• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Support a Second Stimulus Package?

Would you support a second stimulus package?


  • Total voters
    58
Unemployment was at 14.3% in 1937. I'd hardly call that "booming". Only AFTER we started the buildup to WWII did unemployment reach consistently low levels.

A booming economy doesn't mean that we just magically revert to pre-crash economic levels, and everyone who was out of work instantaneously finds a job. 14.3% unemployment was GREAT compared to the previous years. The economy most definitely was booming from 1933-1936.

Ethereal said:
I didn't say the buildup to WWII wasn't a stimulus to the economy, it most certainly was. I'm saying it wasn't a government stimulus plan, and yes, there is a difference.

The difference is semantics.

Ethereal said:
Perception is arguably more important to economic recovery than the actual spending.

No it isn't. Maybe if you're talking about chump change for some congressman's pet cause, but not when you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

Ethereal said:
WWII provided Americans - employers and employees alike - with three crucial elements for economic growth:

1. Unity of purpose.
2. A tangible and real demand for products and services.
3. A sustainable method for supplying those products and services.

Government stimulus plans lack all three of these components.

#1 is subjective and irrelevant to the economics of the stimulus. Any stimulus, regardless of its purpose, will provide #2. And stimuli rarely provide #3...including during WWII.

Ethereal said:
But let's, for the sake of argument, assume that any old spending will do and that a stimulus plan which mirrors the spending plan of WWII would result in a successful economic recovery commensurate with the recovery of the 1940's.

As a percentage of GDP we'd have to spend around 30-40% over approximately five years in order to replicate the kind of spending that was characteristic of WWII [1].

ReceiptsOutlaysPercentGDP.gif


So, unless you plan on spending approximately 5 trillion dollars per year for the next five years, I don't think you've got much of an argument.

You do realize that there is some middle ground between doing nothing and spending 5 trillion dollars per year for the next five years, right?
 
Last edited:
They aren't required to do anything except pontificate and postulate. I won't hold their inability to predict the future against them (I'm a nice guy like that), but so long as they are incapable of such I'm disinclined to take their predictions about anything seriously, hence my derisive attitude towards anyone who supports their personal opinion with the personal opinion of an economist.



Yes, and they also like to tell people how those POLICIES will work in THE FUTURE. Since you and I both know they cannot predict THE FUTURE we must disregard their advice as nothing more than a self-serving opinion.

That's ridiculous. Just because they can't tell you what the economy is going to do next year doesn't mean that everything they say is irrelevant. I can't tell you if it will be hot or cold next week, but I can tell you that in 2 billion years the earth will be too hot to sustain life. :doh
 
Of course they prefer to discuss policy. Nice and safe discussion, especially since they don't bear any accountability for policy.

Of course, since they have no crystal ball and cannot predict the results of their policy pontifications with any greater accuracy than the rest of us, they are of damned little use in dealing with a recession.

They make great historians and passable analysts, but they're useless for just about everything else.

So you don't believe there is any benefit whatsoever to economic theory? We'd be just as well off with either Karl Marx or Adam Smith in charge of our economy? Would Robert Mugabe and Ronald Reagan be equally competent stewards? It's all a crapshoot anyway, right?
 
Last edited:
I didn't support the first stimulus package and I will not support a second one.
 
So you don't believe there is any benefit whatsoever to economic theory?
There's plenty of benefit to economic theory. Just damn little benefit to economic theoreticians, especially of the modern variety.

In case it slipped your attention, Krugman is no Adam Smith. He's not even a plausible Karl Marx.
 
There's plenty of benefit to economic theory. Just damn little benefit to economic theoreticians, especially of the modern variety.

I see. So you don't have any objection to their policies, you just object to them as people. Ad hominem, anyone?

celticlord said:
In case it slipped your attention, Krugman is no Adam Smith. He's not even a plausible Karl Marx.

And in case it slipped your attention, your subjective assessment of Krugman's place in the history books is irrelevant to whether or not an economic stimulus is a good idea.
 
And in case it slipped your attention, your subjective assessment of Krugman's place in the history books is irrelevant to whether or not an economic stimulus is a good idea.
Au contraire.

Krugman is arguing for more stimulus. The level of respect accorded his ideas has direct correlation to the quality of his theories. As his theories suck, his ideas also suck, and should not be implemented.

Ergo, stimulus is a bad idea. Which has been proven time and again, alas for idiot Krugmanites who think that governments are created to manage economies and their perverse allergy to reality.
 
Au contraire.

