# What's wrong with the stimulus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466 "2009-02-12T01:43:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/21 "2009-02-13T09:47:06Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > The point of stimulus is not just to get us out of a Great Depression-like situation. It’s to ensure that we never again slip into depression in the first place. I’m assuming by “depression” here you don’t mean “economic downturn” – if you’re saying that Keynsianism is going to free us from the basic cycle of expansion and retraction, and we’re going to go ever upward, I’m at a loss. If you mean another Great Depression, again: we’re not in one now, I’m not aware of any serious economist who thinks we are going to be, and the fundamentals of the economy are so different now that ISTM plausible to argue that things can’t get that bad ever again (though I’m not sure I’d go that far). It’s all fine to say that a massive stimulus will get rid of that output gap; but even if we grant that, human nature, and politics, are such that when the economy is roaring again, that’s going to be taken as the cue to raise spending even more; that’s been the general precedent of the last few decades. So far as I’m aware, even Keynes wasn’t saying that you can just run larger and larger deficits forever and it wouldn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/22 "2009-02-13T10:28:04Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I’m assuming by “depression” here you don’t mean “economic downturn” – if you’re saying that Keynsianism is going to free us from the basic cycle of expansion and retraction, and we’re going to go ever upward, I’m at a loss. No, this isn’t freedom from the business cycle. Fiscal stimulus isn’t nearly nimble enough for that, despite the hopes of the early Keynesians. This is just a method that can help when Plan A has failed. > [@furt](#): > > If you mean another Great Depression, again: we’re not in one now, I’m not aware of any serious economist who thinks we are going to be, and the fundamentals of the economy are so different now that ISTM plausible to argue that things can’t get that bad ever again (though I’m not sure I’d go that far). There were credible fears of worldwide financial collapse late last year. These weren’t outright predictions, but that’s not exactly an event you can mark on your calendar. Iceland might not be the only country to get screwed over. It could be just the first. I don’t know any serious economist who’s actively predicting that situation, either, but no one expected Iceland’s problems. You take these events as they come, and meanwhile, you work to improve the overall situation. And the faster we improve the overall situation, the less problem there’s likely to be. > [@furt](#): > > It’s all fine to say that a massive stimulus will get rid of that output gap; but even if we grant that, human nature, and politics, are such that when the economy is roaring again, that’s going to be taken as the cue to raise spending even more; that’s been the general precedent of the last few decades. So far as I’m aware, even Keynes wasn’t saying that you can just run larger and larger deficits forever and it wouldn’t matter. You’re free to think the Dems have no credibility, but they’re actually the party that has more consistently demonstrated fiscal responsibility. It was under Reagan and Dubya that the budget exploded for no good reason. H.W. took steps to balance the budget, and Clinton finished the job. And now Obama has specifically mentioned that we need to have some serious budgetary reform, including entitlement spending, sorta like Clinton tussling with the welfare system. Maybe you think Obama’s all mouth, but at the very least you have to admit that he’s got a purty mouth. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/23 "2009-02-13T14:46:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Actually, I’m pretty sure there’s a list of them that contains thousands of (substantive) items. No cite yet, since I kind of have to go to sleep, but if somebody reminds me, I’ll try to find one tomorrow. That’d be great, as I’d like to examine that more closely. I’m not being adversarial, BTW. I genuinely would like to know. Again, I’m not saying that no such projects exist. I would like to know how “substantive” these items are, though. I rather doubt that you have many infrastructure projects that have all been planned out and that simply await funding – but I’m willing to be proven wrong. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/24 "2009-02-13T15:29:21Z")
[Final Stimulus Bill: Full Text Of Conference Report | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/final-stimulus-bill-full_n_166604.html) Here’s the full text of the bill. Have at it. Note: repubs did not even let the dems read bills,before they put them out on the floor for a vote. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/25 "2009-02-13T15:35:34Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > You’re free to think the Dems have no credibility, but they’re actually the party that has more consistently demonstrated fiscal responsibility. > > It was under Reagan and Dubya that the budget exploded for no good reason. H.W. took steps to balance the budget, and Clinton finished the job. And now Obama has specifically mentioned that we need to have some serious budgetary reform, including entitlement spending, sorta like Clinton tussling with the welfare system. Maybe you think Obama’s all mouth, but at the very least you have to admit that he’s got a purty mouth. If I thought the pubs as a group were righteous on fiscal responsibility, I’d be one. It’s exactly\* because\* they are just as bad if not worse that I say that no congress of either party is going to scale back. And yes, Obama has said a lot of things which got my hopes up; which is why it so disappoints me that his first act in office is a huge chunk of “we’ll be fiscally responsible – just as soon as we finish passing all this long-term spending on things my political base wants.” That sound a lot to me like “I’ll sober up after one more drink.” I _pray_ he is another Clinton. I fear he is another Carter. ISTM both parties have their stimulation preferences, both of which can be taken too far. Tax cuts have been shown to be stimulative in some times and places, and so the pubs always push them, in all times and places. Spending has been shown to be stimulative in some times and places, and so the dems always push it, in all times and places. But you can’t just keep cutting taxes, otherwise you’ll end up with a tax rate of 0%, which obviously won’t work; OTOH, if you keep intervening more and more in the economy, with more and bigger government, at some point you end with complete central planning and history shows that doesn’t work either. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/26 "2009-02-13T18:10:28Z")
> [@](#): > > ISTM both parties have their stimulation preferences, both of which can be taken too far. Tax cuts have been shown to be stimulative in some times and places, and so the pubs always push them, in all times and places. Spending has been shown to be stimulative in some times and places, and so the dems always push it, in all times and places. This is not a legitimate equivalance. The Democratic stimulus plan has several big tax cuts whereas the Senate Republican plan had absolutely no spending ; it was the same kind of tax cuts they have been touting for the last 8 years and more. There is a much greater degree of pragmatism about fiscal policy on the Democratic side as exemplified by both Obama and Clinton. Obama included a sizeable tax cut in his initial plan even before he started negotiating and was roundly criticized by liberals for “negotiating with himself”. Similarly Clinton, over the course of his presidency adopted different policies as the circumstances changed. Some times he supported tax cuts at others tax increases. Sometimes he increased government spending at others he restrained it. Since HW the Republican party has basically refused to even discuss the possibility of tax increases while all the time continuously proposing budget-busting tax cuts. It’s a fundamentally unserious economic vision which has contributed greatly to the current mess. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/27 "2009-02-13T18:36:28Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > That’d be great, as I’d like to examine that more closely. I’m not being adversarial, BTW. I genuinely would like to know. > > Again, I’m not saying that no such projects exist. I would like to know how “substantive” these items are, though. I rather doubt that you have many infrastructure projects that have all been planned out and that simply await funding – but I’m willing to be proven wrong. Here’s an article for projects in West Virginia: [Officials ready infrastructure projects](http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/x1137468729/Officials-ready-infrastructure-projects) And Central Illinois: [http://www.edc.centralillinois.org/goto/Infrastructure](http://www.edc.centralillinois.org/goto/Infrastructure) New York: [http://www.rpa.org/empirestatefuture/2009/01/paterson-presents-the-new-wash.html](http://www.rpa.org/empirestatefuture/2009/01/paterson-presents-the-new-wash.html) San Diego area: [Del Mar Times – San Diego Union-Tribune](http://www.delmartimes.net/news/251962-sandag-prepares-for-infrastructure-stimulus) And so on. I couldn’t find a complete nationwide list, but googling “list of funding-ready infrastructure projects” got me these links in the first page of results. (Interesting sidenote: there were also several Canadian sites on the first page. Is Harper doing the same thing?) ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/28 "2009-02-13T18:39:50Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > This is not a legitimate equivalance. In that post, I was not talking about the specific stimulus bill so much as general principles. I acknowledge there are are cuts in this bill, some perhaps OK, some definitely not. If it was coming down to political horse-trading, I’d happily junk all the cuts in there in exchange for an equal junking of the long-term spending. The plan Sam Stone pointed to – advanced by a Democrat – is IMO much superior to the one Obama is advancing. It’s Obama’s plan which is, IMO, more of what we’re used to: cut taxes AND take on long-term spending committments, and it’ll all pay for itself someday. > [@](#): > > Similarly Clinton, over the course of his presidency adopted different policies as the circumstances changed. And as I said, if Obama is a Clintonian pragmatist, I’ll be pleased. So far, I’m very skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/29 "2009-02-13T18:50:39Z")
