Is the US headed towards a socialist government?

[kandrathe]

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

[Jester]

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Well, there you go! There's taxation... there's inflation... hey presto!

-Jester

Afterthought: Do you know where that quote is from? I can't seem to find it.

[kandrathe]

Well, there you go! There's taxation... there's inflation... hey presto! Afterthought: Do you know where that quote is from? I can't seem to find it.

Most of his speeches and written works are published as "Collected Works".

[Jester]

Most of his speeches and written works are published as "Collected Works".

Yes, and if I had four months to spare, I might read through it. Sadly, no.

Just wondering if you knew where it was from. Wikiquote, which requires sources, does not have it, and everyone who quotes it online seems to just attribute it to "Vladimir Lenin" or some such, with no source.

-Jester

Afterthought: the closest information I can find is here, which details a number of Lenin misquotes (including many that come packaged with that one on teh intarwebz). This one appears to be a corruption of something Keynes once wrote that Lenin supposedly said about inflation.

Afterafterthought: If the origin is the quote mentioned above, someone wrote a scholarly article about it. It's in Economica, from Feb. 1977, entitled "Lenin, Keynes and Inflation". Apparently what Lenin believed about inflation was exactly the *opposite* of what that quote gives. Here's a quote:

"The unlimited issue of paper money encourages speculation, allows the capitalists to make millions, and places tremendous obstacles in the path of the much-needed expansion of production... How can matters be improved when the riches acquired by the rich are being concealed?"
-Lenin, Collected Works, p.207 (International Publishers, vol. 21, book 1)

So, there you go. Worry not about imminent Leninism. Indeed, if one were to take the argument preposterously seriously, the most anti-Leninist thing you could do would be to fire up the printing press and hyperinflate prices.

[kandrathe]

Indeed, if one were to take the argument preposterously seriously, the most anti-Leninist thing you could do would be to fire up the printing press and hyperinflate prices.

Well, actually...

If the government prints money to cover their debts (which they have to do now), they will devalue the dollar and force the people in the USA (and elsewhere) who depend on the dollar to become dependent on the government. I believe it was Pol Potts who actually outlawed currency for awhile in Cambodia during their early communist conversion. So yes, it might be as you said, a Keynesian remark that Lenin agreed with rather than an actual proposition that Lenin hoped to implement. The end result of the process will still be the new New Deal where private industry will take the back seat to government controlled industry.

However, I would still maintain that we really are facing a time now when the value of the dollar will decline, and the cost of goods will rise. Many of my friends are already trading services directly and avoiding the exchange of currency, and most finance savvy people I know have put a substantial portion of their assets into precious metals. Just yesterday an accountant friend of mine told me about their exchange of an expensive dental surgery(not covered by insurance) for tax preparation services.

[Jester]

If the government prints money to cover their debts (which they have to do now), they will devalue the dollar and force the people in the USA (and elsewhere) who depend on the dollar to become dependent on the government.

That's possible, although historical experience seems to indicate that governments who devalue sharply to cover their debts will break their own backs.

I believe it was Pol Potts who actually outlawed currency for awhile in Cambodia during their early communist conversion.

Practically every communist government tried this at one stage or another. The Soviets, the Cubans... I can't speak to the Khmer Rouge, but it would hardly surprise me. However, this is the *opposite* of inflation. There is no such thing as inflation in a barter economy, and if the state is fixing prices for everything, then the obvious consequence is that prices are not moving. (Edit: I suppose it has some of the effects of a one-time massive hyperinflation shock, rendering all cash savings valueless. But unlike printing money to get the same effect, the government does not get to keep the proceeds. Very stupid policy, and the results speak for themselves.)

So yes, it might be as you said, a Keynesian remark that Lenin agreed with rather than an actual proposition that Lenin hoped to implement.

Except that this is the whole point. Not only did Lenin not agree (in the sense of he never said anything specifically in agreement with what Keynes was writing), he did not even agree in the sense of believing inflation was good for socialism and bad for capitalism. He apparently believed exactly the opposite.

The end result of the process will still be the new New Deal where private industry will take the back seat to government controlled industry.

How so? Inflation is a powerful tool that cuts back on accumulated cash reserves and funnels them to the government, but that gives powerful incentive to invest rather than hold cash. Investment means private ownership, not government ownership. Things would only revert to the government if the devaluation was total, and the Fed obviously has no interest in hyperinflation. (Wow, writing that sentence made my head hurt.)

