buffalo
DEAN STANSEL, Florida Gulf Coast University
HOUSTON STOKES, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
BRIAN STROW,Western Kentucky University
SHIRLEY SVORNY, California State
University, Northridge
JOHN TATOM, Indiana State University
WADE THOMAS, State University
of New York at Oneonta
HENRY THOMPSON, Auburn University
ALEX TOKAREV, The King’s College
EDWARD TOWER, Duke University
LEO TROY, Rutgers University
WILLIAM TRUMBULL,West Virginia University
DAVID TUERCK, Suffolk University
CHARLOTTE TWIGHT, Boise State University
KAMAL UPADHYAYA, Univ. of New Haven
CHARLES UPTON, Kent State University
T. NORMANVAN COTT, Ball State University
RICHARDVEDDER, Ohio University
RICHARDWAGNER, George Mason University
DOUGLAS M.WALKER, College of Charleston
DOUGLAS O.WALKER, Regent University
MARCWEIDENMIER, Claremont McKenna College
CHRISTOPHERWESTLEY, Jacksonville
State University
ROBERTWHAPLES,Wake Forest University
LAWRENCEWHITE, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
WALTERWILLIAMS, George Mason University
DOUGWILLS, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
DENNISWILSON,Western Kentucky University
GARYWOLFRAM, Hillsdale College
HUIZHONG ZHOU,Western Michigan University

Why does Obama keep lying to us? Why does he keep saying Economist all agree. Clearly they do not all agree.

History shows us that government spending is not the best stimulus.

In Fact the very Idea that Government can put money into the Economy is a Myth.

Government can only put money into the Economy, that it first takes out of the economy, in the form of Taxes, or Deficit spending.

3 weeks on the Job, and he is already using the Politics of Fear, and Lying to us.

Some change.

90% of the people who support Obama have no idea about history...

 

[frazzledgear]

no bounce back in housing, i'm afraid THERE WILL BE NO recovery from this recession.

A recession is when the economy contracts or shrinks instead of grows. The economy cannot continue to shrink forever to zero. An economy doesn't even remain stagnant with no growth or contraction forever. Every recession that has ever occurred has ended and it will again. But we need to avoid dragging it out unnecessarily -like FDR did. And THAT is what I fear will happen under Obama. But there is no such thing as an irreversible recession as Obama said. THAT was just blatant fear mongering.

People had better wake up to the fact that is how this guy is operating and why he is. Yes unemployment is up, yes housing prices have dropped (which means you don't sell your house unless you absolutely have to until they go up again), yes the stock market is still very volatile and investors leery. But Obama's fear mongering is actually making that all worse.

He is trying to give himself cover when his massive spending spree fails to do the job -just like it failed to do every single time it has been tried both in this country and in every single other country that tried to spend their way out of a recession. But at what expense? If you owned a business and listened to Obama's fear mongering -would you REALLY go into expansion mode and start creating new jobs? Or hunker down and trim off the fat and cut back on dispensable job positions because you have been told over and over it WILL get worse? Think families are going go out and start spending after listening to Obama's fear mongering and get that money circulating into the economy -or sit on it instead because they have been told its going to get worse? Going to put your money into the stock market yet or sit on it instead because Obama is telling you its going to get worse? And he is only doing it because he is trying to COVER HIS OWN ASS.

Obama should be encouraging people to spend and invest -and instead he's telling them how much worse its going to get instead. Bush took a lot of flack for telling people to go out shopping after 9/11 and get back to their normal routines -but he did so in order to try and lessen the depth of the economic shock of 9/11 which destroyed nearly 1/3 of our entire economy in a matter of HOURS. Exactly the right thing to do -all while he was pushing through Congress more tax cuts to immediately stimulate the economy as quickly as possible. He could have just as easily told people how bad the damage to our economy really was, that it was going to get a lot worse etc, hunker down and get ready for things getting a lot worse. If he had done that, things WOULD have been much worse -but it would have provided him with political cover when it did. But the economy really does respond to the message coming from a President.

