Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#1
Is Spending the Answer?


This week, Congress and the administration once again showed their lack of economic understanding, as they ramped up spending to record levels. On the surface, maybe it does look to some like the economic crisis is a liquidity problem, that the economy is in trouble because money is not changing hands at the pace it once did in the boom years. They believe that to get back to a booming economy money needs to start changing hands again ? and the quickest way to do this is for the federal government to massively expand spending to pump new money into the system. If this is the extent of their understanding, no wonder they call for spending, taxing, bailouts and inflation.
If spending was the solution, we never would have had a problem. During the last eight years, we?ve blown up the size of government and certainly had no want of spending on foreign or domestic policy. The Bush administration increased spending almost 20n its first term, and nearly doubled the national debt by the end of the second term. Certainly the case cannot be made that lack of government spending created the problem or can be the solution.
This is mirrored in American households. According to CNN private sector debt is 365f private sector gross domestic product. Many relied simply on steady and continued increase in home values to enable spending and secure more debt. That trend has proven unsustainable and many Americans are adjusting their finances accordingly. For the first time, household debt is beginning to fall as consumers wake up to the realities of paying off debt and living within their means.
Wouldn?t it be great if the government would do the same?
A lot of capital and liquidity is out there waiting in the wings as the new administration is bringing about government uncertainty, a concept discussed by Robert Higgs as prolonging the Great Depression. In other words, it is a foregone conclusion that government will act. But, like a chicken with its head cut off, no one knows which way it will run, just that it will flail about wildly until it collapses.
Why start a business, when businesses could face the brunt of an increase in future taxation? Similarly, why hire a new employee if tax policy will just force you to fire them later on to stay afloat? Why buy a house, when you have no idea how future government meddling in the housing market will affect its value? Why spend at the shopping mall, or buy a new car when you don?t know how tax policy will affect your family budget, or if your job will come under the axe because your employer?s tax burden is increased?
I argue these kinds of questions and concerns contribute to the weakening economy. This type of tax policy keeps capital out of third world nations, and now is keeping capital in hiding here in the US. People are concerned about security and savings again, retrenching their household and business budgets. The economy could be helped if the government would just get out of the way and restore sound monetary and fiscal policies.

Posted by Ron Paul (03-02-2009, 03:00 PM


 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#2
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

Ron Paul on Washington Watch


<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/0FXjJTbR090&hl=en&fs=1 width=400 height=324 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/FSVN6U4OyJE&hl=en&fs=1 width=400 height=324 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#3
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

Tea anyone?? 2348ji23e

FAA Approves Plan to Give Stimulus Funds to Airport Named After Murtha



<TABLE style="FLOAT: right; CLEAR: both" id=content_column_table cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=238><TBODY><TR><TD width=10></TD><TD width=228><SCRIPT src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/article/js/storyPageTools.js"></SCRIPT>


<FORM> </FORM>




<SCRIPT><!--function findPosY(obj){ var curtop = 0; if(obj.offsetParent){ while(obj.offsetParent){ curtop += obj.offsetTop obj = obj.offsetParent; } } else if(obj.y){ curtop += obj.y; } return curtop;}function findPosX(obj){ var curleft = 0; if(obj.offsetParent){ while(obj.offsetParent){ curleft += obj.offsetLeft obj = obj.offsetParent; } } else if(obj.x){ curleft += obj.x; } return curleft;}// --></SCRIPT><!-- End New Comments Box: Common --><!-- End New Comments Box: Article -->


?


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, May 12, 2009; 5:58 PM


The Federal Aviation Administration, after reviewing concerns about a project at a regional airport named after Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), has decided to go forward with plans to use $800,000 in stimulus funds to repave the airport's alternate runway.
Late this afternoon, a spokesperson for the Department of Transportation confirmed that the department had completed its review and would be releasing the funds for the Johnstown, Pa., airport project.
DOT spokesperson Jill Zuckman said the review was undertaken after a "senior policy" official at DOT decided he wanted to reconsider the project, but she declined to identify who that was or detail the reason for the reconsideration. She said the runway's concrete hasn't been replaced in many years and is in need of repaving.
"The bottom line is it deserved the money based on the merits," Zuckman said. "It's not an earmark."