However, I would still maintain that we really are facing a time now when the value of the dollar will decline, and the cost of goods will rise. Many of my friends are already trading services directly and avoiding the exchange of currency, and most finance savvy people I know have put a substantial portion of their assets into precious metals. Just yesterday an accountant friend of mine told me about their exchange of an expensive dental surgery(not covered by insurance) for tax preparation services.

Unless you're in a liquidity trap, in which case you'd better be prepared for deflation, not inflation. But, then, if these things were really predictable, you could make a killing in the currency market.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

That's possible, although historical experience seems to indicate that governments who devalue sharply to cover their debts will break their own backs.

You mean like we did last time? Trust me... Obama is the new FDR.

Practically every communist government tried this at one stage or another. The Soviets, the Cubans... I can't speak to the Khmer Rouge, but it would hardly surprise me. However, this is the *opposite* of inflation. There is no such thing as inflation in a barter economy, and if the state is fixing prices for everything, then the obvious consequence is that prices are not moving. (Edit: I suppose it has some of the effects of a one-time massive hyperinflation shock, rendering all cash savings valueless. But unlike printing money to get the same effect, the government does not get to keep the proceeds. Very stupid policy, and the results speak for themselves.)

The reason they did it was that the currency became worthless, and their utter hatred of greed and status based upon the amount of money one has. The objective is to crush the greed from the bourgeois.

Except that this is the whole point. Not only did Lenin not agree (in the sense of he never said anything specifically in agreement with what Keynes was writing), he did not even agree in the sense of believing inflation was good for socialism and bad for capitalism. He apparently believed exactly the opposite.

I believe he thought inflation was bad for the proletariat.

How so? Inflation is a powerful tool that cuts back on accumulated cash reserves and funnels them to the government, but that gives powerful incentive to invest rather than hold cash.

In an environment of growing capital(positive DOW) then it would encourage investment, however in a shaky depressed market (such as the one we have now), investors lose either way so they move to things like precious metals and unaffected currencies.

Investment means private ownership, not government ownership. Things would only revert to the government if the devaluation was total, and the Fed obviously has no interest in hyperinflation. (Wow, writing that sentence made my head hurt.)

When the private sector refuses to invest(spend), then according to our current government, the State has the responsibility to "stimulate" the economy by going on the largest spending bing in the history of government spending.

Unless you're in a liquidity trap, in which case you'd better be prepared for deflation, not inflation. But, then, if these things were really predictable, you could make a killing in the currency market.

Oh, yes, the liquidity trap. Well, answer that one yourself. How close are we to having "zero" interest rate? Get your rapidly depreciating dollars ready for that currency killing. I'd suggest investing in the Yuan. I'd suggest looking at some charts and forecasts as well. What is the stock market forecast, T-bills, gold, currencies? It's time

This article, Is the Medicine Worse Than the Illness? from the Wall Street Journal sums up my thoughts nicely. "If the Fed is going to create boatloads of depreciating, non-yielding dollar bills, who will absorb them? Who will finance the Obama administration's looming titanic fiscal deficits? Who will finance America's annual surplus of consumption over production (after 25 more or less continuous years, almost a national trait)? Inflation is a kind of governmentally sanctioned white-collar crime. Every crime needs a dupe. Now that the Fed has announced its plan to deceive, where will it find its victims?"

I liked the end... "Finally, he [Ben Bernancke] should be directed to put himself into the shoes of a foreign holder of U.S. dollars. "Tell us, Mr. Bernanke," a congressman might consider asking him, "if you had the choice, would you hold dollars? And may I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that you are under oath?""

[Jester]

You mean like we did last time? Trust me... Obama is the new FDR.

First off, of course I'm not going to trust you. If I did, why would we spend all this time disagreeing? B)

Second, if FDR broke the back of the US economy, he did a piss poor job of it. The years following FDR were the best the US has ever had. During his time in office, the great depression turned around, the largest war in history was won, and the groundwork was laid for the postwar boom. If Obama is the new FDR, then I don't think you have much to worry about.

The reason they did it was that the currency became worthless, and their utter hatred of greed and status based upon the amount of money one has. The objective is to crush the greed from the bourgeois.

Well, you can play pop psychology with them, I guess. My theory is that they wanted to skip towards the "full communist" stage of the revolution, assuming that money was a pernicious remnant of bourgeois government. In defense of this, and contrary to your argument, one might notice that by the time the Soviets (or Cubans) banned money, they were already in full control of the state apparatus, and had completely destroyed private property. What need was there to "crush the greed from the bourgeois", when you've already crushed them utterly?