Was reading [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/stimulus.winners.losers/index.html) and saw this article so thought I’d put it in here without comment: > [@](#): > > Winners > > # High-speed and inner-city rail: Went from $300 million in House bill to $2.25 billion in Senate to $8 billion in final version. There also is a $6.9 billion provision for public transit. > > # Amtrak: Picked up $500 million from both House and Senate versions to total $1.3 billion. The bill stipulates that no more than 60 percent can go to the Northeast Corridor. > > # National Institutes of Health: Ends up with $10 billion in the final bill. The House proposed $3.5 billion and the Senate wanted $10 billion – $8.2 billion goes to the NIH director for his discretion. > > # Government oversight: Board to oversee stimulus bill spending will get $84 million to do the job. House bill allocated $14 million while the Senate bill called for $7 million. There is also more than $100 million more for various inspectors general in different agencies. > > # NASA: Banked just more than $2 billion, including $400,000 for science/global-warming research. > [@](#): > > Losers > > # Veterans: Nearly all items for Veterans Affairs were reduced and the $2 billion the Senate wanted for VA construction was wiped out altogether. The VA did get one thing: $1 billion for medical facilities renovation and retooling. > > # Military construction: Cut and put into a general pot, a change from targeted money for each branch of the services. Army construction alone went from $600 million in the Senate and $900 million in the House to $180 million in the final bill. But negotiators compromised over a general military construction fund – the House wanted $3.75 billion while the Senate allocated $118 million and settled on $1.45 billion for all services. > > # FBI: Senate had allocated $475 million but all was cut out of final bill. > [@](#): > > Survivors > > # Pandemic flu research: Although senators agreed it wouldn’t produce jobs, it’s getting $50 million in the final bill, down from nearly $900 million. Video Watch the latest on the stimulus bill » > > Damage control > > # Foreclosures: $2 billion is set for a neighborhood stabilization program that helps areas plagued with foreclosures by buying back properties and preventing blight. > > # Homeless: $1.5 billion is directed to homelessness prevention. > > # Passports: $90 million is going to the State Department to deal with domestic facilities that deal with passports and training. > > # Social Security: $500 million goes to replace its 30-year-old computer system. > [@](#): > > Tax breaks > > # Car buyers: Anyone who buys a new car in 2009 gets to deduct the sales tax. To qualify, buyer must make less than $125,000 individually or $250,000 jointly. Cost is $1.7 billion. > > # Homebuyers: First-time homebuyers who purchase this calendar year get an $8,000 tax credit which does not have to be repaid like a similar measure last year. This phases out for people making more than $75,000 individually or $150,000 jointly. “First-time homebuyer” is defined as someone who has not owned a home for the past three years. Cost: $6.63 billion. > > Paying for college > > # Pell grants: will increase to a maximum of $5,350 per student in 2009-2010 year thanks to two provisions in the stimulus. > > # Tax credits: Individuals making less than $80,000 or families making less than $160,000 can get up to $2,500 in tax credits for college tuition. 40 percent ($1,000) of the credit is refundable. Cost: $13.9 billion over 10 years. > [@](#): > > Making work pay > > # Tax credits: Anyone making $75,000 individually or $150,000 as a family will get refundable tax credit up to $400 per person or $800 per family. Ok, I lied…I will put in a brief comment. Someone asked ‘What’s wrong with the stimulus’…my answer is, look at what we are spending money on to supposedly ‘stimulate’ the economy here. Not that some (or even most) of these projects aren’t worthy of consideration…but for supposed economic stimulus?? :dubious: -XT ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/30 "2009-02-13T19:08:51Z")
