This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Spending to Save

Jay Leno: "Speaking on the budget in his speech on the economy this week, President Obama said that we have to continue to “spend our way out” of this recession. I don’t know much about economics, but aren't we like a trillion dollars in debt? Spending our way out of the recession? Isn’t that like trying to drink your way out of alcoholism."

34 comments:

Blogger said...

Or it could be "Destroying the village in order to save it."

Honest Debate said...

With 1200 limousines and 140 private jets not to mention Obama flying to Norway and back only to return to Copenhagen next week, the "global warming" folks are doing their part warming the planet to beat global warming.

oatz said...

See Cap & Trade means any carbon event you want to do, ie buy a TV or Heat your house the Government will allocate to YOU how much Carbon your allowed to use evey year. So if you use up your allotment you can puchase credits to increase your usage, the money you spend for credits after expenses(Al Gores cut)goes to some third world person who doesn't have electrcity therefore his only carbon use is the fire to heat his cookstove. Simple wealth redistribution its not about Carbon, but taxes!

guy faulkes said...

This policy also makes one wonder if handing out contraceptives in grade and high school is a measure to promote chastity.

Sarkazein said...

The Democrats are setting up a question that will be asked in the future of any people of this generation. How could you have let that happen? Why didn't you do anything about it? What were you all thinking?
These questions will be asked by those born in the future in a third world country, the United States.
They will read of the vast wealth and power of the US and want to know why we let it all deteriorate. Why did we not stop the raid on our treasury. How could we allow the political pay-offs and unconstitutional power grabs while we sat and did nothing.

Reader said...

No kiddng Sark. When someone else starts to take control, I'll be one of the first to jump in. Until someone does, it will only get worse.

Did anyone watch Glenn Beck today? If you didn't, go watch it.

You know, we're no better than the liberals. We're putting up with this crap, so we're just as guilty.

Honest Debate said...

All of it's ridiculous. None of it makes sense but that's what they're selling.

I suppose one could say the paradox (JFK's word) of increasing revenue by cutting taxes is just as hard to grasp but I don't think so. Spending our way out of a recession as a strategy instinctively flunks the smell test on many levels.

There can be only two possibilities: 1) Obama's paramount concern is fixing the economy and he's actually stupid enough to believe he can spend his way out of a recession...and arrogant enough not to question his own brilliance, or 2) He knows the implementation of his agenda will fundamentally change America which is his paramount concern.

He's arrogant but I don't think he's stupid.

I hope he fails.

Sarkazein said...

It just keeps getting more unbelievable. The Democrats want to turn over the management of health care to bureaucracy when they are proven to be inadequate in even the smallest tasks.

Eric Holder has decided to give away more of our money when two administrations before him have fought the wrong.

Sarkazein said...

I am guessing the plaintiff's shysters made big donations during the election, and they are now being repaid with our money. Just like Clinton, Soros, Gore, and many more.

guy faulkes said...

Cap and Tax will kill the economy almost as much as socialized medicine. Here is a link to a story of the handling of Climategate questions at the U.N. The security officer must have worked for Al Gore before moving on up to the big time.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722

guy faulkes said...

http://www.breitbart.tv/welcome-to-obamaville-sign-marks-co-homeless-tent-city/

bridle said...

What we need to do is invest our way out of this mess. Invest in the future of solar, wind,and other renewable and non-polluting energy technologies. We need to invest in a health care system that is responsive and organized to contain the threat of emerging pandemics. We need to invest in a health care system that will ensure every child can maximize his or her potential, and parents don't have to choose between food and medicine.
We need to invest in education and subsidize higher education for all who choose to better themselves. We need to provide the opportunity for doctors and others who provide crucial services to get an education without taking on burdensome debt.
There is a difference between spending and investing.

Sarkazein said...

I like Bridle's new definition of "investment". I think I'll go out and borrow as much money as I can get my hands on, and buy stocks. If they don't pay, I can just keep borrowing money. I like the idea, "investments" don't have to return money, just good wishes. I can use these good wishes to put up as collateral and borrow more money to "invest" in commodities.
I guess I'll need to get a money printing machine too.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

When do we get a return (even good wishes) on the $Trillions "invested" since Lyndon B Johnson's (D) Great Society?

Sarkazein said...

A clean George Carlin type.
This only gets a little bit irritating.

Honest Debate said...

Hey Bridle,

How 'bout we "invest" a little confidence in the the American people? How 'bout we take governments foot off the throat of small business and "invest" in the "future" of their ingenuity? How 'bout we let people prosper and "invest" any way they choose?