I believe he thought inflation was bad for the proletariat.

... and good for the bourgeoisie. Which, when your primary analytical unit is the social class, which you believe 100% determines the system of governance, means that he believed inflation was good for capitalism (the government of the bourgeoisie) and bad for socialism (the government of the proletariat.)

When the private sector refuses to invest(spend), then according to our current government, the State has the responsibility to "stimulate" the economy by going on the largest spending bing in the history of government spending.

If there is anything at all to Keynes' theories, then this is precisely the case. If each investor, looking to protect their own wealth, jumps out of investment and into commodities or foreign currencies, then industry grinds to a halt. People lose jobs and therefore income, the economy worsens, prices drop, and this leads to even less money available for investment, and so forth. Deflation sucks. The only ways to get out of this trap involve someone spending money. That means either dropping the interest rate so unbelievably low that there is no risk to investment (which is being done, to apparently quite little effect), or the government pumping money into the economy.

How close are we to having "zero" interest rate? Get your rapidly depreciating dollars ready for that currency killing. I'd suggest investing in the Yuan.

I thought you were the one who was the big advocate of the Chinese keeping the Yuan down, in which case it wouldn't appreciate... and I also hold exactly zero US dollars.

The whole idea of the liquidity trap is that the gears have stripped from the interest rate crank. The Fed has lowered interest rates down to almost absurdly low levels, and yet lending is not going back up. I'm not sure I believe that the liquidity trap is true in this case, but it is one possible way that the value of the currency might not be so very predictable.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The whole idea of the liquidity trap is that the gears have stripped from the interest rate crank. The Fed has lowered interest rates down to almost absurdly low levels, and yet lending is not going back up. I'm not sure I believe that the liquidity trap is true in this case, but it is one possible way that the value of the currency might not be so very predictable.

What is happening has little to do with what I would advocate. China's decade of market manipulation has done its damage, and at this point their star is still rising(at our expense), whist the USA and Europe's are falling. The question in my mind is whether China's star will be dragged down equally with the global economy.

We are at a point where interest rates are at rock bottom, but still slightly above zero. Bank holding are at a record high, meaning they are sitting on a mountain of money without available trustworthy lenders. The forecast for the stock and bond market for the next year is at least another 10% drop. The Fed is printing a crap load of money. So, why would I want stocks, bonds, or even a depreciating currency (in the form of dollars)? The biggest losers will be the same ones crushed in the Carter years, which are those people on fixed incomes. Retirement savings will be crushed by the duel forces of a failing capital investment marketplace, and high inflation. As you know, I'm not really a Keynesian. But, I think he was instrumental in helping to understand boom and bust cycles.

Suffice it to say, I'm definitely not a fan of the latest Trillion dollar spending boondoggle by the US House , US Senate, and soon to be signed by Mr. Obama. For example, if we really wanted to encourage jobs, then why not a $20K tax deduction for each job created? $20K times 200 million jobs would cost 4 billion dollars. Instead, what they have passed is a potpourri of liberal spending which is funding the agenda of the democrats without regard to what effect it will have on the economy.

[Jester]

$20K times 200 million jobs would cost 4 billion dollars. Instead, what they have passed is a potpourri of liberal spending which is funding the agenda of the democrats without regard to what effect it will have on the economy.

Uh, no, that would be 4 *trillion* dollars. Besides, it would include dramatic amounts of disinvestment: people would be hired en masse, since the marginal cost of labour would go way down, and then they'd be fired as soon as the tax credit ran out, because it would no longer be profitable to hire them. Essentially, it would be a 20k hit per employee for employers, and temporary way to add jobs to the economy.

As per funding the "agenda of the democrats," I don't know if you noticed, but they just won an election, and you live in a democracy. They get to enact their policies. That's the whole idea.

They clearly believe this will have a positive effect on the economy. This is obviously not "without regard" to the economic effects, although you clearly disagree with them on the issue. In the short run, it almost certainly will be a boost. How could it not? In the long run, the increased debt will come back to haunt you, but I suspect that will only be a fraction as painful as letting this recession run on longer by not having spent.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Uh, no, that would be 4 *trillion* dollars. Besides, it would include dramatic amounts of disinvestment: people would be hired en masse, since the marginal cost of labour would go way down, and then they'd be fired as soon as the tax credit ran out, because it would no longer be profitable to hire them. Essentially, it would be a 20k hit per employee for employers, and temporary way to add jobs to the economy.