A few points about the CBO numbers. It’s true that it says there is net reduction of GDP but it’s just 0.1 to 0.3% over a ten year horizon which is miniscule. So roughly speaking the stimulus may deliver a 6% GDP boost over the next three years and then a 6.2% GDP reduction over the seven years after that because of the greater debt. This is a pretty good deal for several reasons. The boost is concentrated in three bad years when the economy really needs it where the reduction comes over a longer and likely more prosperous period. Secondly the boost will disproportionately help the disadvantaged including the unemployed and the poor whereas the reduction will be spread across the economy. Also note that under George W Bush the federal debt increased by around 3 trillion compared to the 800 billion dollars stimulus and with much less justification. I bet most of the people who are attacking the stimulus hailed Bush’s budget busting tax cuts back in the day. Many probably supported the budget-busting Iraq war as well. Their credibility when it comes to fiscal prudence isn’t exactly strong. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/31 "2009-02-14T02:16:22Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > And finally, that’s the “crowding out” objection (effectively, item #3 from the Summers quote in the OP). Now, the CBOD used the phrase “_ **To the extent** that people hold their wealth in the form of government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment_”, which made me wonder – is there any method to estimate/measure what that “extent” will be? > > As I said, it seems as though “crowding out” was the primary concern expressed in the brief CBOD blog post. Now that I get the abstract concept, it would be really nice to be able to pin some numbers on it to give it practical import. The CBO obviously does have a method, which they used to get their prediction of a 0.1-0.3 percent loss of GDP in the long run. But I haven’t yet looked into their detailed findings, just their conclusions. I can’t give you specifics here, but I can tell you it’s complex stuff. You’d need estimates of all sorts of future variables: savings, government spending and revenues (to derive deficits, and thus the need for future g-bonds), the current account deficit (to include the effects of foreign investment), GDP, interest rates, inflation, the strength of the dollar internationally, and some other things I’m sure I’m not thinking of off the top of my head. But the conclusion of a slight loss in GDP in the long run is pretty practical. Pretty straightforward. A 6.0% boost now that comes with a 6.2% loss later, as **Lantern** pointed out: that’s a big relief targeted specifically at suffering people now, with the costs spread out over more people and more time. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/32 "2009-02-14T02:32:48Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Also note that under George W Bush the federal debt increased by around 3 trillion compared to the 800 billion dollars stimulus and with much less justification. I bet most of the people who are attacking the stimulus hailed Bush’s budget busting tax cuts back in the day. Many probably supported the budget-busting Iraq war as well. Their credibility when it comes to fiscal prudence isn’t exactly strong. Away with this kind of thinking. “Well they got their chance top do stupid stuff … we should too!” “He punched you in the balls … that means we get to kick you in the stomach!” **tu quoque** ---
**Author:** ![wsbenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b38774/32.png) [@wsbenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wsbenge)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/33 "2009-02-14T02:42:15Z")
I question if the people in charge really understand the problem well enough to apply the money properly. The GI education bill helped educational infrastructure. The housing loans helped infrastructure. The price of fuel the last couple of years leveraged expenses catastrophically. That must be addresses, and perhaps stimulus money could be effectively spent on research wages. The price of fuel really hurt my company badly. No way to avoid it. Primary industry, like manufacturing, mining, and agriculture should be stimulated, rather than outsourcing it overseas. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/34 "2009-02-14T04:10:21Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Ok, I lied…I will put in a brief comment. Someone asked ‘What’s wrong with the stimulus’…my answer is, look at what we are spending money on to supposedly ‘stimulate’ the economy here. Not that some (or even most) of these projects aren’t worthy of consideration…but for supposed economic stimulus?? :dubious: > > -XT Yes, as we all know, when a local government builds a road, the money is flushed down the toilet. No contractors are hired, no materials are purchased, and nothing that gets built on that road subsequently is helped at all. Yup, that wouldn’t stimulate anything. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/35 "2009-02-14T04:37:46Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > A few points about the CBO numbers. It’s true that it says there is net reduction of GDP but it’s just 0.1 to 0.3% over a ten year horizon which is miniscule. So roughly speaking the stimulus may deliver a 6% GDP boost over the next three years and then a 6.2% GDP reduction over the seven years after that because of the greater debt. > > This is a pretty good deal for several reasons. The boost is concentrated in three bad years when the economy really needs it where the reduction comes over a longer and likely more prosperous period. Secondly the boost will disproportionately help the disadvantaged including the unemployed and the poor whereas the reduction will be spread across the economy. This is a _terrible_ deal, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Think it through: If the economy is on the rebound in three years, the ‘stimulus’ will turn into a drag and slow it down. If it’s not on the rebound, you’re going to be in a situation where for a long time, this ‘stimulus’ will make it harder to recover. This is exactly what happened both during the New Deal and in Japan - the stimulus didn’t do much, and ran up the deficit. When the economy finally did start to recover, it happened just as the government was forced to raise taxes to pay for the stimulus, which killed the recovery in its tracks. The only way the stimulus makes sense is if you get it out fast, and then expect the economy to recover fast, so by the time it starts being a drag you already have a robust economy going again. If this recession drags out for years, this ‘stimulus’ is just going to make it worse. > [@](#): > > Also note that under George W Bush the federal debt increased by around 3 trillion compared to the 800 billion dollars stimulus and with much less justification. I bet most of the people who are attacking the stimulus hailed Bush’s budget busting tax cuts back in the day. Many probably supported the budget-busting Iraq war as well. Their credibility when it comes to fiscal prudence isn’t exactly strong. Oh, come on. First of all, using this argument is a form of ad-hominem. Satan himself can oppose the stimulus, and all that matters is whether his arguments hold up. Second, Bush raised the deficit by 3 trillion dollars over 8 years, and throughout that whole period the left was screaming that it was fiscally irresponsible, and that they were actually the party of fiscal responsibility. Many of us on the right were also screaming about it. I was bitching about the Bush Administration’s spending sprees starting from his first year as President. Now Obama is about to bring in deficits of over a trillion dollars a year, and as high as two trillion dollars a year - a burn rate three to five times faster than Bush managed. This ‘stimulus’ represents a permanent increase in the size of the government. A lot of these departments that are getting funding boosts are going to baseline their new budgets starting from the new funding level, and everyone knows it. if the Dept of Education takes its doubling of funds and hires a slew of new teachers and builds new schools all over the place, are you expecting them to shut down after the stimulus money runs out? Lay off all those teachers? Not on your life. The Democrats have used the ‘crisis’ to push through a permanent increase in the size of the federal government - forever more, it is going to be at least 10-20% larger. That means a larger tax burden or higher deficits, in perpetuity. And they are doing so at a horrible time. Every dollar in this package that is not a direct stimulus is part of the problem, and not the solution. This is a horrible time because there’s another big drag coming on the economy - the massive rise in entitlement spending that’s about to occur as the baby boomers leave the work force in large numbers and start collecting Social Security and Medicare. Those numbers are downright terrifying. Medicare’s unfunded lotal liability in the neighborhood of 50-80 trillion dollars. In 2007, the [National Center for Policy Analysis](http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st299/) estimated that by 2020, Medicare’s share of the budget is going to jump from 11% of the Federal budget to over 20%. By 2030, it will be 30%. By 2040, it will be 40%. And that projection was before the current meltdown, with its subsequent reduction in Medicare witholdings. So the situation just got worse. Much worse. Medicare costs are going to start busting the budget badly within five years - just as the the ‘Stimulus’ also becomes a large net drag on the economy. This whole thing is so irresponsible it’s hard to fathom. This is easily the worst bill I’ve ever seen the U.S. government pass. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/36 "2009-02-14T05:00:05Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Also note that under George W Bush the federal debt increased by around 3 trillion compared to the 800 billion dollars stimulus and with much less justification. How much had Bush spent a month into his first term? Or, to be fair since the economic thing is an expensive mess, how much of that did he spend in the first year given 9/11 was an expensive mess too? Bush had eight years to spend stupidly, so are we really ready to start saying “Bush spent allllllll this much, but Obama has only spent 25% of that (to date) so it’s not nearly as bad!”? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/37 "2009-02-14T05:08:15Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > The CBO obviously does have a method, which they used to get their prediction of a 0.1-0.3 percent loss of GDP in the long run…I can’t give you specifics here, but I can tell you it’s complex stuff. Which is part of what I was wondering, thank you. To my mind, it was possible that there’s some very simple relation that might apply – similar in simplicity to a supply/demand curve. But I figured it more probable that there were reams upon reams of numerical tables involved. I wish I had more time to delve into this stuff…estimates based on estimates that are derived from historical data and applied to a known atypical situation should, at best, be looked upon with high suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/38 "2009-02-14T05:28:00Z")
It wants far more physical infrastructure spending. One, you actually get something from it. Our bankers may be grateful for our largesse, but I already have a calender and a pen. Two, its visible, its apparent, people can see it. Its like the old salesman’s trick: get the prospective victim to hold the object in his hand, that makes it real, and real is more desirable. What we need first is for the people to have money to spend, and _then_ we need them to spend it. If they can see things actually happening, it becomes more real. Getting money in people’s hands is almost easy, getting them to have the confidence to spend it is another matter altogether. Hence, do things people can see every day, do things that will remind them every day that the effort is being made. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/39 "2009-02-14T05:50:51Z")
Here’s what else is wrong with the stimulus bill: [No one voting on it will have a chance to read it.](http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478) That’s because the compromise bill was put together behind closed doors by a small committee (containing no members of the minority party), then rammed down the throats of everyone else. The House voted on it today, after having a grand total of about 8 hours to read the 1000+ page bill. Obviously, they hadn’t read it when they voted on it. This is a fundamental abdication of their responsibility to their constituents - the least you can ask of your public officials is that they actually know what they are voting for. On the other hand, lobbyists had the bill yesterday, so they could give their ‘input’ to the committee. And what does Obama think about this? > [@Obama](#): > > **End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors:** > > As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people’s trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. Oh, sorry. That was the hopey-changey Obama speaking. This one doesn’t give a shit. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466/40 "2009-02-14T06:11:55Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Away with this kind of thinking. > > “Well they got their chance top do stupid stuff … we should too!” > > “He punched you in the balls … that means we get to kick you in the stomach!” > **tu quoque** This is obviously the toughest part to chew on, but it’s the essence of the business. **Economies in crisis do not function the same way as healthy economies.** There is a justification, straight from modern macroeconomics, to increase deficit spending in a recession. This is not because deficit spending suddenly becomes perfect and good and right. It’s because the negatives of government inactivity outweigh the benefits. There is a cost to debt, yes, but there can be an even larger cost to doing nothing. That justification does not exist when the economy is healthy. Reagan and Dubya both pissed away money for no good reason. Obama is not in a good situation. We’re playing a different ballgame here. It’s not like anybody’s saying, “Hurray, deficits!” It’s just that we’re looking at the potential fallout if we don’t step up here, the enormous opportunity cost of doing nothing. So, yes, it’s fair to compare Dubya’s irresponsibility with spending so much with Obama’s good sense with spending so much. This does not mean that you have to agree. But at the very least, we need to acknowledge the distinction between an expanding economy and a contracting economy. Once you acknowledge that, you see that Obama has mainstream opinion at his back. This isn’t an argument ender, I know, but this distinction cannot be ignored. It’s the heart of the stimulus argument. And it’s tough to grasp. **elfkin477** doesn’t see the distinction. And I see **Sam Stone** doesn’t acknowledge it, either (although it’s been pointed out to him at least two times before). That’s just unacceptable. It’s okay to be leery of spending, but at the very least, you have to engage the arguments that are actually being offered, and that means acknowledging the different nature of a deflating economy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-stimulus/485466.md?page=3)