A lot of people want to pretend Bush had nothing to do with how quickly we recovered economically from that attack -but another country could easily have been thrown into a depression. The stock market lost more than 700 points in a single day and when it opened again the next week -it just continued dropping. The entire time it was, Bush was encouraging people to return to their normal routine, for investors to invest and for people to spend money. Remember his "go shopping" message? Bush had to endure a lot of insults from his political opponents and handed comediens another joke at his expense for that. But it was exactly the right message, even as gracelessly articulated as it was. But at least he didn't put concerns about his political career above the best interests of the nation with doom and gloom message trying to cover his ass in the event we weren't able to quickly recover. Our economy did an amazingly quick turnaround and far faster than economists predicted it possibly could after an event that would have easily thrown another country into depression -but it would not have with a President telling the nation how much worse it was going to get.

Obama could take a page from that book instead of trying to cover his ass and insisting it is going to get worse -our economy really does respond to such messages. Good or bad. Carter told us that things were going to get worse -they did. Reagan said things were going to get better -they did. Bush said our economy would quickly recover so get out there and get back to normal -it did. Obama says its going to get worse. Gee want to predict whether its going to get better or not under Obama? If a President tells everyone it will get worse, people act like it is going to get worse. They pull their money out of the economy and out of the stock market, do not invest, do not spend, businesses do not sell and they do not create new jobs and cut jobs instead -and lo and behold. The economy got much worse! Just like he said it would.

It just tells me that Obama is in WAY over his head. Just I always believed he would be. But then, why would anyone with any common sense believe that someone with a resume of three part-time jobs, the last of which he didn't even hold long enough to prove he could even handle that -expect otherwise? That THIS was the resume of someone ready to take on THE singlemost demanding executive job in the entire world? LOL He has zero executive experience and zero executive skills, has never been the leader of anything and he clearly hasn't a clue how to actually LEAD the nation anywhere, much less out of a recession. And boy, is it really showing.

 

[Charles_Main]

Consider, if this doesn't work, how long will the 'recession/depression' last? If we 'did nothing' how long would it last? Which would be better in the long run, regarding future generations?

Seems as valid a measurement as 'create OR save 4 million jobs'.

If we had done nothing the recession might have lasted 1 year, maybe 2. It's hard to say exactly. Taking trillions of dollars from the private sector will only aggravate the situation, and we can say for sure that the problem will be made worse by doing so.

Doing nothing would have been better for future generations because they wouldn't be under the burden of paying back this spectacular debt we're leaving for them, and this only sets more of a precedent for intervening in the markets. Which will of course continue to happen for future generations.

As for the government creating jobs, they can't. More accurately they can't create wealth. Every job the government "creates" comes at the expense of a job in the private sector, which is where wealth is actually created.

WHAT trillions in money was taken from the private sector for the stimulus? Isn't THAT the problem, we are borrowing the money from foreignors.....making the kids and grand kids pay for it? this money is not taken out of our private sector, no?

Yes it is taken out of the private sector in as much as there is only so much credit to go around. If the Fed is borrowing A trillion it makes it that much harder for everyone else to get a loan. It also further devalues our Currency.

Why are you Guys now Defending Borrowing? Was it not you guys screaming about how Much Bush Borrowed?

Fact is as we speak the Fed is, and has been for a few years, printing New money to cover debts. It is likely they will have to do a lot of that to cover these new Debts as well, as it is getting more and more risky to buy American Debt. After all China is not buying our Debt for the hell of it, they buy it to make money, and the deeper we get, the more likely it becomes they will get out of the Game before the bottom drops out.

We are approaching critical mass with relation to our monetary policy. The Fed can not Afford to do Any more Borrowing of or printing Money. To be honest we could not afford what Bush spent, but now, are you kidding me. We are talking about 3.7 Billion added to the debt in less than 2 years. With More stimulus plans to come. We have Trillions in unfounded obligations with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid to deal with. We MUST STOP DEFICIT SPENDING NOW. It may already be to late, but we must try.

We need to completely reform the Tax code into something that is easy Both for people to understand and comply with, and easy to enforce. We need it to be fair, and simple. Something along the lines of a flat tax.

I also would propose an immediate 3% Federal Sales tax(on everything but food stuffs) to be implemented. The revenues of which would by law only be able to be used to pay down the debt. If at a time in the future we ever get out of this mess, and out of Debt, The Tax goes away.

