Comments on: Laissez Faire – Not!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:08:00 +0000

You are wrong the gop and the dems are essentially the same in principle.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:00:00 +0000

I concur about the GOP being a major disappointment vis a vis conservative or limited government principles. I am encouraged that they may to some extent be seeing the light, the Seniors Bill of Rights notwithstanding. Nonetheless, they are light years better than the Democratic Party on virtually every issue. Politics, it is said, is the art of the possible.

About religion, though, I can’t agree with you. I am a devout Catholic, and my religion does not dictate my political positions at all. Altruism belongs in the private sphere. If one is coerced into giving money, it is not charity, and it is not compassion.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:49:00 +0000

The chickens have come home to Roost,thanks to both parties,each trying to collectivise us,one at the speed of sound,the other of the speed of light.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:46:00 +0000

The Gop has now come out with a bill of rights for seniors,to further enshrine medicare,how long will they wait until they come out with a bill of rights to enshrine medicare and social security?For those of you out there who think conservatisim or the Gop is your only hope i implore you to look else where,Becoming an independent is a good start.The gop and the dems are same in principle.I used to be a conservative but there were to many contradictions,mixed in with religion which leads to altruism,which leads to big govrnment.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:57:00 +0000

That’s a good point to always remember. It is up to the President to propose the budget for the executive branch that he manages, but Congress is never under any obligation to accept any of it. Under the CotUS, Congress ALWAYS has 100% responsibility for Federal budgets.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:41:00 +0000

Under what circumstances would being associated with the likes of Krugman be considered a compliment? Please don’t cite his Nobel, awarded for ancient work which has no relation to the pap he peddles now.

Please note I have appended my comment specifically to refute your claims about military spending. The New Deal was hamstrung by the New Deal. It was nothing but bad policy on top of bad policy, combined with FDR’s neo-socialist attitudes toward private enterprise which crushed investment for the entire duration of the Depression (until 1946, that is). Yes, Smoot-Hawley was bad, as was the Fed’s policy for a short while, but these considerations in no way exonerate FDR for having extended the Depression by several years.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:09:00 +0000

They are not Bush or Obama deficits, they are Congressional deficits.

Granted, Congress is bending over frontward to give The Won everything his little fascist heart desires, but Obama can’t spend it until Congress gives it to him.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:07:00 +0000

“The likes of Krugman” – yes, what a terrible person to be associated with. I suppose it is, here.

You do hit the nail on the head, though – military spending did what the New Deal couldn’t quite achieve (or was hamstrung in achieving by Smoot-Hawley and other bad policies).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:54:00 +0000

“Pump-priming” has no instances of having been an effective economic policy ever. It would appear that you agree with the likes of Krugman who acknowledge FDR did not end the Depression, but claim that is only so because he DIDN’T SPEND ENOUGH!! This, to anyone but a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian, is ludicrous. WWII also did not end the Depression – massive deficit spending to “employ” 12 million soldiers and coopt virtually the entire industrial economy does not constitute an economic recovery. There is so much good literature out there on this now that no doubt you are aware of it; apparently you haven’t taken the time to read up, or you didn’t understand it.

If you don’t expect virtually all of the stimulus package to be made permanent, you haven’t noticed how Washington works. Since it wasn’t really a stimulus package anyway, the fact that stimulus is not “necessary” (it never was) will not prevent all that pork from being carried over. Very soon there will be some other rationale for maintaining virtually all of it; heck, what better rationale could there be than, “It worked! We can’t cut it out now and risk another crisis!”

By: sandre

sandre — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:46:00 +0000

muirgeo and many other leftist partisan socialsts claims it.

Hoovers second budget would qualify as a record deficits. Revenues were less than 40% of the outlays. Keynes failed again. I know, when Keynesianism fails, it is because it was too small. If government precipitously cuts budget and doesn’t cause a “wage/price spiral”, it is because of “pent up” demand. Keep on spinning.

By: louh

louh — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:03:00 +0000

Sure it is ,it’s the government.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:53:00 +0000

I think the debt is the single most pressing political challenge of our time. But the contributors to the current deficit are wholly unrelated to the reason why debt is projected to be that high.

By: louh

louh — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:49:00 +0000

By 2050 government debt is projected to be 350% of GDP. How will we finance that debt? We are an aging society with unrealistic entitlements. It’s not brain surgery. We have to stop kidding ourselves.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:30:00 +0000

Yup – and close to WWI.

http://tinyurl.com/ntpmpn

Debt isn’t even close, though – it’s no contest. And of course debt is what we have to pay off, and nobody expects the stimulus or the TARP to be permanent. This is the first time we’ve really had a recession where strong pump-priming has been appropriate since the depression, though. And in the depression, that idea was so novel that they didn’t really do much substantial pump-priming until we entered the war (inadvertant Keynesianism).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:22:00 +0000

“The only reason why the Bush or Obama deficits are scary is because we’re a bigger economy now than we have been.”

Re Bush you may be correct. Re Obama, not so much. I believe this year’s projected deficit will come in behind only WWII-era deficits relative to GDP.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:20:00 +0000

I think David Leonhardt has the mission of distracting attention from the task at hand. Has he yet written anything worthwhile?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:19:00 +0000

Well then isn’t all debt “beyond our means”? Are you arguing for never going into debt?

Or do you mean a stream of income… in which case the current debt is not beyond our means by that definition.

Either way, I just don’t see it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:18:00 +0000

OK, well I’m not advocating make-work jobs, floating paper “ad infinitum”. I’m more curious about your standard for considering government spending growth to be “beyond our means” (unless you were talking about all consumption???). It seems to me by historical standards it is well within our means, isn’t it?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:17:00 +0000

“beyond our means” means expenses greater than income

By: louh

louh — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:13:00 +0000

Let’s discount the Icelandic experience, or the one in Argentina. And assume we can still float paper ad infinitum. And then let’s look at the Pres. Clinton experience. When the government assumes an every growing position in the economy private industry is pushed further out. And the space that would otherwise be filled with a private co. is now a government entity. And as Pres Clinton discovered when he cut the deficit by sunsetting some government programs and consolidating or closing others is that a “black hole’ is created. That is the space that was formally occupied by these entities has now created a void. And a protracted recession insued, the longest in US history, characterized by deflationary pressures. Pressures created by the existence of a “black hole”. The same aggregate demand that was created by these make work jobs created a vacuum when they were shut down. And it took time before private industry could take up this space.
Private industry theoretically can exist forever, by definition government programs are only supposed to last until they have achieved their end. Unless you believe they are merely make work endless go nowhere programs that go on forever? You can’t have it both ways.