Ok, you are right, my google math went wrong. I went Pelosi there for a moment. Make it a smaller incentive then per job and stretch it out over more workers, but you could get much more done for the encouraging employment for well less than $900 billion. If you asked any unemployed worker which they'd rather have; 300 dollars added to their tax return now, or a job for a year? Which do you think they would choose? Chances are that once that worker is hired, and put to work then within the year the economy would pick up and the employers would keep many or most of those hired. You and I know that this stimulus package is really just helicopter money.

As per funding the "agenda of the democrats," I don't know if you noticed, but they just won an election, and you live in a democracy. They get to enact their policies. That's the whole idea.

Leadership is not ownership. They still need to represent all the Americans, and try to do the right thing for all the people. Or, should each successive shift in power work to undo everything that was done by the former rulers, then redo everything to their own ideologies? Do you think it was ok for the R's to do what they did to the D's? I don't. So why should I just shut up and allow the D's to do the same crap back to the R's. This is where party becomes the fractures of ideological warfare, which leads to real warfare. Don't be surprised then when you hear about the rise of the militias once again. There was already that incident at the UU church with the wacko patriot trying to kill off as many UU liberals as he could before he died.

They clearly believe this will have a positive effect on the economy. This is obviously not "without regard" to the economic effects, although you clearly disagree with them on the issue.

Don't drink the cool aid! They "say" they believe it will have a positive effect on the economy. But, only a small portion of the money can be spent within the first year, and only another small portion more the following year. The bulk would be spent over the next decade on programs that otherwise should have been in a budget bill outside of a stimulus package. Example; How fast do you think they can whip out a high speed bullet train between LA and Las Vegas? They haven't even defined the corridor or exercised eminent domain to take the land from the owners yet. Ecological studies? Nope. It's a democrat wet dream and if they start now it might be done the year Mr. Obama finishes up his 2nd term. How will rehabilitating ATV trails help the economy? How do billions of dollars for Spain's Iberdrola SA (IBE.MC) help the workers in the USA? Where are the workers who manufacture the stuff they will use for these projects? Not in the USA. Here is the fundamental problem with this bill; It defines the jobs that get stimulated, rather than stimulate any USA job. It targets construction, and lots of it. Unfortunately, everyone who is unemployed is not a construction worker. Who's going to refurbish all this infrastructure, build electric grids, and erect all these wind mills? We certainly are not tooled for this level of "shovel ready" work. So, either the projects will line up and keep the construction workers busy for years, while other industries flounder, or big construction companies will import workers (who also work for lower wages) to build all this stuff that the unemployed Americans cannot afford. I had to laugh at the $7500 tax incentive to buy a brand new hybrid vehicle. Of course, the hard part is to convince a gun shy bank to give you a $35000 loan when you are unemployed.

In the short run, it almost certainly will be a boost. How could it not? In the long run, the increased debt will come back to haunt you, but I suspect that will only be a fraction as painful as letting this recession run on longer by not having spent.

What is wrong are the fundamentals. Where will this money come from? Who will borrow us this money? How will we ever pay it back? If you ask me, the USA is a pretty bad investment right now and the rate of return on bonds are really crappy. Why wouldn't they rather invest in a thriving economy at this time since the rate of return is more promising?

On the Colbert Report, Stephan made the comment that Keynes had suggested that in times such as these the government should hire people to dig holes, and then fill them in again. Only in this case, we should just keep digging... all the way to China, because that is where all the money is now.

Edit: I just wanted to add... (1 trillion U.S. dollars) / 303,824,640 people in the USA = $3,290 U.S. dollars per person. And, (1 trillion U.S. dollars) / 11 million all unemployed people in the USA = $90,909 U.S. dollars per person. And, if you looked only at people jobless for 27 weeks or more, then (1 trillion U.S. dollars) / 2.6 million = $384,615 U.S. dollars per person. So is this spending really about job creation? I don't think so.

[eppie]

Edit: I just wanted to add... (1 trillion U.S. dollars) / 303,824,640 people in the USA = $3,290 U.S. dollars per person. And, (1 trillion U.S. dollars) / 11 million all unemployed people in the USA = $90,909 U.S. dollars per person. And, if you looked only at people jobless for 27 weeks or more, then (1 trillion U.S. dollars) / 2.6 million = $384,615 U.S. dollars per person. So is this spending really about job creation? I don't think so.