Krugman is arguing for more stimulus. The level of respect accorded his ideas has direct correlation to the quality of his theories. As his theories suck, his ideas also suck, and should not be implemented.

Ergo, stimulus is a bad idea. Which has been proven time and again, alas for idiot Krugmanites who think that governments are created to manage economies and their perverse allergy to reality.

How long have you been on this message board? Do you honestly not recognize a textbook example of an ad hominem argument when you see one? I would've thought that anyone who had been debating here or anywhere else for more than a week would understand why this kind of argument is invalid...but apparently I was wrong. :roll:
 
How long have you been on this message board? Do you honestly not recognize a textbook example of an ad hominem argument when you see one? I would've thought that anyone who had been debating here or anywhere else for more than a week would understand why this kind of argument is invalid...but apparently I was wrong. :roll:
If it were an ad hominem attack, you would have a point.

It is not. You are the one who claimed that the expertise of economists had relevance over the expertise of others in formulating economic policy. You are the one who claimed that economists' opinions on policy deserved merit.

If economists' opnions are to be accorded special significance, it can only be because economists themselves merit special significance. If Krugman's ideas deserve attention, it can only be because Krugman deserves attention. As Krugman does not deserve attention, his ideas need not be accorded any especial respect.

Thus, it is not an ad hominem attack, but a rebuttal and refutation of your own foolish and failing appeal to authority.

As I have stated, economists make wonderful historians. They are great to have to learn what happened before. Like all historians, they are piss poor at figuring out what to do next. That involves looking ahead--which they do not do well at all.
 
You folks do realize that this is 3rd stimulus, not the 2nd, right?

You are very correct, although I think most people are only counting the ones under Obama, you have a lot of pseudo-conservatives who conveniently forget the one that Bush did.

Imagine that.
 
You are very correct, although I think most people are only counting the ones under Obama, you have a lot of pseudo-conservatives who conveniently forget the one that Bush did.

Imagine that.
I don't think there's any political agenda behind "forgetting" the Bush stimulus.

Simply put, Bush isn't President any more. Given that talk of another round of stimulus quite frequently takes place within the context of the current Administration, it is not inaccurate to refer to the contemplated next round of stimulus as the "second stimulus." It would be the second round attempted by the current Administration.

It's merely a question of where one starts the counting.
 
Jerry aren't you being a tad premature?

Nope.

We don't have the money. It's that simple. I don't have to wait years and years and years to know that.
 
When the nation finally discovers that it's simply impossible to generate efficient terawatts of power from nature's blowjobs, how do we restart the industries your Messiah destroyed?

I thought a good blowjob involved sucking.

Blowjobs do not lead to procreation, and are thus unnatural.

What makes you think Mother Nature herself would be able to give a good one?
 
I didn't support ANY of the stimulus packages -- why would I support another one?
 
A booming economy doesn't mean that we just magically revert to pre-crash economic levels, and everyone who was out of work instantaneously finds a job. 14.3% unemployment was GREAT compared to the previous years. The economy most definitely was booming from 1933-1936.

Nor does a "booming" economy mean you have 14.3% unemployment, to claim as much is misleading. You could say the economy was "improving" but to say it was "booming" is a complete distortion of language. Unemployment was trending downwards while GNP was trending upwards, this doesn't mean the economy was "booming", not in any sense of the word.

If a cancer patient's malignancy decreases in size by 10% you can say their health is "improving" but you cannot claim they are "healthy" or that their health is "excellent", because the fact remains that they still have a cancerous malignancy growing on their body. From 1933-1936 the malignancy was decreasing in size but it was still there.

Furthermore, this entire argument presupposes that the improvement came about as a consequence of the New Deal. How are we to know that the improvement wasn't simply a consequence of the free-market self-correcting IN SPITE of the New Deal?

The difference is semantics.

This is such a simplistic and narrow-minded statement. The difference between a government stimulus package and the buildup to a world war is much more than semantical.

No it isn't. Maybe if you're talking about chump change for some congressman's pet cause, but not when you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

This is ridiculous. You're saying that social perception is not key to economic recovery? Is that your position?

#1 is subjective and irrelevant to the economics of the stimulus.

The country was unified. That is an objective fact of reality. Moreover, you offered your disagreement absent any reasoning. How is the unification of a country "irrelevant" to economic recovery? Do you honestly think the effects of such a phenomenon are negligible?

Any stimulus, regardless of its purpose, will provide #2.

I said real demand, not artificial demand. Building something does not create real demand for products and services if there was never a real demand for the project in the first place.

