Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus

As with medicine, the first rule of law making should be first, do no harm. The "stimulus" bill fails this test spectacularly. Among so many other reasons to tell your U.S. Representative and Senators in Washington to oppose the stimulus, the Top 10 are:

1. The Stimulus Will Not Work

Our history is replete with examples of "stimulus" spending failing to move our economy toward prosperity--Bush just tried it, Ford tried it. Even Christina Romer, Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers agrees. Romer wrote in a study, "Our estimates suggest that fiscal actions contributed only moderately to recoveries." The New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and Obama's stimulus package won't end this recession. In fact, two UCLA economists published a study in 2004 finding FDR's similar New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression by seven years.

It fails because you don't increase economic output by taking a dollar from one person and giving to another. The idea of "stimulus" spending falls for the " broken window fallacy"--the allure of what is seen versus what is not seen. We will see the jobs created by the government spending. What we won't see are the jobs lost because consumers have less money to spend because the government got the money its spending from us--the only place it can get money.

2. The Stimulus follows the same plan that ruined Japan's economy

Japan, after a dramatic market crash and a drop in real estate prices responded with government spending not unlike what the US Congress is considering today. In fact, they had 10 stimulus bills between 1992 and 2000, spending billions on infrastructure construction, building bridges, roads, and airports as well as pouring money into biotech and telecommunications. While many countries enjoyed booming economies and falling unemployment during this time, Japan had a lost decade, seeing its unemployment more than double. They spent double the US level of GDP on infrastructure, and now have a lousy economy and have one of the highest national debts in the world.

After 10 stimulus packages, Japan has gone from having the second biggest economy in the world by a long shot, to being well behind the new number two, China, and is close to falling behind India. We do not want to follow their lead.

3. The Stimulus is full of Wasteful Projects

While we were told the stimulus bill would focus on rebuilding America's infrastructure--mainly the roads and bridges--only 5% of the current bill goes to such projects. The rest of the bill goes to pet projects like:
* $400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
* $200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
* $34,000,000.00 to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
* $75,000,000.00 for a program to end smoking which, if successful will bankrupt the State Children's Health Program Democrats are about to pass (SCHIP) that is paid for by cigarette taxes
* $650,000,000.00 for digital TV coupons
* $50,000,000.00 for the National Endowment for the Arts

These programs are just the 2008 version of the " midnight basketball" program that derailed Bill Clinton's attempt to ram through a "stimulus" bill in 1992. Despite that bill failing, the economy quickly recovered and the economic boom of the 1990s began.

4. The Government Can't Afford the Stimulus

President Bush pushed the government deep into a $1.2 trillion deficit this year, the third time he has set a record for biggest deficit ever, and President Obama's stimulus bill follows his lead, piling on more debt. The deficit in 2008 amounted to about 8 percent of GDP. The entire debt is about 35 percent of GDP.

Even for those who do still believe in Keynesianism, it is important to remember his theory didn't start with the government already over a trillion dollars in the hole, he was generally operating from balanced budgets.

5. We Can't afford the Stimulus

How much is $825 billion? The Heritage Foundation has calculated that that comes to over $10,000 per American family. To further put that in context, on average, families annually spend:
* $2,230 on apparel and services
* $3,595 on health care
* $4,322 on food at home
* $11,657 on shelter

6. The Stimulus is Bigger Than the Economic Output of Most Countries

If this bill were a country, it'd be the 15th largest country in world, ranking between Australia and Mexico. It is bigger than the economies of Saudi Arabia and Iran combined. In fact, the $875 billion it calls for is more than all the cash in the United States.

7. Central Planning like the Stimulus Doesn't Work, Ask the USSR

If centrally planned government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War. If government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth we would be in the middle of the Bush Boom right now. It doesn't. Working, saving, and investing leads to economic output and increases in productivity lead to growth.