Still, if you give this money as incentive to let employers take more employees, making things nobody will buy anyway we are talking about a new 'trickle down system' again. I would feel more like having the government hire people to make things that benefit all (windmills, road construction etc.), of course this is the socialistic thing to do so I don't expect that Obama plans to do this.

[kandrathe]

Still, if you give this money as incentive to let employers take more employees, making things nobody will buy anyway we are talking about a new 'trickle down system' again. I would feel more like having the government hire people to make things that benefit all (windmills, road construction etc.), of course this is the socialistic thing to do so I don't expect that Obama plans to do this.

Um, rather, if people are working, they buy things with their wages, like food, clothing, health care, and other things good for themselves and their children. If people are not working, then the states will be getting less tax revenue and have increased costs to support them. How long do you think it will take to build enough wind mills to make a dent in the economy? Why should the government decided what goods should be made? Why not let "the market" decide what goods are in demand? The risk here is that what the government decides is needed, really is not needed, which is another name for boondoggle.

Also, a trickle down system is to give capitalists tax breaks in the hope that with increased earnings the capitalists will invest their money creating new businesses and expanding existing ones creating more jobs and demand for skilled labor. Trickle down is not a direct incentive to business to hire workers (e.g. a tax break for every person on their payroll). The government in that case is directly subsidizing the payroll. So, for example, if the average wage is $50k and the government tax break is $5k, the worker really only cost $45K. This means that the cost of business decreases (in the area that is most expensive). This makes your business profitable, which makes stock holders happy and willing to invest more into the future of your company. But, notice that while the government still only gave indirectly $5K to that worker, the company gave them 9 times more ($45k) for their salary. That is the money that the states do not need to give in the form of welfare (dole), and the worker can feed/clothe his own children, and gets to stay in the house that they've been paying a mortgage on for the past ten years.

[Jester]

The risk here is that what the government decides is needed, really is not needed, which is another name for boondoggle.

And the failure rate for businesses is 0%?

If people are spending their own cash to take their own risks in business, then there is no point worrying about the failure rate. If there is a chance that businesses produce that which people do not need, and go bust, then the businessperson should have thought of that beforehand.

But, if you're taking about how to use government money to stimulate the economy, if you give a tax break to a widget producer to hire someone, and then nobody wants widgets, that's money that's been thrown away exactly as surely as if the government hired a hole-digger-filler-inner. "The market" is not a flawless allocator of resources when they're being given a giant external shock like a pure cash injection *not distributed according to market critieria*. You're just as likely, maybe more likely, to get a boondoggle there as in infrastructure spending.

Contrariwise, what the government is spending on right now is not holes and their refilling, but mostly infrastructure. What are the chances that people aren't going to need their bridges fixed, their roads repaired, their kids educated, their electrical grid modernized? Pretty slim, I'd say.

This is the package, at least from the quick google search. Now, you can yak all you want in the abstract about how government spends money inefficiently, but these are the places this money is going, and it all looks pretty sensible to me.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But, if you're taking about how to use government money to stimulate the economy, if you give a tax break to a widget producer to hire someone, and then nobody wants widgets, that's money that's been thrown away exactly as surely as if the government hired a hole-digger-filler-inner. "The market" is not a flawless allocator of resources when they're being given a giant external shock like a pure cash injection *not distributed according to market critieria*. You're just as likely, maybe more likely, to get a boondoggle there as in infrastructure spending.

No, not quite. The employer still has to risk far more in hiring the person, and thereby making that hire profitable. The criticism may be valid that you will get what people want, rather than what the government thinks people need. When government gets involved at the federal level we end up with "Bridges to Nowhere". Just because someone thinks its a good idea, does not mean it really is a good idea or will stimulate the economy. So, for example, is corn based ethanol *really* a good idea? I say no, and I question why the government is subsidizing a failed concept.

This is the package, at least from the quick google search. Now, you can yak all you want in the abstract about how government spends money inefficiently, but these are the places this money is going, and it all looks pretty sensible to me.

