You write, "I was under the impression that Yglesias’s failure to mention deficit spending was precisely the problem." Perhaps so, but as you will see if you review my comment I conjectured that Matt may well defend deficit spending, but that was not the case with the post Ross linked.
After I said that I googled "Yglesias deficits." The result, almost 40,000 hits. The first two selections confirmed my suspicion, Matt does see a case for deficit spending. The posts are 1) "Sucker's Bet" posted 9/24/08 and 2) "Deficits Only Matter When They Matter" posted 12/1/08. I recommend them for an insight to his thinking not only on deficits but also taxes. I his September post Matt writes, "...the case seems clear for wildly higher tax rates on high-income individuals than prevailed during the Clinton years. Are we afraid of stifling the kind of fat cat activity that’s brought us to our current situation?" Way to go, Matt!
Now I have no problem with Ross using Yglesias as a foil. But I do have a problem with Ross misleading, my view, readers into thinking Matt was talking about deficits in that particular post. Or even your view, that the criticism offered by Ross goes to the fact that Matt did NOT mention deficits. The plain fact is deficits were not on the table. And in general I have a problem with any criticism that focuses on what was not done, said, written. And I think in the short form comments both Ross and Matt tend to use it is really unfair to criticize comments on what was not written.
On the matter of deficits. I think it is pretty clear that everyone, yes everyone, will find cases where deficit spending is necessary, from the most principled conservative to the most profligate liberal. So in that broad sense deficits are not the issue. It's just a question of which ox is being gored.
On the question, are the democrats and President Obama making a political mistake by backing a broad stimulus plan? Are they being short-sighted?
I have no idea. Especially since the plan remains in flux. Maybe Obama will return to the Larry Summers view of a more targeted stimulus, give republican senators something they can vote for. I will, however, go out on the limb and say if economic conditions in the summer of 2010 are not much improved republicans will have a lot of ammunition
But I hope I have made my by bitch with Ross a bit more clear.
2009-01-31 16:46:11
The post "What 'Belongs' In the Stimulus" by Yglesias does NOT even mention deficits. He is only questioning the reasoning of those who oppose the inclusion of certain parts of the stimulus, Sen. Nelson and David Brooks to be specific.
Douthat's "Deficits Don't Matter?" sights the Yglesias post and goes from there. But sighting Yglesias seems to imply that Yglesias is defending deficit spending. Matt may indeed defend the practice but he does not do so in the post Ross sights. That is very misleading.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Max thanks for your comments.
You write, "I was under the impression that Yglesias’s failure to mention deficit spending was precisely the problem." Perhaps so, but as you will see if you review my comment I conjectured that Matt may well defend deficit spending, but that was not the case with the post Ross linked.
After I said that I googled "Yglesias deficits." The result, almost 40,000 hits. The first two selections confirmed my suspicion, Matt does see a case for deficit spending. The posts are 1) "Sucker's Bet" posted 9/24/08 and 2) "Deficits Only Matter When They Matter" posted 12/1/08. I recommend them for an insight to his thinking not only on deficits but also taxes. I his September post Matt writes, "...the case seems clear for wildly higher tax rates on high-income individuals than prevailed during the Clinton years. Are we afraid of stifling the kind of fat cat activity that’s brought us to our current situation?" Way to go, Matt!
Now I have no problem with Ross using Yglesias as a foil. But I do have a problem with Ross misleading, my view, readers into thinking Matt was talking about deficits in that particular post. Or even your view, that the criticism offered by Ross goes to the fact that Matt did NOT mention deficits. The plain fact is deficits were not on the table. And in general I have a problem with any criticism that focuses on what was not done, said, written. And I think in the short form comments both Ross and Matt tend to use it is really unfair to criticize comments on what was not written.
On the matter of deficits. I think it is pretty clear that everyone, yes everyone, will find cases where deficit spending is necessary, from the most principled conservative to the most profligate liberal. So in that broad sense deficits are not the issue. It's just a question of which ox is being gored.
On the question, are the democrats and President Obama making a political mistake by backing a broad stimulus plan? Are they being short-sighted?
I have no idea. Especially since the plan remains in flux. Maybe Obama will return to the Larry Summers view of a more targeted stimulus, give republican senators something they can vote for. I will, however, go out on the limb and say if economic conditions in the summer of 2010 are not much improved republicans will have a lot of ammunition
But I hope I have made my by bitch with Ross a bit more clear.
The post "What 'Belongs' In the Stimulus" by Yglesias does NOT even mention deficits. He is only questioning the reasoning of those who oppose the inclusion of certain parts of the stimulus, Sen. Nelson and David Brooks to be specific.
Douthat's "Deficits Don't Matter?" sights the Yglesias post and goes from there. But sighting Yglesias seems to imply that Yglesias is defending deficit spending. Matt may indeed defend the practice but he does not do so in the post Ross sights. That is very misleading.