Here's the chart again -- let's see if it works this time. And in all that long foolishness, I neglected one question about what would have happened had we not bailed out GM and Wall St. I really don't know. But in principle, I think the government should stay away from getting involved with private enterprise. If it fails it fails. The problem is that one could say the failure came about by way of government intervention to begin with, through Fannie/Freddie, so they (Bush, anyway) felt a need to fix what he had helped damage?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Here's the chart again -- let's see if it works this time. And in all that long foolishness, I neglected one question about what would have happened had we not bailed out GM and Wall St. I really don't know. But in principle, I think the government should stay away from getting involved with private enterprise. If it fails it fails. The problem is that one could say the failure came about by way of government intervention to begin with, through Fannie/Freddie, so they (Bush, anyway) felt a need to fix what he had helped damage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
John - thanks for your thoughtful reply. I guess I was meaning all our military excursions over to the Middle East. I often mark off points when my students use the wikipedia to make a point, so if you'll forgive me for using it here, it seems that figure is pretty astronomical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
So I fear that an Iran invasion would only add to that tally exponentially. We've had two presidents who haven't known what to do with this war. It seems like you're saying that Gingrich would - on that point, I'll disagree, but you've made some interesting points to back it up.
You do a As for the bailout, here's something from the sometimes dubious but occasionally informative Huffington Post. With the exception of a shot at "teabaggers," it's actually pretty apolitical - a liberal tell us why this decidely nonliberal intervention was necessary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-altucher/why-we-needed-a-bailout_b_457573.html
So I guess I'm saying I don't believe the machinations of the free market would have swooped in to save the day. However, I do have this sneaking suspicion that we should have let the automobile industry sink, but that's not quite as infrastructural.
But ultimately what troubles me about these candidates is that their promises to decreasing spending all have to be fulfilled through increased spending. I imagine many of them are saying that they should undo the damage that Obama has done, but the stimulus package hasn't been entirely unsuccessful; I suppose that is up for argument. The argument for its lack of necessity hinges on a speculation - that the (small) economic recovery it prompted would have happened anyway. But what have should have happened? What could have been done different? Decreasing corporate taxes? Corporations are already doing everything they can to pay as little taxes as possible, and in the past that hasn't really solved anything.
When I see these candidates attacking Obama, they really don't offer much in the way of alternatives. This happens on both sides of political ideology: there were those who were clamoring that the post 9/11 world would be in better shape if Al Gore had won, when I feel that Gore would have followed the same troubled initiatives that Bush did. Hindsight is 20/20. Other than Herman Cain's quixotic 9/9/9 plan, what are the candidates offering in terms of a solution?
This Wikipedia page is an example of why you are wise to discount them when you want specific info. There are three parts that make this number if-y: first, it includes the UK costs, and second, it includes three fields: in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and third, it includes a vague sense of interest payments on the debt caused by the war. First, we didn't pay the UK debt, second, my number was the Iraq war only, and third, the interest on the debt is included in the annual budget, so Wiki is counting it twice, at least. The CBO numbers (where I got my $709B) are more accurate, I think.
I agree that an invasion of Iran would be costly. Let's hope they don't think that is necessary. So far, I have heard no candidate argue that that is imminent. I don't know that Gingrich would or wouldn't know what to do with a war in Iran, but he hasn't offered it as an alternative, unless pressed by a moderator to not discount it. There were a lot of other things he said he would do, as did Santorum, and even Romney, if I remember right.
The Huffington Post is quite nearly worthless, in my opinion. I don't think they are in the least apolitical, but then I don't know that any of them is...as for the bailout itself, I don't think it was a non-liberal intervention at all. I think GW Bush took up a very left-wing idea when he started the bailouts, and it was quite natural for BObama to continue it (in SPADES) when he took over. I DO think the machinations of the free market would have saved the day. They might not have saved some of the banks, but which should have been saved, and which let to die? The gov't decided which to bail out and which not to, and I can't help thinking that there was a lot of corruption involved (don't have the proof). We should have investigated Fannie/Freddie, and sent Frank and Dodd to jail, then followed the money they gave away, retrieved it, and settled all the debts. The result would have been justice, PLUS our national debt would be several trillion dollars less.
I have yet to see anyone say that the stimulus package has been any kind of success. Have you seen anyone saying that it was helpful? And what small economic recovery are you referring to? Housing prices are still down, no one is making any money on investments as interest rates are tiny (great for home buying, bad for savers). As far as I can tell, the stimulus money (and boy what huge amounts!) simply disappeared. Where did it go? Solyndra-like companies that went bankrupt anyway? The purpose of the stimulus package was mainly to socialize much of the American private sector as possible, I think. Certainly that was the intent with health care reform.
Yes - eliminate corporate taxes, altogether, and do everything possible to help companies to hire American workers again and get our manufacturing up again. Allow the private sector to drill again for oil, natural gas -- get them mining, steel, manufacturing big box items, wheat, corn, I don't know -- we need to make things that work and are high quality again. The way out of our budget problems is LESS spending, lower taxes, and higher employment -- income taxes come in only when people are making income.
Yes, Cain had a "9-9-9" plan, but Perry has suggested a flat tax, Gingrich has suggested a flat tax (20%? - I forget which one offered 15% and which 20%) so they are indeed dealing with the economic picture. In fact, one of the complaints about Gingrich is that he has too many ideas about how to fix the economy, rather than too few. (check out his website, "newt.org")
When I read the criticisms of Gingrich, I worry. But when I hear him speak, I think he answers those criticisms well, and calmly. He is a dinged-up man, much of his own making -- I wouldn't want him to be my pastor. But he might be the right guy for this moment. I'm still waiting to see if he flunks out.
View the disappearing chart at: http://www.americanthinker.com/Deficits.gif
Post a Comment