Wow, this is filled with nuggets of truthiness, like "Since 2001, as worker productivity went up, 96% of the income growth in this country went to the wealthiest 10% of society. While they were benefiting from record high worker productivity, the remaining 90% of Americans were struggling to sustain their standard of living. They sustained it by borrowing… and borrowing… and borrowing, and when they couldn’t borrow anymore, the bottom fell out. This plan will strengthen the middle class, not just Wall Street CEOs and special interests in Washington." -- Dave Obey(D-WI), Chairman House Committee on Appropriations. That's right, it was middle class borrowing that destroyed our economy. Not a housing bubble created by vapid oversight of Fannie and Freddie, or the practice of repackaging of mortgages as junk bonds, or a rapidly devaluing US currency, or a loss of jobs to off shore manufacturing... Maybe we could find a more objective, or reasonable (rather than insane) source?

How about this one by the Washington Post? Or, this one by USA Today. At least they cite their sources and don't tell bald faced lies (that I can see). Now, I don't have the same analysis of the compromise bill, and no one really knows what is in that 11,000 page bill yet. I think Congress is now getting around to reading what came out of the closed door democrat only committee. Even so, the democrats pushed it through the House without even their own party being allowed to fully read or comprehend the bill. So, when you read on the liberal rags this weekend on how the evil Republicans stood in the path of the Obama train, know that no one in Congress even read the compromise bill before they voted for it. It's nice to know that my representatives are still ready with that brainless passion filled rubber stamp. You know, the same one that got us into that war in Iraq.

[Jester]

Just because someone thinks its a good idea, does not mean it really is a good idea or will stimulate the economy. So, for example, is corn based ethanol *really* a good idea? I say no, and I question why the government is subsidizing a failed concept.

Me too, and the answer is almost certainly "the corn lobby". But that's a different issue. The question before us here is whether what they're doing *now* is a good use of money, not whether everything the government does is good. Perpetual wise investments is not a hallmark of anyone except maybe Warren Buffett. Surely nobody, in the wake of this colossal clusterfrack, is going to pretend that private enterprise can do no wrong.

Maybe we could find a more objective, or reasonable (rather than insane) source?

"Insane" is a little over the top, but use whatever source you like. They all seem to be painting about the same picture about the breakdown of expenditures. The rest is just window dressing in any case.

I think Congress is now getting around to reading what came out of the closed door democrat only committee.

Which committee is this, that writes policy, but only Democrats sit on? And, if they wrote it, and it passed without anyone reading it, in what sense could it be a "compromise"?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Me too, and the answer is almost certainly "the corn lobby". But that's a different issue. The question before us here is whether what they're doing *now* is a good use of money, not whether everything the government does is good. Perpetual wise investments is not a hallmark of anyone except maybe Warren Buffett. Surely nobody, in the wake of this colossal clusterfrack, is going to pretend that private enterprise can do no wrong.

I'm not saying that businesses are infallible, but as a whole, the aggregate of allowing market forces to determine the course of the river will be a better result than getting out the government bulldozers and digging a channel for the economy. Why? Because if the government limits its role to merely stimulating the economy, then once the disaster is over then the natural flow of the economy will not need further tending. However, if the government channels the economy into specific industries, then 3 things might happen; a) continuous maintenance will be required or what has been built will crash because it was not a good idea (e.g. ethanol). But, this will be after many years and billions of dollars have been pumped into the *wrong* direction. b) The industries propped up will experience a boon and will no longer need stimulus, but because our government never rescinds anything the money will continue to flow (and be wasted) into these programs where it is no longer needed. or, c) it will either be a colossal failure from the get go beset with problems (which would die in the private sector), or it will have the unintended consequences of blue sky thinking without proper planning (e.g. we idealistically pass the Pacific Railway Act of 1862, which inevitably led to the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.)

"Insane" is a little over the top, but use whatever source you like. They all seem to be painting about the same picture about the breakdown of expenditures. The rest is just window dressing in any case. Which committee is this, that writes policy, but only Democrats sit on? And, if they wrote it, and it passed without anyone reading it, in what sense could it be a "compromise"?

Obey is a loon (imho), but check out his youtube hits if you don't believe me. Well, the process is that the House writes the bill and tries to pass it, then the Senate writes a corresponding bill and tries to pass it. Once that is done the two bills go to a conference committee selected by House and Senate leadership (all Democrats now), they resolve the differences and make a common bill. Which then needs to get passed by both the House and the Senate again. The bill in this case was filed at midnight by the conference committee (peopled with a select few House and Senate democrats), and then the House passed it as the first order of business the following morning. No one read the final bill, which might have language stripped, or language added. The point is that the people who voted for it didn't actually know what it contained. Which means that if you are a D now, you don't really need to think but merely vote the party line. I mean, its only the largest spending bill, ever. So why would you bother reading it.

