2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/02/17/something-must-be-done/
0
0
  |   56 comments

During a conversation with a teacher of mine about the Obama economic stimulus plan, he repeated two defenses of the plan I’ve grown a bit tired of. The first defense is that something had to be done. If the government would not have done anything, the situation would become even worse, and Americans would panic. The second defense is based on the first: Americans had to get the feeling their government was dealing with the problem – the plan gives them the impression Washington is helping, which will give them hope for the future (and perhaps influence their behavior positively).

Both defenses are weak, if not ludicrous.

Lets deal with the something had to be done defense first: something doesn’t or shouldn’t mean anything. The economy may be in serious trouble. This may mean the government should help out; the economy may need stimulating. But the something should then consist out of measures that actually help. The Obama plan is so horrible, however, that it does little to nothing to stimulate the economy in the short run and has a negative impact in the middle to long term. That’s not doing something, that’s doing worse than nothing.

Aside from the above, something has to be affortable. This plan is not, however. It will cost the American tax payer more than $828 billion, while it will not improve the economy in any significant way whatsoever. That is a rather ludicrous amount to throw away only to bring us to defense number two, the American people have to believe their government is helping them.

This defense always seems to conveniently ignore the fact that a majority of the American people oppose the plan. They believe it’s too costly and ineffective. They do not want to get the impression their government helps them, they want to know it does. This plan, however, isn’t more than a very expensive myth.

Additionally, telling Americans that having the government throw money at them is in their interest is a horrible message to send. It will make Americans more dependent on the government, and it will cause them to support useless plans, just because the government tells them it’s good for them. Americans will, more than they already are, be turned into fiscal irresponsible individuals. Americans don’t need the government to fix things for them, they need to do so themselves. Changing their spending and borrowing patern will do more strengthen the economy than massive spending plans.

  1. Posted by ChrisWWW
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #85487
    ChrisWWW CStanley, Your point is well taken. I don't have the energy or expertise to examine the bill on that level. So, I'm taking my cues from other "partisan hacks" who in my estimation are experts. Go ahead and crucify me now :-)
    Once again, your complaint might have more credibility if you applied it consistently to the other side.
    Jason, I try to come at every problem with a blank slate, but it's impossible to wash away years of "experience" with Democrats and Republicans and my own preferences on policy. I also think I could make a good argument for why nationalized health care would be stimulative and a good boost for economy going into the future. As for the "surge" I maintain that it only delayed the inevitable and was not worth it.
    Ok, that’s it. This is no longer just amusing. Any further threats or insults will get you banned.
    I never said I would do the name calling. I'm done calling you names, and ever since I came back I've avoided it like a plague.
  2. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #85489
    Jason, Managing Editor
    So, I’m taking my cues from other “partisan hacks” who in my estimation are experts.
    Perhaps your contributions would be less problematic if your range of "experts" did not appear to be ideologically homogeneous. Every consumer of news and analysis must, by necessity, rely upon others to condense and simplify. The only way to check against becoming a slave to one ideology is to go out of your way to SEEK OUT dissenting and critical viewpoints. For example, I don't just read the Heritage Foundation analysis of an issue and declare myself done. I also read Krugman or Center for American Progress to see if they are mounting a substantive response or raising issues that Heritage omitted. Get it? If all you do is define "experts" as "those that agree with me ideologically", you will live in an intellectual echo chamber and you will be perceived by readers as such. If you find it "name-calling" to point that out, that's your problem. But I maintain it is a fair criticism of your ideologically one-sided, overdetermined approach.
  3. Posted by ChrisWWW
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #85490
    ChrisWWW Jason, That's one of the reasons I check this site. You and Michael provide a good pulse on the heartbeat of conservative thought. I try to read the WSJ editorial page at least a few times a week. I follow Larison almost religiously. And I also read Sullivan, who likes Obama but is very skeptical of the stimulus plan and bailout packages. That's just my regular reading list though. If there is anybody you know that writes on the level of Larison (I'm hoping against hope that he gets a spot writing for the NYTs or another large daily), I would love a recommendation.
  4. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #85494
    Jason, Managing Editor Well, Chris, I admit to wondering why you check this site, being as how you rarely seem to have much good to say about what we write and I can't recall eer seeing you link to us. I'm glad to hear that your reading list includes some conservative sources (though I would exclude Sullivan from any list of conservatives based on anything more than mere self-identification -- his derangement vis-a-vis Palin puts him on the loony fringe of the blogosphere IMO). I would recommend adding George Will and Peggy Noonan as opinion columnists as well as adding Ed Morrissey in the blogosphere. The important thing is to see conservatism as more than just purist social conservatives or small-government extremists. You seem to make that error frequently, though not universally (if you think I'm representative of conservatism, you should know that I disagree with conservatives on many, many issues).
  5. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #85495
    C Stanley Your point is well taken. I don’t have the energy or expertise to examine the bill on that level. So, I’m taking my cues from other “partisan hacks” who in my estimation are experts. Go ahead and crucify me now As long as you admit it, then I have no problem with it. None of us have the time to follow every piece of legislation, and this one was a doozy. But if someone reads your comments in support of it, there's a ripple effect (just as you endorse it based on other people's endorsements, some might do so based on yours.) If people are honest and that's what they're doing, that's fine- I just don't accept people thinking that they've really made a choice to support or oppose something based on merits when it's really based on word of mouth endorsements like that.
  6. Posted by ChrisWWW
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #85496
    ChrisWWW Jason, I don't want to stick myself in an echo chamber. Have you ever tried reading a ThinkProgress comment thread? It's painful. I'll try another run with Ed Morrissey in my feed reader. I do read Noonan in the WSJ and Will in Newsweek from time to time. I also followed David Frum when he was at NRO. I should bookmark his new site. Sorry for not linking to you guys, it seems whenever I'm looking for a post topic and stumble over here, the frontpage is filled with topics about Turkey or the Netherlands :-) CStanley, I think most public policy ends up being argued in a more abstract way because of the complexity involved in understanding the actual language of bills. I think it's something we all do some of the time, if not most of the time.