Originally Posted by WordWaster

to your last point:

1)IF there is no recovery. as i am so fond of saying, "we will have to wait and see".

Originally Posted by WordWaster

1) but the government is taking money out of china's economy, not our own. the claimed fallacy does not play out.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

So we are propping up our massive consumer spending addiction with the wealth of others who, apparently, are much better at saving it. How long do you suppose that will last, and how do you expect that we'll pay it back given that the purpose is to consume rather than save?

Originally Posted by 06AlphaGriot

WordWaster. You do not have even the first clue of what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

1)Yes, that's the usual "argument" from the economically ignorant. You can't defend your assertions, and so you hope that a trillion dollar gamble will pay off. I guess it's easier if it's not your own money.



2)Are we lacking the infrastructure needed to get back to where we were a few years ago? If not, then why will building more help us get out of the recession?



3)I'm sure that Republicans will be just as happy to find ways to spend money.

Originally Posted by 06AlphaGriot

WordWaster. You do not have even the first clue of what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by WordWaster

1) you distorted my point and then made an argument against the distorted point. that was a response to a specific point that was speculative in nature. i cannot claim to know the future. if you can, why didn't you warn us about the economic collapse?

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

ludicrous, narrowminded, and dismissive

Originally Posted by WordWaster

you cannot "insult" an argument.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKenludicrous, narrowminded, and dismissive
[/quote]
[quote="WordWaster

it was my assertion that inaction would have done more harm than action. your point is irrelavant to that argument.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

Uh no, I asked if it's a good idea to use debt spending as a way to alleviate the problems of too much debt. The stimulus is a bad idea, not because of debt but because it is government allocation of resources to fix the problems of malinvestment orginally caused by government policy. It's like asking arsonist who set fire to your house to put out the fire for you and applauding his efforts to do so.

Originally Posted by WordWaster

not spending that money on some sort of stimulus would have led to more debt. your argument makes little sense. it is an old onesided argument and it is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

I'm sorry, how is this possible? By all indications, people are paying off debt, saving money and even discharging debt (foreclosures and bankruptcy anyone?) The government has to borrow to pay for it's huge stimulus boondoggle; why would it have to borrow so much if it weren't going to spend?

Originally Posted by WordWaster

A) you are claiming as fact that people are paying off debt etc. without posting any links to back up that claim. B) i think i finally see what part of my argument you do not see. It was my opinion that if the recession were left unmanaged unemployment would likely have increased further and would endure for a longer period, this will would have had a negative impact on government revenues which would have led to more government debt

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

On the contrary, I think it is a huge deal, and using inflation and attempting to keep prices from falling and borrowing huge amounts and encouraging people to spend more money that they don't have isn't going to get us back to growth and prosperity.

Originally Posted by WordWaster

telling people to go out and debt spend was bush's solution years ago, this is not the same. this is government spending, not the encouragement of debt spending by individuals.

Originally Posted by Xilaisalt

In a mockery of the 'much needed' stimulus bill, here is a game for every American; since every one of them will be paying for it.

Defend the stimulus package from its obvious fallacies.

Round One:



Is this good spending? Is it helping the economy?

Originally Posted by REDRUM

A portion of the stimulus is the most pretentious waste of taxpayers money. The stimulus was passed and designed to put money into people's pockets right NOW and create jobs right NOW. It's reported that the states have received roughly 10 percent of the entire stimulus money yet unemployment continued to skyrocket in many states after the "spendulus" was signed back in January. The notion that some Liberals actually believe the stimulus is working is quite absurd. Housing foreclosures up 7 percent in July and the value of the American dollar steadily declining. Over 2.8 million jobs lost and counting since Obama took office, it's no mystery his approval ratings continue to drop like Wal-Mart pricing.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

I can claim to know that if you add 2 and 2, that you will always get 4. You'd have us believe that there's a chance, a good chance even, that the result will be 5.

The warnings were there. Financial Reckoning Day is just one example.



Once again, how will that help us in the recession now? Are we currently unable to produce and move enough goods to match the output of just a few short years ago? Has the infrastructure crumbled so rapidly; and if so, why should we trust government rebuild it when it did such an awful job in the first place?



Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we could pick and choose which points to respond to. I was just following your example. Seriously, though, they were embedded in the quote and I didn't feel like taking the time to parse them. However, if you insist:




So you consider ad hominem to be a valid response to an argument. I'll keep that in mind when you accuse me of being irrational again.




You said that you'd go on record as saying, in your words: "not being for the parts of the stimulus which do not have a positive effect." I'm not sure how that is an argument for action over inaction. It sounds to me like you are willing to make subjective value judgments, since the massive transfer of wealth done through the stimulus leaves many losers.





I'm sorry, is that supposed to be a rational response? Dismiss the argument rather than refute it.




Oh gosh, now you want *me* to back up a claim when you aren't even willing to lift a finger to rationally defend any of your assertions. Your entire defense of the stimulus has so far been "it's this way because I say it is and anything you say against it is ludicrous and one-sided." Well here are your links:

Personal Savings rate: http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.htm

Households and businesses reduced their outstanding debt. Total private-sector debt fell at a 0.4% annual pace in the quarter, the first time that private-sector debt had declined since the Fed's records began in 1952.




I see, so getting people to buy houses (and build them), and cars, and other goods is not part of the stimulus? You said that you'd go on record to support stimulus spending on manufacturing; if consumers don't want to buy those goods, why is it positive for government to prop up the producers of what no one wants to buy?

Originally Posted by 06AlphaGriot

WordWaster. You do not have even the first clue of what you are talking about.