[Jester]

No one read the final bill, which might have language stripped, or language added. The point is that the people who voted for it didn't actually know what it contained. Which means that if you are a D now, you don't really need to think but merely vote the party line. I mean, its only the largest spending bill, ever. So why would you bother reading it.

It would also be nice if everyone read everything before they voted on it, but this has not been true of American government since Washington was president, and probably not even then. I think most Democrats are assuming that the bill they voted for was what it appeared to be: the same package they've been discussing all along, with some t's crossed and i's dotted, and a few of the more vulnerable programs cut out to satisfy three Republican votes (Snowe, Specter, and Collins, no big surprises there). I think they're also more than happy to stick it to the Republicans, who have been spending the last few weeks with their fingers in their ears singing a happy song about fluffy pink tax cuts and trying desperately to ignore the fact that they haven't got a shred of credibility left, rather than facing up to reality and making a compromise with a President so eager to compromise he is giving Neville Chamberlain a run for his money.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It would also be nice if everyone read everything before they voted on it, but this has not been true of American government since Washington was president, and probably not even then. I think most Democrats are assuming that the bill they voted for was what it appeared to be: the same package they've been discussing all along, with some t's crossed and i's dotted, and a few of the more vulnerable programs cut out to satisfy three Republican votes (Snowe, Specter, and Collins, no big surprises there). I think they're also more than happy to stick it to the Republicans, who have been spending the last few weeks with their fingers in their ears singing a happy song about fluffy pink tax cuts and trying desperately to ignore the fact that they haven't got a shred of credibility left, rather than facing up to reality and making a compromise with a President so eager to compromise he is giving Neville Chamberlain a run for his money.

If you look at the history of this bill, the only thing that's been cut back on are the tax cut proposals to make way for more spending ideas. Because, you know, if we waited a day or two to let people read the bill they might actually lose political support. Better to get it passed quickly before the people understand what is happening and call their representatives.

As for the Laffer curve, neither the D's or the R's understand the edges of diminishing returns. It is true that if excessive taxes are limiting growth, then lowering taxes will encourage growth. But it is also not true that lowering taxes will always encourage growth. Unless the Congress was willing to take a huge political risk (not this Congress) and bring taxation of corporations in the USA in line (broaden the base and lower the rates) with our major international competition it would have little impact on the economy. I believe Mr. Obama wants to sell his ideas to Republicans, but I haven't seen anywhere that he is willing to listen seriously to their ideas. For now, compromise is on the back burner, and the only time "bipartisan" would be possible is if the R's at this point just rolled over on their principles and rubber stamped the D's agenda.

[Jester]

If you look at the history of this bill, the only thing that's been cut back on are the tax cut proposals to make way for more spending ideas. Because, you know, if we waited a day or two to let people read the bill they might actually lose political support. Better to get it passed quickly before the people understand what is happening and call their representatives.

Or, maybe there is overwhelming public support for the new congress to urgently do something about the economic crisis, and, having haggled over the variations of this bill for nigh on two months now, the Dems had their filibuster-proof majority, and passed it. If you can show me what's so special about the bill they passed vs. the ones that were proposed, then I'll think twice, but I really don't think this is a case where people are going to change their minds. Indeed, I think most people are already wondering what's taking so bloody long; the banks already got their cut.

I believe Mr. Obama wants to sell his ideas to Republicans, but I haven't seen anywhere that he is willing to listen seriously to their ideas. For now, compromise is on the back burner, and the only time "bipartisan" would be possible is if the R's at this point just rolled over on their principles and rubber stamped the D's agenda.

The minority does not get to set the agenda for the majority. That much is clear; the people have voted, and what comes out of the congress, by popular will, is going to look more Democratic than Republican. However, Obama has been laughably eager to get a bipartisan bill, but the Republicans have been clear: What we want is a tax cut, and government spending is waste. If that was what the American public was looking for, they should have voted for McCain.

Now, probably, this is all probably for the best. Bipartisanship is overrated: The Dems have their plan, and if it works, it'll be obvious who gets credit, and if it flops, we'll know what the alternative plan was, and judge accordingly. But the Republicans, save for a woeful few, have been throwing an anti-tax tantrum, rather than building consensus on a stimulus bill.

-Jester