Point of order ...

In speaking with Jambo he informed me that your chief irritation/frustration with me on New Deal was that I seem to accept and champion Reagan, and his deficit spending us into prosperity, while disapproving of FDR's. That given the only difference was Reagan learned the lesson of lowering taxes during his spending, I should give FDR at least some credit for getting part of the equation right. Here is my response ...

1.) I need to preface with this ... in my opinion deficit spending for the sake of economic recovery does not fall withing the purview of the office of President of The United States, or the government in general (he has the authority to effect duly passed and signed law, I'm just arguing that's not a proper "role", I hope that makes sense). You noted that the president must look at an economic crisis as a clear and present danger ON THE SAME LEVEL as he would a national security crisis or war. You put the deadly, dire effects of the Great Depression on par with the war mongering Japanese. I simply disagree. And not just with that direct comparison (although that too). The idea that the President, as the chief executive of our government, would look at an economic crisis and believe he has the same authority, power, and prerogative to intervene as he would in war making or national defense makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The only thing scarier is a citizenry that believes it to be true. To put it bluntly, his powers within the scope of national defense are clear and unambiguous. His powers (or proper role) to involve the government in economic recovery "acts" are murky, at best. If you disagree, that's fine. As I said before its a debate that is much older then the two of us (even you). Our core personal philosophies about the proper role of government are merely more different then I assumed.

2.) To say that Reagan simply got his deficit spending "stimulus" right by including tax cuts and this is what separates him from FDR's deficit spending is, in my opinion, to grossly misrepresent the two men and their policy. First, deficit spending was not the only aspect to New Deal, thus using this comparison of presidencies I find to be a tad inadequate. Massive new regulation within the (perverted in my opinion) scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause, price fixing, etc were all as much a part of the New Deals as spending. But to focus on spending in this comparison - Reagan was not a Keynesian. History shows that he was a balanced budget advocate, except in times of war. And he allowed as a political compromise Tip & the boys to continue to spend on social programs as long they agreed to his defense budgets and tax cuts, that was the political compromise. This is hardly the stuff of New Deal. And by the way, taxes were not central to Keynesian philosophy as I recall. There were 2 primary drivers - massive government deficit spending and low interest rates. But lets not get side tracked on the definition of Keynesian, suffice it to say FDR deficit spent in the red, and so did Reagan. But that's where the similarities end. Reagan did not deficit spend for the purpose of stimulating the economy. In fact I don't believe his deficit spending did significantly stimulate the economy. I asked Jambo that question and he said he thinks it "sparked" the economy to begin to crawl out of recession. I am not willing to even go that far. I don't recall any economic model that shows the 80's boom was a result of Reagan's deficit (defense) spending. Tax cuts combined with the interest rates returning from the sky high 70's created the availability of venture capital which greased everything from the stock market to real estate. There's your boom source. Reagan deficit spent to win the Cold War. To beat the Russians, that was the impetus, not putting people back to work like a WPA, for example. Surely there were individual communities that benefited from the Reagan military/defense budget, but spark a national economic recovery? I really think that's a stretch. And if so, so is the comparison which says that FDR & Reagan followed similar recovery models on spending, just Reagan employed tax cuts. That's comparing oranges and bowling balls. Unless you can show me that it was the Reagan defense spending (which was his deficit spending) that sparked the 80's boom; that his defense budget was on par with New Deal dollars as a percentage of GDP; and that it was Reagan's intent to deficit spend us into prosperity (versus wanting to simply win the Cold War & causing a happy economic side effect in specific communities), then I find that comparison unuseful. The spending and economic models of the 2 men are simply worlds away.

3.) I'm not an advocate of non defense (war) deficit spending. I don't think it works as an economic recovery model. To stimulate the private market with federal dollars the feds must first, in one way or another, take the money out of the private market, so it can then put it back in, so that it ... do you see my point? Leave the money there in the first place. There is no private sector money not already in use. The idea that the government knows better how to spend those dollars, and where, well, I don't see any evidence that warrants such faith. And isn't that what you're ultimately advocating? If you contend that the government must in times of economic crisis stimulate the economy by massive deficit spending, prime the pump so to speak, aren't you taking a great leap of faith that whoever is in the White House/congress at the time of such a crisis will do it the "right" way? You're trusting the government to stimulate the economy by spending our money the "right" way, at the "right" time, in the "right" amount. That's just a bridge too far for me, and I don't want to afford the government (no matter what Party controls the seats of power) that sort of latitude, on principle. And in practice it clearly has questionable results, precisely because the government doesn't get spending right (especially that amount of money) very often, even within areas for which there authority is absolute - anybody recall $400 hammers at the Pentagon? There should be no such thing as a peace time budget that "isn't ready to be balanced", as you contend was the mistake causing the 38' recession. You see the folly there don't you? Without WWII (which reorganized our economy with forced savings, etc) what's the New Deal end game on balancing the budget? If not ready in 37' or 38', then when? Do you see? Once government puts its foot in the economic door and props the economy up artificially, its hard to pry that foot away without sending shock waves throughout the market place. So what's the plan? Leave government there, spending in perpetuity? That's national suicide. Like I said, a New Deal approach is a bad role for the government to play. A role which history shows they very nearly never get right.

4.) If you do still contend that deficit spending is the way (or a chief part of the formula) out of recession/depression, can I ask you, does it matter on "what" the money is spent on? I asked Jambo and he answered that he honestly didn't know. And does it matter "how" it's spent, the strings attached? In other words defense contracts were issued to private companies, who employed people as private citizens in a private firm. It wasn't a case of direct government employment as with public works, the WPA, and so on. Does that matter? And what's the "right" amount? How long should the government continue to spend that right amount before it's time to pull back and balance the budget (remember, we're talking all peace time here)? Do you see the MASSIVE amount of faith one must invest in government to get all of that just right? Are we willing to allow bureaucrats such as Tim Geitner to set those "right" amounts? Is he that bright? Before we ended the conversation I got Jambo to agree that it does, ultimately, matter what the money is spent on. I used Obama's "stimulus" plan as Exhibit A. It's what? A trillion dollars when all is said and done? And I do believe none of us here think that is anything but a gigantic boondoggle that will do nothing to pull us out. So it clearly matters how, when and where the money is spent. I just don't see what warrants the faith that the federal government will answer those questions efficiently.

An aside here ... why? Why would you like me to post on where I disagree with the conservative chattering class, the conservative intelligentsia? Given I listen to 1 or 2 out of the dozens of popular pundits I would of course first have to start listening before I made such a post. But even if you focus on my one or two, why do you need to hear where I disagree with them at? As I've stated, I listen to them for enjoyment/informative purposes, as I prepare for work, or do household chores, etc. The idea that I need post various refutations doesn't make sense to me. Do I list them as my sources here? Do I reference their quotes? Do I advertise their programs as necessary listening? No, no and no. The truth is most of the time I agree with Beck. Not always, but most. But we are both conservative Mormons. I hardly find it irregular that we would agree more often then not. You mentioned that you peruse various sites as part of your morning news routine. And you've mentioned you were one of the three people tuning into watch Oberhmann from time to time. Have I asked to see where you refute any of those sources? Why this need for me to explain here, on this site, where I differ with a pundit I listen to? What does it matter? This request assumes that either A.) I have come off as someone that agrees with them 100%(which is ludicrous for neither I nor you are familiar with 100% of what they have said) or B.) I haven't any original political/historical thought of my own. So which is it? Just thinking about such a request still pisses me off. What's the f*cking point of such a request? Can you tall me that?