The GOP's Love-Hate Relationship with the Stimulus

[luckytxn 2,265]

Shutting the doors on money to the FED? Ridiculous MATT. The very foundation of money had to do with funding the military for protection, and to pay off debts that the US owed to maintain the US as a world power. Heck, Alexander Hamilton created the system so that the US could protect itself from collapse.

Hamiltons system was dismantled and the U.S. survived just fine.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Short of some radical answer, Matt - how would you stimulate the economy and stave off this Recession?

Steven. This country is broke and we're spending like drunken sailors. Bush drew up the plans for our coffin and Obama is making sure the last nail gets driven.

Do you have any honesty?

[mRx 16]

Short of some radical answer, Matt - how would you stimulate the economy and stave off this Recession?

Anything other than the Keynesian view is cast aside as radical--regardless of how well it worked for centuries. But, since your interested:

This recession doesn't need to be staved off; doing so only rain-checks the inevitable. (Example: the credit expansion of the dot-com bubble never was able to be liquidated, and it was rolled over directly into the housing bubble).

This recession is very serious, and with current policies, is headed straight to another Great Depression. The most responsible course would be to:

-Cut taxes (and cut government spending respectively--this is how Reagan F'ed up; he cut taxes, but not spending)

-Let toxic business go bankrupt. Bailing out zombie banks and corporations sets a dangerous morally hazardous precedent. Banks going under would have no effect on the banking economy--those toxic banks would have their assets sold off to more capable and financially responsible companies (such as Leaman Bros. healthy assets going to Barclays and Nomura Holdings and WaMu going to Chase Manhattan). There is no reason to reward failure with bailout.

-Housing prices need to be permitted to fall. Government price controls like housing credits (currently 8K, with rumors of a 15K bill by end of '09), government subsidized loan modifications, and government manipulated loan agencies (FHA, Fannie, and Freddie) need to be abolished. These are parellels to the price controls of Hoover and FDR, and caused more harm than they did good.

Obviously, to never again endure a recession, the government monopoly of money needs to be eliminated. (This includes shutting the doors of the Fed, eliminating fractional reserve banking, and returning to a commodity-based money.)

I think these steps, while painful in the short-term, will bring about a real economic correction.

There is some good points in what you are saying, Matt. It is no doubt a convoluted mess - this relationship between government and the private sector. However, those relationships, however dysfunctional they may be now, were set in place for sound reasons. Take for example, farm subsidies. Farm subsidies kept family farms from going bankrupt, buffering them from the volatility of the market. You can't just say - we should have let those family farms fail because that's the natural selection of the market working. There are many factors (weather, soil, infestation, disease) that can affect a farmer's crops on top of the simple supply and demand of the market. On the flip side though, there is that danger of keeping an institution afloat when it is failing by its own hand.

My argument is that a financial relationship between the public and private sector is a necessary and inevitable part of the market. As idealistic and pure as it seems to wish government away completely from the market, it cannot. The market could not function - at least not in a way that would build a sustainable economy.

This relationship between government and business is not necessary though, Steve. Take a look at this excellent piece on the Federal Reserve. You can see that the Federal Reserve--which was the magical miracle that was supposed to be the end of dreaded business cycles as we know it--was researched, drafted, campaigned and lobbied for, and pushed by none other than big bank businessmen. This is the real relationship between government and business. Privatizing profits and socializing losses is a situation only enabled by government alliance.

The only thing idealist and pure is assuming that this relationship is fostering the welfare of anyone other than the individuals involved.

I truly believe that the single greatest act Congress could ever hope to accomplish would be ending the Fed. This way government spending would have to be funded the old fashioned way--taxes, and could no longer be funded through covert and insidious money creation which destroys the wealth of Americans slowly and indirectly. The main argument to ending the Fed is that "credit would freeze and would be unable to keep up with economic growth". I put this myth to rest in a debate I had with uscandual a few months ago. (I'll try to dig it up if you're interested)

There are currently two politicians (Paul and Kucinich) that I know of who are actually attempting to put the subject of the Fed back on the table; I hope more follow suit.

[mawilson 2,133]

Short of some radical answer, Matt - how would you stimulate the economy and stave off this Recession?

Steven. This country is broke and we're spending like drunken sailors. Bush drew up the plans for our coffin and Obama is making sure the last nail gets driven.

Do you have any honesty?

Democratic legislators from Connecticut playing solitaire during the lengthy debate over the

two-year, $37 billion state budget:

On the left is Rep. Barbara Lambert, a freshman Democrat from Milford who won her first

legislative election in November 2008. She replaced longtime Milford Democrat James Amann,

who ended his legislative career as the House Speaker and is now running for governor against

Republican M. Jodi Rell.

Lambert is playing spider solitaire in the photo, while Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, a Bridgeport

Democrat who has served in Hartford since 2005, is playing regular solitaire. They both voted

in favor of the Democratic-written budget, while Cafero voted against it.