The FAA had notified the John P. Murtha-Johnstown airport authority that the project was under review, and authority board members said press reports about other federal funding steered to the quiet regional airport was leading the FAA to reconsider the repaving project.


<SCRIPT>if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf ){placeAd('ARTICLE',commercialNode,20,'inline=y;',true) ;}</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript><!--if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf ){document.write('
') ;}// --></SCRIPT>
The Washington Post reported last month on more than $150 million in federal funds that Murtha directed to the airport, which has six arriving and departing flights per day. Among the improvements, Murtha directed the Pentagon to give the airport a new, $8 million, state-of-the-art radar tower that has not been used since it was built in 2004, and $30 million for a new runway and tarmac so the airport could handle large military planes and become an emergency military base in case of crisis.
Other news outlets, including CNN and ABC News, subsequently visited the airport and reported on the sleepy terminal and its gleaming federal buildings paid for by federal taxpayers.
Airport Manager Scott Voelker said he wrote to FAA officials urging the Obama administration to proceed with plans to underwrite the repaving work. The Post had reported that the airport has been losing passengers each year but was among the first four in the country that the FAA announced would receive stimulus funds.
"They say they're dotting their i's and crossing their t's," Voelker said. "But Mr. Murtha had nothing to do with the stimulus money."
Voelker said the runway is "critical" to Johnstown aircraft because the mountaintop airport is battered by strong winds and needs an alternate landing option for crosswinds.
Voelker said aircraft use the second runway for 40 percent of their landings and takeoffs due to the heavy crosswinds.



</DIV><!-- sphereit end -->
<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><EMBED height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/JFUurITRjAk&hl=en&fs=1 allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#4
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

I use to like Murtha for the way he stuck up for the troops , but after seeing how his son has scammed the government i figure he learned that from his daddy.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#5
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

People should be marching in the streets to stop this curruption

We are spending our way right into a guaranteed depression that will lay us away for decades

Brace for impact
12/9: Stimulus III

Posted by Editor on December 9, 2009 ? 2 Comments
If at first fiscal stimulus doesn?t succeed, spend, spend again. That?s the motto President Obama embraced yesterday, even if he didn?t use the word ?stimulus,? which has managed to set a political record in the speed with which it has become unpopular with voters. This time, the spending is being called ?Proposals to Accelerate Job Growth and Lay the Foundation for Robust Economic Growth.?

But wasn?t that also supposed to be the point of last February?s $787 billion stimulus, or for that matter of the Nancy Pelosi-George W. Bush $165 billion stimulus of February 2008?
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#6
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

Keynesianism Delivers a Decade of Zero

This past week we celebrated the end of what most people agree was a decade best forgotten. New York Times columnist and leading Keynesian economist Paul Krugman called it the Big Zero in a recent column. He wrote that ?there was a whole lot of nothing going on in measures of economic progress or success? which is true. However, Krugman continues to misleadingly blame the free market and supposed lack of regulation for the economic chaos.

It was encouraging that he admitted that blowing economic bubbles is a mistake, especially considering he himself advocated creating a housing bubble as a way to alleviate the hangover from the dotcom bust. But we can no longer afford to give prominent economists like Krugman a pass when they completely ignore the burden of taxation, monetary policy, and excessive regulation.

Afterall, Krugman is still scratching his head as to why ?no? economists saw the housing bust coming. How in the world did they miss it? Actually many economists saw it coming a mile away, understood it perfectly, and explained it many times. Policy makers would have been wise to heed the warnings of the Austrian economists, and must start listening to their teachings if they want solid progress in the future. If not, the necessary correction is going to take a very long time.

The Austrian free-market economists use common sense principles. You cannot spend your way out of a recession. You cannot regulate the economy into oblivion and expect it to function. You cannot tax people and businesses to the point of near slavery and expect them to keep producing. You cannot create an abundance of money out of thin air without making all that paper worthless. The government cannot make up for rising unemployment by just hiring all the out of work people to be bureaucrats or send them unemployment checks forever. You cannot live beyond your means indefinitely. The economy must actually produce something others are willing to buy. Government growth is the opposite of all these things.

Bureaucrats are loathe to face these unpleasant, but obvious realities. It is much more appealing to wave their magic wand of regulation and public spending and divert blame elsewhere. It is time to be honest about our problems.