Let me guess. Most people are either too stupid to know what's good for them or are helpless victims of a society ruled by the rich.

guy faulkes said...

HD has made the telling point in the debate. Historically the economy and the country prosper when individuals do the investing. The opposite is true the government does the investing. I was told that the government can never compete with the private sector in what would now be called a sixth grade civics class (this was so long ago they called it social studies and citizenship class) because government is so inefficient. Truer words were never spoken or never was a better lesson learned, except for "never try to scare a small man because he will kill you."

bridle said...

HD - Suppose government did not invest in roads and people were responsible for maintaining the roads in front of their houses. How do you think that resulting patchwork would impact businesses? Suppose government did not inspect meat packing houses and you had to check the meat you buy for worms and bacterial contamination? How do you think the economy would be affected by the mass poisonings that would result? China does not regulate their food processing plants and we have seen that,yes, greed will promote unsafe products.
If government did not provide trash pickup and landfills, we would all suffer from the disease and pollution that would result from letting individuals decide what to do with their filth.

When everyone kicks in a little bit, eg taxes, we can all get much bigger bang for our bucks. The money you pay in taxes to provide health care for poor kids, may prevent the epidemic that could kill your child.
There is no evidence whatsoever that private enterprise is more efficient than government. There are many examples of corrupt inefficient private enterprises. With no regulations or oversight, monopolies, and mafia type businesses will inevitably take over.
Can any of you free market capitalists name a single civilized first world country that has been able to exist without regulations and government projects?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle wrote: There is no evidence whatsoever that private enterprise is more efficient than government.


Hmmmmm. This must be a trick comment. But I can't figure out the punch line.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle wrote: With no regulations or oversight, monopolies, and mafia type businesses will inevitably take over.


The question is MORE regulations and oversight, and the fact there is too much of both. You go from 60 to 0 in record time.

Reader said...

"There are many examples of corrupt inefficient private enterprises."

And the biggest public one is our government. To be totally honest, every day that passes, I get angrier and angrier at what this arrogrant president of ours is getting away with. His staff is the stupidest bunch of people and doesn't know how to make a dollar. They can take one for sure...but they don't know how to make a profit. They can't eveb run a post office for goodness sake. It used to be delivered on horseback...any fool can do it. You don't spend money you don't have and can never repay. Of course liberals do, that's why the housing market is in the shape it's in. Self satisfication is what it is. Sorry for the venting, as you can tell, I'm a little angry.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle does not have any concetpion of inlightend self interest. He does not reealise that if a private concern does not do a good job,another private concern will take its business from it.

One can shear a sheep many times, but one can only kill it once. Therefore it is incumbent on private business to provide good service or it will kill its business. Government, being the ultimate monopoly, does not have this free market control to insure good service.

Honest Debate said...

So now I don't want roads and meat inspectors? I stand for zero government and zero regulation?

Socialism or total anarchy: Are those the only choices?

Reader said...

Everyone needs to own a business at one time or another Guy. The only regulations I need in my business are the ones I set myself. If people are treated with kindness and honesty, they will not go elsewhere.

Bridle says we all need to kick in a little bit. Isn't that what we do everyday with taxes? Time for us to start kicking back.

guy faulkes said...

I just received this in an email.

A Harvard study by Silvia Ardagna and Alberto Alesina has examined the economies of 21 nations since 1970. There were 91 episodes where their governments intervened to stimulate the economy. The ones that proved successful were tax cuts and reducing government spending. The ones that failed were more taxes and more government spending. Each dollar of taxes cut meant a $3 growth in the GDP. You can read it yourself in the New York Times.

bridle said...

The post WWI economy was a time of remarkable growth called by some "the golden age of capitalism". People in the top brackets at that time paid a tax rate of 91 %.
That tax money was invested in government projects such as highways, education (eg the GI bill), and research and development such as the space race. All of those were public investments that paid huge dividends. We need to invest now in projects that will free us from an oil economy and once again make us a leader in new, safe, technologies.
People who yammer and whine about taxes don't realize what it's like to live in countries such as Mexico where despite being rich in resources, there is no government money to pay for basic services. People who work in schools and government offices often don't get paid on time. You may imagine how that impacts services. Cities are diry and unsafe, and there is a shadow government comprising the drug cartels which controls significant amount of territory.

bridle said...

Sark - You may not be old enough to recall the kind of dreadful poverty that was so prevalent at that time. I know children of sharecroppers who grew up in houses where the snow came in on their beds. Thanks to Pell grants (BEOG) these folks got good educations and are now paying back with the taxes on their good wages. And poverty did decline as a result of the war on poverty. dramatically

bridle said...