Furthermore we need to go over ever single part of the Budget with a mind set that we Must STOP WASTEFUL SPENDING, and even cut things which may be good ideas, but which we simple can not afford. In a word we need to prioritize the Budget. I firmly believe that we could cut the budget by at least 40% just be prioritizing and eliminating things we can not afford. Lets face it the government is very wasteful.

Finally To deal with the current crisis. I would take a simple compromise approach. As far as I can see, if you want to try and spend your way out of this mess it is not going to work. However if you are going to spend 1 Trillion any ways. Why not just give it to the people? Are they not the ones in need. Take the Trillion dollars and give 3300 to every single citizen of the US. Parents of Dependant children would of course get the money for their kids as well. That would get the money into the hands of people who are actually going to spend it. I will even throw a bone to the income redistribution people. Say we make a cut off. Half a million a year and up does not get a check, and that money is spread out among the rest to make it even more money.

Just don't waste this damn money on what has been proven time and time again to be wasteful, and full of corruption and inefficiency, Government spending.

You want to stimulate this economy? Put that 1 Trillion into the hands of the Poor, and Middle class in this country, and I am telling you they will stimulate the economy with it.

Do what the Dems, and 3 Republicans have signed onto and you simply compound the problem, and at best put it off for a few months or a year to 2.

You can not fix a problem created by Debt, with more deficit spending. SIMPLE AS THAT.

 

[mash107]

Did Cato support the Bank/Financial industry Bail out?

Did they support any of the deficit spending, to the tune of adding nearly 6 trillion to our national debt in the last 8 years?

Did they support the deficit spending on the Iraq war?

Did they support the Bush tax cuts?

Did they support any of president Bush's policies during his 8 year reign as President?

I would need to know the answers to some of those questions before i would give any credence to what they are saying now...

NOT that I necessarily agree to this stimulus....personally i think they should just focus on correcting their mistakes in regulations or the lack there of, that helped caused this housing crisis/credit crisis, and focus on turning the housing market around....whether they buy up excess homes like they did in the 80's crisis or they help keep people in their homes that were going to lose them...

13 trillion has been lost in the economy/housing markets the last year...no one has any confidence of things getting better...and they won't until their own homes, their own nest eggs, STOP dropping in value....imo.

no bounce back in housing, i'm afraid THERE WILL BE NO recovery from this recession.

No to all those questions except for the tax cuts. Tax cuts don't work when you actually increase spending, because you're just printing or borrowing the money out of the economy for whatever difference. 8 years of Keynesian hell won't suddenly turn around and bring prosperity if the next 4 years of the same policies are followed.

and, please let home prices continue to fall! so I can actually afford one... 19 million unoccupied homes, and you think they should cost more!?

 

[Care4all]

Did Cato support the Bank/Financial industry Bail out?

Did they support any of the deficit spending, to the tune of adding nearly 6 trillion to our national debt in the last 8 years?

Did they support the deficit spending on the Iraq war?

Did they support the Bush tax cuts?

Did they support any of president Bush's policies during his 8 year reign as President?

I would need to know the answers to some of those questions before i would give any credence to what they are saying now...

NOT that I necessarily agree to this stimulus....personally i think they should just focus on correcting their mistakes in regulations or the lack there of, that helped caused this housing crisis/credit crisis, and focus on turning the housing market around....whether they buy up excess homes like they did in the 80's crisis or they help keep people in their homes that were going to lose them...

13 trillion has been lost in the economy/housing markets the last year...no one has any confidence of things getting better...and they won't until their own homes, their own nest eggs, STOP dropping in value....imo.

no bounce back in housing, i'm afraid THERE WILL BE NO recovery from this recession.

No to all those questions except for the tax cuts. Tax cuts don't work when you actually increase spending, because you're just printing or borrowing the money out of the economy for whatever difference. 8 years of Keynesian hell won't suddenly turn around and bring prosperity if the next 4 years of the same policies are followed.

and, please let home prices continue to fall! so I can actually afford one... 19 million unoccupied homes, and you think they should cost more!?

i don't think they are worth less than they were before the boom and corruption began....

and those millions of homes were occupied at one time.... there will be 40 million if nothing is done.....and there WILL NOT EVER be a recovery in this country without a recovery in housing....just check your history of all other recessions where housing was at the crux of them....

