Comments on: Random Mormon Poll #4: Economic Stimulus

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:35:41 +0000

Mark, to answer you, I would ask you to look at this chart:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

As you probably are aware, the key number is debt as a percentage of GDP, not total absolute debt numbers (although with a projected debt approaching $2 trillion soon, those numbers are also astounding). When you look at the graph, you will see that Obama’s debt is more comparable to WWII than to the Reagan years.

Now, let’s look at projected debt.

Take a look at this article:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71520770-4a2c-11de-8e7e-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Stanford Prof. John Taylor points out that even at the optimistic projections given right now, debt will continue to explode for at least the next decade.

Now, if Obama were like the post 1994 Clinton and were discussing ways of cutting spending, you would be hearing some cheering from me. It is worth remembering that the most fiscally responsible president we’ve had in the last 50 years was a Democrat, Clinton. But as you well know, Obama talks a lot about cutting spending in small ways but at the same time wants to expand health care and add additional taxes on business through the cap-and trade plan. Any economist will tell you the worst time to be increasing taxes is during a recession because it causes businesses to retract rather than expand. This means that tax revenues will actually decrease and the deficit will be worse. Obama has no reasonable plan to end the deficit spending.

Reagan’s plan, which turned out to work, was to cut taxes so the economy would grow. As I say, it worked like a charm. Clinton’s plan was to cut spending. Worked like a charm. Obama is raising taxes and expanding spending. To put it simply: it will never work.

By: Mark Brown

Mark Brown — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:07:15 +0000

Here is a sincere question. I’m trying to understand what’s going on, and I’m not trying to start an argument or be sarcastic.

Pres. Obama has unemployment in the 10 – 11% range, and it is a pretty sure bet that he will triple the budget deficit. The last time we saw numbers like this was 25 years ago, during the administration of, uh, Ronald Reagan. So the question is this: How come we are so concerned about it now, but apparently are willing to overlook it when it happened under RR?

Again, I’m not looking for a fight, but I think questions like this help us to put our biases aside, take a closer look at what is going on, and force us away from facile answers.

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:29:09 +0000

It’s fascinating to me that the very system the Founding Fathers set up to make sure the rural states are well-represented (the Senate) also makes it politically impossible to get rid of agricultural subsidies. I wonder if that will change anytime in our lifetimes. (A point of information: I live in an area surrounded by small farms (100 acres or less). Very few of these subsidies help the small farmers, they help the big corporations running mega-farms. Corporate welfare indeed).

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:08:06 +0000

I agree. Anything remotely resembling corporate welfare shouldn’t exist at all. Agricultural subsidies and tariffs in particular should be out the window.

By: Floyd the Wonderdog

Floyd the Wonderdog — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:02:04 +0000

Brain: “Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?”

Pinky: “I think so brain. What will be the extent of the negative economic impact be when the taxation necessary to pay for the stimulus plan is implimented?”

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:23:32 +0000

Agreed Mike. Let businesses succeed or fail based on their cost models, their business plans and the talent of their leadership. In my opinion, all corporate welfare would be cut.

By: Mike Parker

Mike Parker — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:04:06 +0000

I agree with Geoff, as long as the corporate tax cut was combined with a drastic, across-the-board cut in corporate welfare.

By: Hans

Hans — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:59:28 +0000

Sorry, I meant that only 10% have been spent, not the opposite!

By: Hans

Hans — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:59:01 +0000

It is tough to say that the stimulus is working if only 10% of the funds have not even been spent. Perhaps one can say that they have been allocated and are creating some expected growth, but that is a little too illusory for me.

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:40:24 +0000

A real stimulus would involve tax cuts on the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is among the highest in the world. The high rate of U.S. taxes is driving business away from the U.S. to other countries. Fewer businesses based here means fewer jobs and higher unemployment:

http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFjOWI3MTI0MjQ0NWIzN2ZiZTFhYmM2MWU2MTM2ZGQ=

There were many sources warning this stimulus was a bust from the start. Take a look at this article for example:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=315792191143684