Should there even be an economic stimulus package?

With all the talk out there, mainly from the Democrat side, saying we need to “do something and do it now” as it relates to our troubled economy, it appears inevitable that indeed “something” will happen. But in the rush to get something passed, and with Obama’s telling the GOP that, regarding the stimulus they need to “not play politics” (read: don’t continue to object to anything we put in it, because we’ve already placated you enough and we need to pass it now), isn’t it long past time that Washington, DC slow the hell down, read the fine print and really debate whether or not this is really necessary? Heck, some Democrats are saying that the current plan isn’t enough! Insanity.

The Politico has an article up today which talks about and quotes some of the skeptics of “doing something right now.” Michelle Malkin’s done a kick a** job on sounding the alarm bells about the stimulus plan for weeks now. ST readers Dana and GWR noted their objections to it last night. First, Dana:

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe the best thing the government can do for the economy is to do nothing at all?

The economy will recover, because the economy always recovers; that’s just part of the business cycle. But President Obama would add spending programs that would push the deficits to above a trillion dollars a year, far as far as the eye can see. That can’t be good.

GWR:

No, you’re not, Dana.

Before the government can spend a dime, it has to get the money, since government produces no wealth. There are only three ways to get it.

They can get it through taxes, which means the private sector has less money for business, saving, etc….which leads to less business for the local supermarkets, computer stores, etc. That doesn’t help the economy.

They can run the printing presses and inflate the currency. That immediately lowers everyone’s standard of living as prices move upward to compensate for the devalued dollar. In the extreme case, you get Zimbabwe.

Or they can borrow the money, which always catches up with governments eventually, leading to a combination of the previous two cases.

There’s a reason free markets and the business cycle go hand-in-hand with prosperity and liberty.

Yep.

What do you think?

Related: Add another voice of sanity to the argument against this bill: Jeffrey Sachs writes about how he feels that [t]he stimulus is a fiscal straitjacket (via Memeo).