Slamming Stimulus: Chris Edwards on C-SPAN

Economists do not have an accurate or agreed-upon model of the short-run economy, and their advice is often in error. Politicians should be more humble about their ability to control short-term economic ups and downs. Legislative action based on incomplete information risks destabilizing the economy further. Efforts to fix short-term problems often create long-term damage ‹ such as by putting the nation further into debt. Chris Edwards appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal recently to discuss the "stimulus package" proposed by President-elect Obama.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Cato
• Institute
• Chris
• Edwards
• Pedro
• C-SPAN
• stimulus
• Barack
• Obama
• Keynes
• spending
• cuts
• tax
• economy
• economics
• policy
• studies

[DavidCaddock]

The easiest thing to think about with government stimulus spending is that it's going to come at the expense of higher taxes, government debt, inflation, or a delicious combination of all three. This stimulus package could very well destroy our nations economy.

[BigTimeZissou]

So let me get this straight: our government is going to attempt to get out of debt by borrowing more money. I thought this Obama guy was supposed to be smart?

[1czelaya]

@BurgerChefGuy To call someone a hypocrite and not even understand what one is saying just shows that you don't understand anything I'm saying. You're doing what both parties want- to think 1-dimensional and not have the ability to think beyond that. Good day to you sir. I wish you well and just like you, I wish the best for our country. That it may grow more free and prosperous.

[1czelaya]

@BurgerChefGuy Political ideology is not 1-dimensional, I keep mentioning because you don't understand the political spectrum is not just left vs. right. See the Nolan Chart. You're a minister, God speed to you sir but you of all people know the importance of understanding the truth. You need to understand economics and how economic and social policies play out sir. I too was a Democrat at one time and I wanted to understand.

[1czelaya]

@BurgerChefGuy You haven't proven anything. You're not debating any points. You're not even making an argument. You need to do more research. Blindingly thinking that something is good without researching or understanding it's effects is not wisdom. The Germans thought killing the Jews was cleansing the world. All I'm urging you to do is do more research. I could care less about the left and right. I'm not a Republican. Both parties have failed this country miserable.

[BurgerChefGuy]

@1czelaya SocSec is not going anywhere=GOP needs Florida to win so SS is safe! As a minister I HAVE to go with best intentions-that IS standing on merit. Failing is no fault, not trying is.I We cant go back&forth endlessly. The ORIGINAL point was that I played party favs. I have agreed, gave my reasons and you can't seem to accept. You seem to fav the other side yourself, yet criticize me for doing so. Hmmm, HYPOCRISY, ALIVE AND WELL! Thanks for helping prove some of my points. I wish you well.

[1czelaya]

@BurgerChefGuy It's not OK to support corporatism under Republican presidency but when theirs a Democratic presidency it becomes valid. Do you take allegiance to a party or do you stand on merit. You're making a number of statements that are baffling. You seem to think social programs are good just because they have good intention but don't seem to understand how their paid or take into consideration the cost on tax payers. Again you think that the political arena is just a left vs right issue.

[1czelaya]

@BurgerChefGuy So lets get this straight. I'm assuming you're a Democrat. Bush starts the Iraq war and initiates legislation to bail out banks(Democrats controlled congress & house). The Obama administration is not different. He's continued the Iraq war and started another war in Afghanistan, and started acts of war over Libya. He supports bail outs for failing companies and institutes more government expansion. Obama promises to dissolve The Patriot Act and doesn't. There is no difference.

[1czelaya]

@BurgerChefGuy SS is an unsustainable program. The only way it can stay solvent is if you reduce the benefits and increase the age that you're able to receive benefits-which is what the government has been doing. Instead of the government taking you're money why can't you just keep it. GM is a failing company and so are a number of banks. Let them fail. You're making a number of statements that don't make any economic sense, nor do I suspect that you understand social policies.

[1czelaya]

@BurgerChefGuy That's an incredible statement. Do you understand how SS even works? It always has to take in more money than it gives out in expenditures to remain solvent (basically a Ponzi scheme). The benefits you're parents recieved from SS are going to be far different than the benefits that you receive. You're making a nonsensical argument. It's not OK to bail out banks. But it's OK to bail out failed companies like GM? How about this-let's not bail out any private companies.

[BurgerChefGuy]

@1czelaya SocSec has been seen as a villain for way too long. It was the BEST social program ever started. I guess you just want to throw people on the sidewalks when they are old, huh? Without some protection, what will happen? Hilarious>talking about running us in the red. I DO believe W and the GOP DID that with an unjust war=bankrupt nation. I think you forget the banks were too big to let fail. GE/GM are HUGE employers. Without those jobs, we don't take in needed income to run the nation.

[1czelaya]

@BurgerChefGuy Both parties supporate coperatism. Democrates support social programs that are not sustainable. Expenditures for programs like social security and medicare are running into the red. The so called Democrats that you think support the poor have spent all the money in social security. Democratic leaders support corperatism, just like Republicans. Didn't GM and GE both get subsidies from the tax payers? I hope you're not assuming that the political landscape is 1 dimensional.