As economics professor Steven Horwitz said, "The stimulus plans assume consumption is the source of growth. It is not. It is the consequence of said growth."

8. Remember the $750 Billion Bailout from this Fall?

It was just a couple months ago when we were told if we would just quickly hand over $750 billion to the Treasury Secretary to bailout his friends on Wall Street, he would make the economy all better. That didn't work, and neither will an additional $825 billion.

9. This Money Doesn't Grow on Trees

And this has nothing to do with paper money being made of cotton and linen. The only way the government gets money is through taxing, borrowing, or printing--that is, it has to take it out of the economy in order to put it back into the economy. If government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If it raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul - probably with interest. If it prints the money, inflation decreases the value of the dollar for every American - robbing Paul to pay Paul.

10. Economists do NOT Agree this is a Good Idea

No matter how many times supporters of the bill say it, economists do not all agree this bill is a good idea. In fact, hundreds of economists have come out against it, including Noble Laureates, who signed a letter the Cato Institute ran as a full page ad in several major newspapers opposing the stimulus. Still more economists submitted statements to the US House of Representatives opposing the stimulus proposal.

And this only scratches the surface, there are so many more reasons to oppose the stimulus.

1. I work for a video game company.
2. I'm pretty good at video games, but I don't play fighters.
3. Our "break" room has nothing but fighters: Street Fighter 3, 4 and Marvel Versus Capcom. We have a Wii, but it's always occupied with people playing Smash Bros. Brawl.
4. I once lived on someone's couch and went by the name Guitar Matt, because my name is Matt and all I did was play Guitar Hero.
5. I'll probably work at the same company for the rest of my life.
6. I skate pools.
7. I did not choose my handle because of skateboarding.
8. I just started doing indoor rock climbing, because I'm tired of weight lifting. Ugh.
9. I spend a lot of time with PK Cali (Parkour California) and have met David Belle. On weekends you may see me crawling, climbing and jumping around UCLA, Fullterton college, or various California parks with old walls.
10. My body is always sore.
11. I probably have ADD.
12. Despite probably having ADD, I read a lot of books.
13. I cannot read one book for more than an hour, so I'm usually reading 5 to 10 books at a time.
14. I can't bring myself to study for anything. As such, I'll never finish college.
15. I did a lot of extracurricular activites in high school, despite having a C average -- or maybe that's why I had a C average.
16. Doing drugs has been the only way for me to concentrate. Unfortunatley it does not help me study. (I did not do drugs in high school, nor in college.)
17. I was in academic decathelon in high school because they needed a smart person with a C average. I won a lot of medals.
18. I was in drama and have written, directed and starred in several plays.
19. I was a film major until I realized the reality of filmmaking, namely the spending and aquiring of large sums of money.
20. The man who wrote and directed The Stewardesses, Allan Silliphant, is a family friend. His brother was Sterling Silliphant, who is best known for winning an Academy Award for In the Heat of the Night and being close friends with Bruce Lee.
21. Like my father, I am a jack of all trades and a master of none.
22. My grandfather was in the Navy and worked for General Dynamics during the Cold War, investigating missle silos. He told my father freaky stories about nuclear isotopes and communists hiding in closests. My uncle described my grandfather as being to the right of Archie Bunker. All in the Family was his favortie show, he said nigger a lot, owned a German Shepard and had several guns nearby at all times. He was also an atheist. Oddly enough, it was his atheism that my parents were scared of the most. "Grandpa's going to hell, son." If there's a hell, he'll probably be there, but not for being an atheist.
23. I'm not quite white trash, but I wouldn't be entirely uncomfortable living off the land in a shack full of automatic weapons, distrustful of the government, waiting for the revolution.
24. I'm neither religious nor rascist, nor am I an atheist. I just don't care.
25. I'm writing a book. My screenplays have never sold. One of my professors suggested I write a book, then write the screenplay for the book. Only problem is, I can't concentrate (which is why I wrote screenplays to begin with) so it's taking me forever. Ugh.
26. I have been drawing since conception and have been doing life drawing off and on for 8 years, but I don't see myself pursuing a career in it. It's just for fun -- which pretty much sums up my life.