Guy Faulkes, Can you back up your assertion that government investment does not pay off in improved economic conditions?
My point is not that government should do everything, but that those jobs vital to public welfare and security should be done by government. For instance the contractors in Iraq (Blackwater, KBR)have done incalculable harm to our national interest by their reckless killing and corrupt dealings. I know Iraq veterans who claim that it was well known the American contractors were the most corrupt of all.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle- This graph seams different than yours, US Census.

I may be interpreting your graph wrong (really), but, don't you prove the poverty rate dropped as tax rates were lowered? Atleast from the JFK years on as compared to the 91% days? BTW, NO-one actually paid 91% tax, unless they did no deduction. Example: a guy builds a spec house for $4,000, and sells it for $6,000 then pays tax on the $6,000 without deducting the $4,000 it cost him to build it. And he did 75 more houses just like it, not deducting the cost to build.
Now, if you run a graph showing the increase in crime as government programs increase, I think you'll have something.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, the best example is the same one liberals worship. FDR's handling of the depression worsened it and made it longer. I refer you to the book "The Forgotten Man" This is a dry read because it is so thoroughly researched, but it provides indisputable proof that his intervention was the cause, not the cure of much of the depression.

I also suggest you google tax cuts and gross national product. This will show you that an immediate boost is given to the economy. For this boost to be sustained, government spending has to not increase. The economy improves even more when government spending decreases. This is because the government does not produce anything. It only consumes. It is so inefficient that it could not compete with the free market. Your comments on waste by government contractors prove that the government is not even an efficient consumer.

It might interest you to know I grew up in a house in which snow blew in through the windows, the house had no sub flooring and so many drafts that it was almost as windy inside as out. I have seen water frozen in glasses in the living room if we let the stove get much cooler than glowing cherry red. Growing up in these conditions made me a conservative. I refused to live on what somebody gave me. I worked my way through college with no government aid. I started saving for college when I got my first job at the age of 11. If I could do, any one can. Spare me the "people cannot improve themselves without help" garbage. I know better.

There is nothing wrong with helping those that try to help themselves, but those that use entitlement programs to live and party off of the rest of us are a different matter.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

Great story- yours. It also shows why the Depression Era generation was stronger than most now.

Bridle, how do you explain the increase in adults sleeping and living outdoors (the homeless)? Talk about snow and rain collecting on you while you sleep.
I say it has increased since government started "aiding" people and taking away personal responsibility, thus moving more people to drug and alcohol abuse.

Honest Debate said...

What stands out at me when debating liberals are the leaps they take. Bridle posts a graph showing the poverty rate went down as proof positive the "War on Poverty" worked. Must be government. LiberalPOV asked when confronted with climategate, "Then why are the ice caps melting"? Must be humans. They show oil companies made profit. Must be the Iraq war was for oil. They say Reagan created debt. Must be the tax cuts.

This from the party that scolds us for being too black or white. We're not nuanced enough to see the gray areas.

Does that make sense?

guy faulkes said...

HD, your comments on gray areas is thought provoking. I would propose the idea that conservatives may dwell to much in the gray. We let people do want they want as long as those people do not harm us. We recognize the right of people to differing opinions.

Doing this may be part of the problem. We do not blindly and viciously attack those that disagree with us as do the left. We grant the possibility that those that differ from us might be right to some degree. This has allowed the left to emotionalize issues and to create the fear crisis of the day. Be it gun control, global warming, health care, or whatever contrived crisis they wish to use to frighten the public, their aim is to achieve political power. In order to do this they must lie and exaggerate. Their arguments cannot stand the light of day. However, by this time the lies and exaggerations have gained momentum. Conservatives did not oppose these things on a quick timely basis.

Until recently, the left has been the party of political protests and organized resistance to government policies. It kills their souls that the right is now using the same political process to further their desires, with the exception the right backs up its claims with facts and logic as well as emotion.

The effectiveness of this tea party policy is why I am beginning to think conservatives were dwelling to far into the gray. When it comes to socialized medicine, global warming, cap and tax, and undermining the sovereignty of this country to the UN, we should not be the party of no. We need to be the party of HELL, NO! we need to cut taxes, spending, and regulations, not increase them.

Honest Debate said...

Guy, another annoying little habit liberals have is accusing us of doing what they do. It takes so much gall I could almost admire it...almost. It's not just scolding us for not being nuanced, you bring up the fear they propagate yet to listen to them it's us. The Democrats own the party of fear, the party of the "politics of personal destruction". They chide us for being uncivil while calling us racist and bigots. They say the tea parties are not genuine because they are not genuine.