Real demand is characterized not only by the desire for a product or service but the ability to pay for it. Just because a state desires something does not mean they retain the ability to pay for it; absent the ability to pay for something there is no real demand, only artificial.

WWII created real demand for products and services. Not only did we desire these products and services, we NEEDED them (that, in and of itself, is a crucial distinction), and we also had the ability (the willingness) to pay for them.

And stimuli rarely provide #3...including during WWII.

Allow me to clarify, I'm not speaking to long-term sustainability on the magnitude of decades, I'm speaking to short-term sustainability on the magnitude of several years.

The war infused the market with confidence which subsequently encouraged people to hire and spend. That is the difference between a simple stimulus plan and the buildup to a world war. People HAD to hire, and work, and spend, and produce. It wasn't a choice for them. That's why it was sustainable in the short-term.

You do realize that there is some middle ground between doing nothing and spending 5 trillion dollars per year for the next five years, right?

Absolutely, but there's no evidence that such a plan would even work. We know that spending roughly 30% of GDP over four to five years CAN result in an economic recovery, but we don't know that it WILL. All you have is assumptions and a misplaced faith in the ability of our corrupt and inept government to spend us out of recession. Not exactly confidence inspiring.
 
That's ridiculous. Just because they can't tell you what the economy is going to do next year doesn't mean that everything they say is irrelevant. I can't tell you if it will be hot or cold next week, but I can tell you that in 2 billion years the earth will be too hot to sustain life. :doh

It seems you're not aware of the context of my statement.

Gunner was referencing the opinion of economists who say the spending plan is necessary, I would assume these are the same mainstream economist-types whose Keynesian theory landed us in this boondoggle to begin with.

Given their inability to accurately gage the effects and efficacy of their previous policy suggestions, I'm thoroughly disinclined to take any further suggestions seriously.
 
Actually, this could be considered a 4th stimulus. Don't forget the Bush Tax stimulus checks.....
 
Actually, this could be considered a 4th stimulus. Don't forget the Bush Tax stimulus checks.....

Good point. We now have:

  1. Tax Rebate Stimulus of 2008
  2. Wall Street/auto industry/bank bailout of 2008
  3. Economc Recovery Act of 2009

Now talk of a 4th. If the first 3 did not work, why would a 4th? Seems to me that we should just let these things play themselves out without the government getting involved. Nothing seems to work.

What are some solutions that may work better, if any?
 
Good point. We now have:

  1. Tax Rebate Stimulus of 2008
  2. Wall Street/auto industry/bank bailout of 2008
  3. Economc Recovery Act of 2009

Now talk of a 4th. If the first 3 did not work, why would a 4th? Seems to me that we should just let these things play themselves out without the government getting involved. Nothing seems to work.

What are some solutions that may work better, if any?

massive cuts in taxes, spending, and regulation.

Basically, follow the playbook used in the 1921 recession.
 
massive cuts in taxes, spending, and regulation.

Basically, follow the playbook used in the 1921 recession.

Deregulation is what got us into this mess to begin with, we need more regulation of the financial markets, not less. The rest, absolutely, but government doesn't comprehend that.
 
I didn't support ANY stimulus package. And I still don't.
 
Deregulation is what got us into this mess to begin with, we need more regulation of the financial markets, not less. The rest, absolutely, but government doesn't comprehend that.

what an absurd notion you have bought into.

If it were possible to plot government regulation on a graph, I would expect an arrow that shoots virtually straight up. Every aspect of our economy is heavily regulated and continues to get more regulated with each passing year.
 
Deregulation is what got us into this mess to begin with, we need more regulation of the financial markets, not less. The rest, absolutely, but government doesn't comprehend that.

No. Regulation got us here.

It was regulations that created the FHA, and Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac, and it was regulations that gave us the CRA and CRA II. It was regulations that created the Federal Reserve.

Just think, if those unconstitutional laws hadn't been passed, it wouldn't have been possible for bad mortgages to collapse the banking industry because when bankers use their own money they don't loan it to people who can't pay it back.

Socialism caused the problem, naturally, socialism ain't gonna fix it.
 
What are some solutions that may work better, if any?

A series of tax cuts would be the most beneficial course of action. Each progressive cut in taxes would act as a little confidence boost while simultaneously freeing up more money without risking inflation. Confidence and more money minus inflation, that cures recessions.

I would also abolish minimum wage laws. If someone is willing to pay someone else 5$ an hour to work then let it happen. It may not seem like much by when you multiply that occurence by several thousand its effects cease being negligible.
 
Back
Top Bottom