*1 the people that committed the act were part of an extremist muslim group, basically a cult. they would not have done this act if they weren't in this group and reasoned in that way. thus being motivated by it, yes.

*2 yes, "he is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience at UCLA, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research"

*3 an illogical belief like believing something supernatural which any intelligent person would easily see why such a thing should be dismissed (such as fairies at the end of my garden). nothing like eating a vegetarian pizza, i could just tell someone was peeved at a reasonable person because i suspect they have vested interests in the beliefs being dismissed.

check out this short talk by sam harris, the best thing by him i think :
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-lectures-on-the-dangers-of-both-religious-fundamentalism-and-religious-moderation

also, i'd add that john searle and alan watts are bad recommendations for views on such subjects. john searle is like a small child in comparison to derek parfit's knowledge of the brain and self. also i'd recommend susan greenfield instead of alan watts (he just talks half truths loosely based on buddhism).

For the record, I never mentioned high school. You're not the only one who attended university, Farhad2000.

I don't remember ever writing that FDR was the cause or the only reason why the effects of the depression were felt for decades. I don't presume to know everything about economics.

Contrary to what you wrote,one can say that certain policies created by FDR extended the Great Depression. One can "blame him" with good reason.

Don't take my word for it, though.

Just to mention one example of an expert opinion: Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian published the findings of their 4 year study in the August 2004 issue of the Journal of Political Economy citing FDR's policies as one reason that the great depression dragged on. I believe they even put an exact figure on just how long he lengthened it by.

But let's not focus only on FDR. Considering how complex the US economy is, let's spread the blame out a little. There's plenty to go around to.... say Herbert Hoover, as well.

I understand that there are many different schools of economics, but we (the non-experts) must take the recent findings of the experts and base our actions and our votes on their reports. Otherwise, we are just taking shots in the dark. The economy doesn't perform well under the "guess-and-check" method.


That being said, I'm curious: Which economic school told Barack Obama that his economic policies, in regards to small businesses, would be good for our economy (one that is driven by small business)? Any single one of those policies, when applied to my business, hurts. Therefore, it is bad for my employees because it hinders my profits, which stifles growth, which limits the number and dollar amount of raises, which causes poor employee moral, which........



Lee E. Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research
Harold L. Cole, Ph.D., professor of Economics UCLA, National Bureau of Economic Research


>> ^Farhad2000:
Really?
You know I got taught in university that one cannot simply focus on FDR's presidential policies and blame them for extending the depression considering the problem was based on a multitude of factors at time of limited understanding of economic policies as a whole which lead to Keynesian theory of economics.
And yes imstellar you are a Ayn Rand wank. Because you actually think economic theory of markets is simple and straight, you do realize all theories of economics are simply theories, all of them rely on model behavior, all of them are constantly revalued due to incompatibility with the real world. We debated this over and over in your economic propositions on the blog.
But hey American high school must be much better than that!

I would like to title this comment: FDR and the Great Depression VS Barack Obama and the Current Recession

^1. those who do not study history repeat it

Charles is WRONG about the Great Depression and it sounds like he's proposing that we repeat it.

FDR enacted a few good programs to provide immediate relief. That's all good and well except for the fact that those programs also served to lengthen the depression by a number of years.

"..The government from Hoover to Roosevelt made it worse by intervening too much and too arbitrarily."
ABC Finds FDR Partly to Blame for 10-Year Great Depression

Is that what we want to happen again thanks to the Democrats in congress along with Obama?


"Some economists in retrospect have argued that the National Labor Relations Act and Agricultural Adjustment Administration were ineffective policies because they relied on price fixing."

"Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937. Afterward, however, it increased to 19.0% in 1938 ('a depression within a depression'), 17.2% in 1939 because of various added taxation (Undistributed profits tax in Mar. 1936, and the Social Security Payroll Tax 1937, plus the effects of the Wagner Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act and a blizzard of other federal regulations), and stayed high until it almost vanished during World War II when the previously unemployed were conscripted, taking them out of the potential labor supply number."

"The U.S. economy grew rapidly during Roosevelt's term.[54] However, coming out of the depression, this growth was accompanied by continuing high levels of unemployment; as the median joblessness rate during the New Deal was 17.2%. Throughout his entire term, including the war years, average unemployment was 13%."

Wikipedia.com

See also:

UCLA Economist say FDR Lengthened the Great Depression by several years

FDR Lengthened The Great Depression

A brief history of the Great Depression

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years

ABC Finds FDR Partly to Blame for 10-Year Great Depression

Yes, FDR Made Depression Worse and Longer

Don't Trust the Depression Brain Trust

...and I could go on.

AH! that's the problem, Brentwood is not a city, but a state of mind...no it's an area in West Los Angeles it's roughly around the UCLA campus area. So the five to six hour time frame is what you are looking at.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Hmmm.... Every time I Google Brentwood, it's right outside of San Francisco. So the Sift up would be out by LA?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

She's almost completed a neuroscience PHD at UCLA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayim_Bialik

No crack cocaine and degredation for this child star.

I didn't stumble upon this comment you made months ago until now (I didn't really pay attention to that sift), but I wanted to thank you for a very nice reply. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by bigbikeman:
" The flu virus adapts to attack immune systems. It doesn't evolve. Adaption and evolution are different. The virus doesn't change its form it changes it's tactic. It, just like everything else wants to survive so it adapts to do so. It doesn't evolve to do so."

Holy crap. I'm trying to stay out of these evolution/religion discussions because they just bore the shit out of me, but I've just got to speak up.

You are just flat out wrong. "Adapts" is synonymous with "evolves" (in the strict Darwinian sense) when you're talking about viruses.

Viruses are very simple organisms that replicate (and thus mutate....read: evolve) rapidly. Does this make them adapt? Yes. Is the adaptation non-evolutionary? Hardly. The changes in their ability to attack their host are derived *directly* from mutation/evolution. Viruses don't use "tactics" in any sense that *isn't* tied to their mutation/evolution. Hint: they don't have brains or consciousness....any "behaviour" they exhibit is in total lockstep with their biological chemistry.

In fact, they are a textbook example of an evolutionary model, and one of the simplest ways of demonstrating evolutionary principles because we can see changes in timeframes that aren't prohibitively gigantic. Successive generations of viruses are genetically different, in a measurable way, from their ancestors.

But, don't take my word for it.

http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/051115_birdflu
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/res_virus.html

Looks like an UCLA Bruins bear.

Talk out your arse much cobalt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

[edit] Toxicity
According to the Merck Index,[2] the LD50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of Δ9-THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a man weighing 75 kg (165 lb) inhaling the THC found in 21 grams of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana.[3] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000.[4] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[5]





[edit] Confounding combination
The most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.[6] One paper claims marijuana use can increase risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [7] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco. Some people question whether the agencies that do the research try to make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final conclusions, are what should be examined.[8]

However, contrasting studies have linked the smoking of cannabis to lung cancer and the growth of cancerous tumors.[9][10][11][12] A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.[13] Some of these finding may be attributed to the well-known custom that many British citizens often mix tobacco with marijuana. It should also be noted that a recent study conducted at a lab in UCLA has found no link between marijuana usage and lung cancer.[citation needed]

Cannabis also has a synergistic toxic effect with the food additive Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and possibly the related compound butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The study concluded, "Exposure to marijuana smoke in conjunction with BHA, a common food additive, may promote deleterious health effects in the lung." BHA & BHT are man-made fat preservatives, and are found in many packaged foods including: plastics in boxed Cereal, Jello, Slim Jims, and more. [14]


