Yes, just as taxes affect different people to different extents, so government programs affect us to different extents. But we all benefit from roads, even if I don’t benefit from roads in places I don’t visit, and even if trucking companies benefit more from roads than finance companies do. And part of the benefit is indirect: we pay less for goods in the shops, because roads make transportation cheaper, for example.
I’m not. I’ve merely noticed that ALL Republicans, including those detailed in the OP, seem to oppose the stimulus, and that’s the same crowd who looked the other way as contractors in Iraq made off with tens of billions in taxpayer money.
Whatever you personal politics, autz, that’s not a history that can very well be overlooked with a straight face, although some are trying very hard to do so.
What does a business do other than take your money and give you something for it? I think that’s called “capitalism”. That’s how it works. You trade money for something, or something for money. That’s it.
A government produces a lot of things which are vitally important yet not immediately tnagible, like an educated public, roads to drive on, products people are willing yo buy because they kow they are safe, air you can breath, etc.
Libertarians are simply too blind to see this.
I’m not suggesting that tax cuts produce weath. As I’ve stated, the government does not produce weath. But, letting people have more of their own money results in more tax revenue collected by the government as people spend their money.
And, again, increased wealth for some does not mean increased weath for all. It is a zero sum game in the public sector. Some people will benefit and other will simply lose their money.
From the article:
This is a perfect economic stimulus project.
–It badly needs to be done. A lot of rural homes are serviced by “straight pipes” that drain their sewer waste directly into the nearest water supply (namely, the river). The people who live in such homes certainly can’t afford to do anything about it.
–In a lot of places it’s quite literally “shovel ready”. Grassroots groups are typically all over this, and have plans for how it could be done.
–It creates jobs in places where they’re particularly lacking.
–Most of the jobs it creates don’t require a lot of skill or special training. You don’t need a college degree to dig a sewer line or a septic tank.
–Most of the work could be done by local businesses, local contractors, and local governments. A lot of that money is going to stay local, aside from the unfortunate chunk that ends up at Wal-Mart.
I’m sure there’s plenty in the bill I’d argue with, but this is exactly the sort of thing it should contain, IMO.
Also I am not suggesting that what the government provides is not important. And I am not a libertarian. I am merely making the point that overall wealth cannot be increased by any government program. Taking a little from all to benefit some may very well be noble but it does not increase the overall wealth of the nation.
They’re not unrelated, and there is political momentum available now to get the longer-term stuff that might not be available later.
Exactly. This is about political convenience.
-
Your own cite updated that figure to 64%, not 78%.
-
“Within two years” includes money that will be spent in January 2011. I don’t think most people would feel overly stimulated if their bosses promised them a raise two years from now.
-
I would also point out that that is a projection. Infrastructure projects have been occasionally known to be delayed.
-
Even if we go with 78%, and even if we assume it all rolls out on time, and even if we assume that budgeting money for 2011 will create jobs in 2009 … that figure means that even the bill’s supporters admit that a full 22% of the bill is not stimulus.
I;m sorry, but the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is a hopelessly naive conservative pipe dream that has beeing thoroughly and soundly disproven. It’s simply a fantasy created by the sort of people who can’t resist doing whatever feels good at the time and come up with an excuse why it’s really what is best for everybody later. I want more money now! NOW NOW NOW!
You can keep saying “it’s a zero sum game in the public sector”, but that does not make it true. You have failed to illustrate why the government spending money is somehow different than the private sector spending it.
Care to explain?
You are right, my mistake.
No, it means that 22% won’t be spent by January 2011.
Maybe, I’d have to see numbers to convince me otherwise. I think retail spending went down because people have less money in general, not because people are saving more. Generally I think lower income people are more likely to spend a $6500 gift card on something frivolous, and it would be a substantial windfall for them.
But the real point with my gift card suggestion isn’t that I actually think the government should ever send out $6500 gift cards to everyone.