The tragic reality is that this fatally flawed, but widely accepted, economic school of thought called Keynesianism has made our country more socialist than capitalist. While the private sector in the last ten years has experienced a roller coaster of booms and busts and ended up, nominally, about where we started in 2000, government has been steadily growing, because Keynesians told politicians they could get away with a tax, spend and inflate policy. They even encouraged it! But we cannot survive much longer if government is our only growth industry.

As for a lack of regulation, the last decade saw the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the largest piece of financial regulatory legislation in years. This act failed to prevent abuses like those perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, and it is widely acknowledged that the new regulations contributed heavily not only to the lack of real growth, but also to many businesses going overseas.

Americans have been working hard, and Krugman rightly points out that they are getting nowhere. Government is expanding steadily and keeping us at less than zero growth when inflation is factored in. Krugman seems pretty disappointed with zero, but if we continue to listen to Keynesians in the next decade instead of those who tell us the truth, zero will start to look pretty good. The end result of destroying the currency is the wiping out of the middle class. Preventing that from happening should be our top economic priority.
91023i2ndw;l

Posted by Ron Paul (01-04-2010, 01:36 PM
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#7
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul


<DT id=c5126510561650975065 closure_hashCode_aq9equ="54"></DT><DT closure_hashCode_aq9equ="54"><DT closure_hashCode_aq9equ="54">Directed spending,as an incentive to get a specific objective achieved, worked very well on the Island of Corfu off the coast of Greece a few hundred years ago.<DT closure_hashCode_aq9equ="54"><DT closure_hashCode_aq9equ="54">

</DT>​

<DT closure_hashCode_aq9equ="54"><DT closure_hashCode_aq9equ="54">
guamanian said... <DD>I visited Corfu some years ago, and learned a lesson in the long-term power of policy that I've never forgotten.

From the north of the island you can see Albania a few kilometers away... though it looks like it is on a different planet, since it is barren scrub, while Corfu is verdant with olive, cypress, and biodiversity galore.

The difference is due to one specific policy decision, made several hundred years ago.

In Corfu, the ruling Venetians paid the locals for every olive tree they planted. The Greeks -- being as quick with self-interest as any of us -- planted 3 million olive trees, motivated by the payouts. As a consequence, their descendents lived off of the olive harvest for centuries... of course the Venetian aristocracy also made out like the bandits they were, skimming a percentage based on their control of the olive trade.

Across the water, Albania was under Turkish rule for much of this time, and they did not happen to have the same policy. No 'trees for money' policy, therefore no trees, and therefore 400 years later two entirely different landscapes.

JMG and many of the commenters are rightfully dubious about social engineering, but done right, with a win-win distribution of benefits, and a balance between immediate rewards and long-term good, it clearly can work brilliantly.
1/4/10 1:49 PM

<DD>From:

<DD>https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27481991&postID=7450908301020036691

</DD>​
<DD>


</DD>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#8
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

Even I am in shock at how pathetic the "stimulus " was to our economy

Most expected at least some fraudulent bounce of higher GDP and some job growth

This is pathetic and its no wonder the fed minutes show no signs of raising rates even though the propganda from the MSM keep telling the kool aide drinkers things are turning
Things are turning all right, turning down into an inflationary depression

Obama already has his finger on the reset button



Employment Report Disappoints as Economy Sheds 85,000 Jobs in December<CITE>- Reuters</CITE>
U.S. employers unexpectedly cut 85,000 jobs in December, cooling optimism on the labor market's recovery and keeping pressure on Obama. The Labor Department said November payrolls were revised to show the economy actually added 4,000 jobs in that month rather than losing 11,000 as initially reported. With revisions to October, however, the economy lost 1,000 more jobs than previously estimated over the two months

'WORSE THAN EXPECTED'...
GOP MOCKS DEMS: WHERE'S THE WORK? <!-- Left Main headlines links END -->



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]:LMAO:LMAO [/SIZE][/FONT]
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#9
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

White House Saturday Night Special ? Another $50 billion of Debt



Submitted by Bruce Krasting on 06/13/2010 10:48 -0500



Last night the White House sent a letter to lawmakers asking them for legislation to (primarily) assist states. The plan is to distribute the states money so that they can defer job cuts of teachers, police and fireman.