 

[Care4all]

If we had done nothing the recession might have lasted 1 year, maybe 2. It's hard to say exactly. Taking trillions of dollars from the private sector will only aggravate the situation, and we can say for sure that the problem will be made worse by doing so.

Doing nothing would have been better for future generations because they wouldn't be under the burden of paying back this spectacular debt we're leaving for them, and this only sets more of a precedent for intervening in the markets. Which will of course continue to happen for future generations.

As for the government creating jobs, they can't. More accurately they can't create wealth. Every job the government "creates" comes at the expense of a job in the private sector, which is where wealth is actually created.

WHAT trillions in money was taken from the private sector for the stimulus? Isn't THAT the problem, we are borrowing the money from foreignors.....making the kids and grand kids pay for it? this money is not taken out of our private sector, no?

Yes it is taken out of the private sector in as much as there is only so much credit to go around. If the Fed is borrowing A trillion it makes it that much harder for everyone else to get a loan. It also further devalues our Currency.

Why are you Guys now Defending Borrowing? Was it not you guys screaming about how Much Bush Borrowed?

Fact is as we speak the Fed is, and has been for a few years, printing New money to cover debts. It is likely they will have to do a lot of that to cover these new Debts as well, as it is getting more and more risky to buy American Debt. After all China is not buying our Debt for the hell of it, they buy it to make money, and the deeper we get, the more likely it becomes they will get out of the Game before the bottom drops out.

We are approaching critical mass with relation to our monetary policy. The Fed can not Afford to do Any more Borrowing of or printing Money. To be honest we could not afford what Bush spent, but now, are you kidding me. We are talking about 3.7 Billion added to the debt in less than 2 years. With More stimulus plans to come. We have Trillions in unfounded obligations with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid to deal with. We MUST STOP DEFICIT SPENDING NOW. It may already be to late, but we must try.

We need to completely reform the Tax code into something that is easy Both for people to understand and comply with, and easy to enforce. We need it to be fair, and simple. Something along the lines of a flat tax.

I also would propose an immediate 3% Federal Sales tax(on everything but food stuffs) to be implemented. The revenues of which would by law only be able to be used to pay down the debt. If at a time in the future we ever get out of this mess, and out of Debt, The Tax goes away.

Furthermore we need to go over ever single part of the Budget with a mind set that we Must STOP WASTEFUL SPENDING, and even cut things which may be good ideas, but which we simple can not afford. In a word we need to prioritize the Budget. I firmly believe that we could cut the budget by at least 40% just be prioritizing and eliminating things we can not afford. Lets face it the government is very wasteful.

Finally To deal with the current crisis. I would take a simple compromise approach. As far as I can see, if you want to try and spend your way out of this mess it is not going to work. However if you are going to spend 1 Trillion any ways. Why not just give it to the people? Are they not the ones in need. Take the Trillion dollars and give 3300 to every single citizen of the US. Parents of Dependant children would of course get the money for their kids as well. That would get the money into the hands of people who are actually going to spend it. I will even throw a bone to the income redistribution people. Say we make a cut off. Half a million a year and up does not get a check, and that money is spread out among the rest to make it even more money.

Just don't waste this damn money on what has been proven time and time again to be wasteful, and full of corruption and inefficiency, Government spending.

You want to stimulate this economy? Put that 1 Trillion into the hands of the Poor, and Middle class in this country, and I am telling you they will stimulate the economy with it.

Do what the Dems, and 3 Republicans have signed onto and you simply compound the problem, and at best put it off for a few months or a year to 2.

You can not fix a problem created by Debt, with more deficit spending. SIMPLE AS THAT.

But if the gvt is printing a trillion to hand to the banks so that they can LEND, how is that taking it out of the market to lend?

NOT THAT I AGREE with any of this.....

care

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Inflation is not a direct tax on the American people, but it's a tax nonetheless. The more money you print the more the currency becomes devalued. Most people won't see more money based on the rate of inflation, so they're stuck with the same amount of money that is actually worth less than it was.