I can get behind infrastructure improvements, but those should be looked at on a case by case basis and advanced on their individual merits; I can’t get behind a $900 billion spending package that is spending solely for the sake of spending. A lot of the stuff in the package maybe we should spend money on (obviously we’re going to disagree on different pieces of the package), but when you’re in an environment of “spend money to fix the economy no matter what” there’s a high likelihood money is going to go to wasteful programs and initiatives.
I don’t think it’s even arguable that lower taxes results in increased tax revenue. Obama admitted as much when he said that a tax increase on the wealthy may reduce total tax dollars but that it is an issue of fairness.
As for the difference between government spending and private sector spending, surely you are aware that people create wealth when they produce goods and employ people…i.e. there is not a fixed amount of wealth to go around. The government does not create wealth and therefore must transfer it from one individual to another. The government compels us to give up some percentage of our labor for the greater good…whether or not we directly benefit. In the private sector I give you money and you give me goods or a service. We agree on the price, a deal is made and we both have something tangible. Private sector spending stimulates the economy in this way…nobody is hurt by our exchange. But, government must take the money from someone in order to “stimulate” others. Not only is this the heart of economics, it’s just plain common sense.
The point of stimulus spending is to spend counter cyclically. In other words, when the economy goes down the govt. should spend more, and when the economy goes well, the govt should spend less. This is not only good for the govt. it’s good for the economy. If the govt. increases spending during a downturn, it softens the downturn by keeping more people employed. That keeps demand up for other products, which keeps employment up, which keeps demand etc. It’s good for the govt. because if they are spending counter cyclically, they get projects done cheaper because there is less private demand to compete with.
The problem isn’t stimulus spending. The problem is that politicians (mostly Republcians) ignore the second part of counter cyclical spending. The govt. should spend less in boom times. This keeps the economy from overheating, and the end result is a moderation in the boom/bust cycle. This is good for the govt. as well, because they spend less in more expensive times. Unfortunately it’s become “ah the economy is in the crapper, cut taxes!” and “woohoo we have a surplus, cut taxes!”.
Stimulus spending makes a whole lot of sense if you balance the spending with running surpluses.
you keep saying “the government does not create wealth”. but you provide absolutely no proof for this assertion. I say it does create wealth, by any number of means. The fact that taxes are not voluntary but consumers purchases are, does not change the fact that government creates well. A new road can mena that all the businesses who used the old road can now get their products to market faster and more reliably, increasing their profitability. Bingo, wealth created. Safety regulations make it so that consumers feel perfectly safe buying and using the products on the market, knowing they are safe. Every single business benefits enormously from this consumer confidence. Environmental regulations keep people more healthy, avoding the costs to the system that people sick from pollution would cost. That’s wealth created.
So unless you can back your blind assertions up with fact, I am going to be forced to assume that you do not know what you are talking about.
There ya go! I’ve been trying to figure out how to express these very points, and now I don’t have to, because you’ve done it so well. Thanks!
The government should be there to reduce the period of the pendulum.
I’m not sure if you mean $4 billion is just the movie film and forest fire portion, but I get almost $20 billion from the list in the OP’s link.
I think earmarking some of the money for things like infrastructure repair projects would be fine, just not bridges in Alaska.
4 billion dollars is small potatoes. That’s about enough to cover the cost of two or three lunches in the cafeteria here. Frankly, if the cost of three lunches were enough to make the difference between the economy recovering and not recovering, I’d pay that gladly.
Wow…it’s amazing that you can miss my point so many times. As I’ve said at least three times, increasing one group’s weath at the expense of another does not increase the overall wealth of the nation. Stop looking at this from a local perspective. And, using your definition of wealth is absurd. Using that same logic, if the government promoted smoking to reduce lifespan then it would collect more money from you than it spends on government programs later in life…more government wealth.
Again, government gets its money by taxing, borrowing or printing. It does not actually produce anything to raise money and pay for itself (with the exception of the post office). Surely you can see that any government spending must be offset by less private spending. Either the government takes your money or prints more money…it has no other way to get access to money. Someone will lose some of their net worth for the gain of another. Is this really as difficult to understand as you say it is. Oh, and just by saying “You are wrong and I am right unless you can prove otherwise” does not make it so.