-I hate it when these things get snuck onto the table in the dark hours of a weekend. Doing it this way is a measure of just how unpopular the ?spend more? economic policies are both in D.C. and in the country.

-This request is about politics. The President wants to spend an extra $50b between now and the November elections. The thinking is that that the 300,000 state workers who will keep their jobs for another half year will all vote for Democrats. That might be the case. My guess is another million or so voters will pull a non-Democrat lever as a result.

-This additional spending bill will happen. The votes are there. It will probably end up as a technical adjustment of the 2009 ARRA stimulus legislation. The result will be a future year budget impact but nothing new on the books in 2010.

The letter from the President strikes me odd. Last week the head of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, went out of his way to tell us that things were on the mend. The MSM pushed this thinking broadly. Many suggested that the better tone to the markets recently was a product of the ?soothing? words from the Fed maestro. The President?s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner has been on the airwaves as well, touting the recovery that he and the Administration has created. Others like Christine Romer and Larry Summers have been talking the same line. With that in mind a few lines from the Presidents letter:




?We are at a critical juncture on our nation?s path to economic recovery.?




?Given the urgency of the continued economic challenges we face??




?address the devastating economic impact of budget cuts at the state and local levels that are leading to massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters.?



?if additional action is not taken hundreds of thousands of additional jobs could be lost.?




?Because the urgency is high these provisions must be passed as quickly as possible?.




?We must take these emergency measures.?




? I know you share my sense of urgency as we continue our efforts to jumpstart job creation and restore fiscal discipline in Washington?.
The pundits (and political leaders) out there who are selling the story that we are in a sustainable V shaped recovery are wrong. The economy struggles to create 40,000 jobs a month. But budget cuts are about to lay off 300,000 high paid workers. The President?s proposal will pass the buck forward a few months on these layoffs. But by January they will be back on the table. We are less than six months away from another significant slowdown. The President no longer has the money to avoid that reality.



 
#12
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

Some time in 2005, Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, who also served as an economic adviser under Clinton, noted that the official Congressional Budget Office estimate for the cost of the war so far was of the order of $500bn. The figure was so low, they didn't believe it, and decided to investigate. The paper they wrote together, and published in January 2006, revised the figure sharply upwards, to between $1 and $2 trillion. Even that, Stiglitz says now, was deliberately conservative: "We didn't want to sound outlandish."


So what did the Republicans say? "They had two reactions," Stiglitz says wearily. "One was Bush saying, 'We don't go to war on the calculations of green eye-shaded accountants or economists.'

How soon we forget Bush was the king of spending for wars.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#14
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

Looks like Ron Paul was right again


Who Got the Stimulus Jobs?



<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/104286" frameBorder=0 width=640 height=360 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>


Please, can we get some adults to run the Country

Obama Clarifies: ?I Didn?t Say Change We Can Believe in TOMORROW?




<IFRAME src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oo2MZx5F1CE" frameBorder=0 width=560 height=349 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obam...e-in-tomorrow/
 
#15
Re: Is Spending the Answer? Ron Paul

Ron Paul Slams Debt Super Committee: ?Monstrous? and Unconstitutional

  • Posted on August 4, 2011 at 5:13pm by
    Buck Sexton
  • Print ?
  • Email ?
Texas Congressman Ron Paul was interviewed by Lou Dobbs on Fox Business News yesterday, and pulled no punches in his assessment of the ?monstrous? debt super committee. He expressed dismay that Congress wanted to abandon its responsibility to legislate to a small committee, asking:
?Where in the world did that come form and what is that going to lead to? That is monstrous. I keep looking and looking and I cant find any place in the constitution where we have the authority to create such a creature as the super congress.?
The Congressman then moved to an even broader concept ? that writing regulations is the same as writing laws. That turned the discussion to the Supreme Court, which has effectively given the EPA extra-constitutional abilities to write regulations (laws) on all environmental matters without consulting the Congress.

Rep. Paul lamented that the super committee and the general trend of agencies creating their own laws is ?not a good sign for constitutional government?. Congress is supposed to write the law.?

Watch the full video here, courtesy of Fox News
 
Top