Swine flu spurs Obama to advocate science over ideology

[ParanoiA]

Just become something is worthwhile doesn't mean we can afford it nor does it mean we haven't already funded the efforts (i.e. through the CDC). Why can't/won't our government live within a real budget as we have to do?

 

Because we are selfish. We are a selfish society, obsessed with the short term particulars of our happiness. We think altruism removes the "self" from our efforts, when really it is the vehicle for railroading other's liberty that we have removed from our field of view. This is the cost of never having really been through anything. We are spoiled and expect more than we deserve. Just my opinion, of course.

[Pangloss]

An entirely logical reason to question which spending is used as stimulus is whether or not that spending is more effective than other spending. The stimulus bill was less than $800 billion (not over a trillion, Sherlock). The economy is something like $14 trillion. The idea is sound (or so it seems to many economists), but every dollar you spend has to have a massive impact.

 

I also think those who are saying "all spending is stimulus" would be singing a different tune if there was a program in there to buy 300 million copies of "Of Pandas and People", or a massive tax break for the wealthy, or 5,000 new coal-fired power plants, or immediate development of ANWR and offshore drilling, or a massive subsidy for the timber industry on the sale of public lands, etc, etc, etc.

 

I disagree with that hypocrisy -- I don't see a problem with stimulus money going to some programs that have an ideological bent. What I have a problem with is stimulus money going to ideological programs regardless of stimulus efficacy. Every single stimulus dollar should have been rationalized and judged entirely on stimulus grounds. Instead Congress snuck in every program it could think of and slapped a "stimulus" label on its backside. Maybe it'll be effective, maybe it won't, but hey, at least Senator ____'s program got funded.

 

And while it's true that as Sisyphus points out it's intended to be temporary spending, I've pointed out in other threads that Democrats in Congress are going to make it very difficult for the President to not massively increase the departments that got that money in the next budget, especially since that fight it going to take place right before the mid-term election.

 

(For the love of all that is holy, can we PLEASE give President Obama the line item veto, before it is too late?)

[Sisyphus]

An entirely logical reason to question which spending is used as stimulus is whether or not that spending is more effective than other spending. The stimulus bill was less than $800 billion (not over a trillion, Sherlock). The economy is something like $14 trillion. The idea is sound (or so it seems to many economists), but every dollar you spend has to have a massive impact.

 

Well, yes. But honestly, I don't see that that needs to be the only consideration. If it was scientifically determined that the absolute most effective economic stimulus would be to spend every last dollar genetically engineering a race of hyperagressive, radioactive, firebreathing owls big enough to carry off adult humans, we still probably wouldn't, because of the other effects of that spending: what we actually purchased. So yes, the main factor should be stimulus value, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't give some weight to other factors.

 

I also think those who are saying "all spending is stimulus" would be singing a different tune if there was a program in there to buy 300 million copies of "Of Pandas and People", or a massive tax break for the wealthy, or 5,000 new coal-fired power plants, or immediate development of ANWR and offshore drilling, or a massive subsidy for the timber industry on the sale of public lands, etc, etc, etc.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think "all spending is equally worthwhile" follows from "all spending is stimulus." I would argue against those things not because they couldn't stimulate the economy, but because they are things we either don't want or want much less than other things, regardless of their relative merits as stimulants.

 

And while it's true that as Sisyphus points out it's intended to be temporary spending, I've pointed out in other threads that Democrats in Congress are going to make it very difficult for the President to not massively increase the departments that got that money in the next budget, especially since that fight it going to take place right before the mid-term election.

 

(For the love of all that is holy, can we PLEASE give President Obama the line item veto, before it is too late?)

 

And on that, I agree wholeheartedly. Hopefully an enormous deficit will be sufficient motivation to keep most of it temporary.

[Pangloss]

I agree not every dollar can be scientifically determined to be going in the most effective direction. I'm not actually asking for that, I'm just expressing my concern that many of these dollars weren't.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think "all spending is equally worthwhile" follows from "all spending is stimulus." I would argue against those things not because they couldn't stimulate the economy, but because they are things we either don't want or want much less than other things, regardless of their relative merits as stimulants.

 

Exactly.

[SH3RL0CK]

Pangloss, you are correct the stimulus package itself isn't over a trillion. But the total spent by congress certainly is much more.

 

The total spent in recent months by Congress should include TARP (I think I often confuse the two): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP#Expenditures_and_Commitments

 

$296B via wiki;

 

in addition to the stimulus package:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

 

$787B

 

There are lots of other programs inacted...so many I can't count them all. How much in total has been spent? Interestingly google did not provide me with a recent number (I wonder why?) but from late last year some numbers I get are:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27717424/?slide=1

Thus far, only one item surpasses the $700 billion allocated to the government's main rescue fund, what's known as the Treasury Dept.'s TARP program. Other expenses and/or commitments, from Federal Reserve lending and guarantees to FDIC insurance fund losses to complex financial market mechanism, put the total cost at some $3.8 trillion (as of Oct. 23).

 

Or from another (admitedly less reputable source): http://kevincolby.com/2008/11/19/how-much-money-have-we-the-taxpayers-already-spent-on-government-bailouts/

 

$4.28 trillion dollars

Though I would suspect we have spent considerably more than this as this doesn't include the costs of other items such as the 2009 Stimulus package. These are truely staggering to me.

 

I can't find a good source from Google that details all the money spent in TARP, the 2009 Stimulus package, the automaker bailouts, etc. I can't even find a list of all the "stimulus type" programs that have recently been enacted.

 

Does anyone have a recent list of all the federal government has spent (or committed to spending) in the last 6 months? I can't find anything.

[GutZ]

I love how chalantly Obama make an analogies out of everything.

 

"In this experiment we call America"

 

Good speech if he truely means it.

Edited April 30, 2009 by GutZ

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, you are correct the stimulus package itself isn't over a trillion. But the total spent by congress certainly is much more.

 

I think what you may be trying to say is "stimulus + bank/corporate bailouts". Certainly that's over a trillion, yes.