[edit] Memory
Cannabis is known to act on the hippocampus (an area of the brain associated with memory and learning), and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects and in some cases for the next day[15]. In the long term, some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[16] Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease.[17] A 1998 report commissioned in France by Health Secretary of State Bernard Condevaux and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques," (like MRI). "Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)" (translated). He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine.[18][19][20]


[edit] Adulterated cannabis
Contaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar-type sources[21]. The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment[22]. Recently, there have been reports of herbal cannabis being adulterated with minute (silica [usually glass or sand], or sugar} crystals in the UK and Ireland. These crystals resemble THC in appearance, yet are much heavier, and so serve again to increase the weight, and hence street value of the cannabis[23].


[edit] Pregnancy
Studies have found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.[24][25] A recent study with participation of scientists from Europe and the United States, have now identified that endogenous cannabinoids, molecules naturally produced by our brains and functionally similar to THC from cannabis, play unexpectedly significant roles in establishing how certain nerve cells connect to each other. The formation of connections among nerve cells occurs during a relatively short period in the fetal brain. The study tries to give a closer understanding of if and when cannabis damages the fetal brain[26][27].[28]

Other studies on Jamaica have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[29][30] In a study in 1994 of Twenty-four Jamaican neonates exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 non exposed neonates comparisons were made at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. Results showed there were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. This work was supported by the March of Dimes Foundation.[31]


[edit] Cancer
On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[32]The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[32][33][34][35] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[12] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[9] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[36] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[32]

For more about this, check out http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/full/449146a.html

as well as

http://nano.arts.ucla.edu/mandala/video.php

" The flu virus adapts to attack immune systems. It doesn't evolve. Adaption and evolution are different. The virus doesn't change its form it changes it's tactic. It, just like everything else wants to survive so it adapts to do so. It doesn't evolve to do so."

Holy crap. I'm trying to stay out of these evolution/religion discussions because they just bore the shit out of me, but I've just got to speak up.

You are just flat out wrong. "Adapts" is synonymous with "evolves" (in the strict Darwinian sense) when you're talking about viruses.

Viruses are very simple organisms that replicate (and thus mutate....read: evolve) rapidly. Does this make them adapt? Yes. Is the adaptation non-evolutionary? Hardly. The changes in their ability to attack their host are derived *directly* from mutation/evolution. Viruses don't use "tactics" in any sense that *isn't* tied to their mutation/evolution. Hint: they don't have brains or consciousness....any "behaviour" they exhibit is in total lockstep with their biological chemistry.

In fact, they are a textbook example of an evolutionary model, and one of the simplest ways of demonstrating evolutionary principles because we can see changes in timeframes that aren't prohibitively gigantic. Successive generations of viruses are genetically different, in a measurable way, from their ancestors.

But, don't take my word for it.

http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/051115_birdflu
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/res_virus.html

Some other examples of radical transparency:
Cancelling AOL - not so easy
Cable repairman falls asleep on customer's couch
UCLA student tasered

For those of you still interested, a blogger has posted some info and is saying that the previous article I posted was at least partially incorrect, Duren never worked for the LBPD and was actually named UCLA's Officer of the Year in 2001. Article here: http://blogging.la/archives/2006/11/ucla_taser_incident_just_keeps.phtml

Fight tha powa!

Rembar,
I too am used to the application of chokes and strangles.
The use of them in Judo tournaments, MMA etc is safe, because the ref stops the fight, and there is medical personnel right there.

This is not the case in police incidents. It is in essence "Real Life" as apposed to a sporting event and there are way more factors involved such as the health of persons being choked, excess adrenaline, malice, poor training etc. That is why the Taser was developed.

Unfortunately they will be banned, and cops will again beat, choke and shoot suspects when pepper spray is not an option. More people will die because of this UCLA incident.

(