[MrsCat 6]

^ the one on the right is watching baseball. But that's more okay, it is the American past time after all. . . . . .

[mawilson 2,133]

^ the one on the right is watching baseball. But that's more okay, it is the American past time after all. . . . . .

Yeah, I noticed that

That would be Democrat Rep. Russ Morin.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Shutting the doors on money to the FED? Ridiculous MATT. The very foundation of money had to do with funding the military for protection, and to pay off debts that the US owed to maintain the US as a world power. Heck, Alexander Hamilton created the system so that the US could protect itself from collapse.

Hamiltons system was dismantled and the U.S. survived just fine.

His system wasn't completely dismantle. It was changed to keep up with the change in the US economy. I must recommend "Alexander Hamilton American," "Presidencies Above Party" a recommended reading. Maybe the Anti-Federalists papers. I know Hamilton is a Federalists, but, to get the full perspective on the financial backbone of the US, one must know alot more about Alexander Hamilton.

He was the genius in creating the centralized control of money.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hey Mawilson,

It wasn't just the Democrats who were suffering from the ADD. Republicans as well. Looking at all the computer monitors, I notice alot of the delegates were paying attention to something else.

[mRx 16]

Shutting the doors on money to the FED? Ridiculous MATT. The very foundation of money had to do with funding the military for protection, and to pay off debts that the US owed to maintain the US as a world power. Heck, Alexander Hamilton created the system so that the US could protect itself from collapse.

Read this. It explains the Fed's creation.

[rebeccajo 14]

It's a bit like listening to Gollum talk about his precious ring. Bobby Jindal hates the recovery package; Bobby Jindal loves the recovery package. Mitch McConnell hates the recovery package; Mitch McConnell loves the recovery package. Eric Cantor hates the recovery package; Eric Cantor loves the recovery package. There's a lot of this going around.

Georgia's Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, voted against the $787 billion economic stimulus package, blasting the bill as a bloated government giveaway.

But their disdain didn't stop them from later asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to steer $50 million in stimulus money to a constituent's bio-energy project.

Gates didn't do it, but Chambliss, Isakson and other Republican opponents of the stimulus aren't going empty-handed.

Billions of dollars worth of Defense Department stimulus money is paying for repairs and construction at military installations in areas represented by lawmakers who said "no" to the legislation, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

The request from Chambliss and Isakson isn't the only one Gates and other top defense officials received before and after President Barack Obama signed the stimulus law in February. Their pitch stands out, though, because of the GOP's staunch opposition.

It's a familiar pattern. Republicans aggressively opposed the stimulus proposal earlier this year, insisting that it was a wasteful effort that couldn't possibly improve the economy (as opposed to, say, a five-year spending freeze, which would have worked wonders). Ever since, however, the conservative lawmakers who trashed the recovery bill are the same conservative lawmakers who think the economy in their area could really use some of those recovery funds.

This started within a couple of weeks of the stimulus package passing, and it's only become more common since.

The DCCC has even come up with a "Hypocrisy Hall of Fame" for recovery critics who are "celebrating the benefits of President Obama's economic recovery bill in their districts."

The campaign committee probably ought to save room for a lot of inductees.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...9_08/019659.php

Forgive me for missing your logic here Stephen but why wouldn't any representative work to bring a share of the pie back home?

Just because they argued against it's passage means nothing.

The fact is, the bill was passed and all Americans will have to repay this debt, For the Rep not bring any of this wasteful spending home would be a "double punishment".

Lets put it in household terms...

Your wife wants a new and bigger TV, you argue against it but she over-rides your veto and buys the TV anyway.... are you a hypocrite to watch the tv you now are making payments on... even though you didn't want it?

That's the same argument you apply to using your Medicare when you retire even though you are such a staunch opponent of a public option for healthcare.

See - the point is - point your money where your mouth is. You are either opposed to something or you aren't. You don't lip service how awful something is and then take it.

[mRx 16]

You don't lip service how awful something is and then take it.

If you're paying for it, then why not?

If I pay for a glass of wine at a restaurant and it's absolute ####### (and I can't get my money back)-- You can be sure I'm drinking my monies worth.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Ron Paul is just another person who sometime submit truthful information, and sometimes not. It's all about manipulation.

[almaty 19]

ron paul is a idiot chopf##k..who thought Hitler was classy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Republican governed Florida is taking stimulus money and spending it on previously unfunded infrastructure projects. Of course, Charlie Crist supported the stimulus package - at least until he decided to run for the US Senate seat that Mel Martinez is vacating. Charlie is moving hastily to become more of a partisan. The GOP base demands it and Charlie wouldn't want this right wing tool Rubio to steal his show.

[mRx 16]

Ron Paul is just another person who sometime submit truthful information, and sometimes not. It's all about manipulation.

OK, I guess that's one way to cast aside opposing views.