’)President Obama has written an op-ed about the stimulus package in the Washington Post.
In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.
I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We’ve seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.
Every day, our economy gets sicker — and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.
“clap for tax cut tinkerbell”-repubs
Obama has no idea what he’s doing.
The “Too Big To Fail” banks that are insolvent (Citi, Wells Fargo, etc.) need to be taken off of life support and allowed to fail. State and federal budgets need to be slashed. Taxes need to be cut. Corporate taxes need to be lower than any other country in the world. Fractional reserve lending needs to end.
We are just prolonging the suffering until these things happen. We are making the same mistake’s that Japan made during their “Lost Decade” and the same mistakes that were made during the Great Depression. The government can’t spend their way out of a recession.
The fact that Obama doesn’t understand this means he is either stupid or he’s not in control.
Very pretty op-ed from the man who once warned us that lipstick on a pig is still a pig.
Taxes need to be cut. Corporate taxes need to be lower than any other country in the world.
Ah, now there’s a Nobel grade method to replenish the treasury. The US corporate tax burden is 76th lowest out of over 100 countries. Fifty years ago corporate income taxes accounted for about a quarter of federal tax revenues; now they account for just one-tenth.
Taxes cut? You can’t tax-cut your way out of a deficit crisis.
Not to mention it’s highly immoral to send a bill to our children and grandchildren that they’re going to have to pay.
The problem right now is unemployment. Those numbers are scary. Obama’s bill will get some people working again, which means they’ll be paying taxes again (Federal, state, and local).
But I agree that we should be letting some (not all) banks fail. They were run poorly, so they should die.
Taxes cut? You can’t tax-cut your way out of a deficit crisis.
Maybe you can explain how INCREASING the deficit by drastically increasing Federal spending will get us out of a deficit crisis.
Not to mention it’s highly immoral to send a bill to our children and grandchildren that they’re going to have to pay.
And yet, that’s EXACTLY what the current Stimulus bill does, increasing the deficit by another $1 trillion.
How can you simultaneously support Obama’s bill AND make that statement without your head exploding?
The problem right now is unemployment. Those numbers are scary. Obama’s bill will get some people working again, which means they’ll be paying taxes again (Federal, state, and local).
I agree about the need to get people working again. But spending almost $1 trillion to get “some” people working again is ridiculous. Despite a lot of talk about how this bill will create jobs, I’ve yet to see anyone provide any kind of detailed analysis that shows how spending this much money will result in significant numbers of jobs created. Instead, we get funding for various (and often nebulous) “programs”, each which, we are assured, will (possibly utilizing magic) create new jobs.
And how much of the spending is intended to increase (or extend) unemployment and/or medical benefits, directly REDUCING the incentive for people to go out and find a new job?
Extending unemployment benefits is not exactly an incentive to not find a job.
So Obama takes to the pages of the Washington Post to defend his stimulus bill as “as “not merely a prescription for short-term spending” but a “strategy for long-term economic growth in areas like renewable energy and health care and education” and deride its critics as “misguided”.
But then, in private meetings with some of those same critics, he admits that the bill does need some “scrubbing”:
So which is it? This bill is super awesome “as-is” and should be passed immediately and without delay, or it has spending in it which won’t help stimulate the economy and will only contribute to the deficit problem (like the “misguided” critics have been saying)?
Dennis: Very pretty op-ed from the man who once warned us that lipstick on a pig is still a pig.
Been waiting months to be able to use that line, haven’t you? Now, having actually gotten that off your chest, how about adding something substantive to the debate?
Dave in SoCal:
Maybe you can explain…
How can you…
But spending almost $1 trillion … is ridiculous.
So what’s your suggestion, Dave? Lots of “that won’t works” but little “here’s what we should do instead”.
What’s your plan, Dave? Would like to know.
Extending unemployment benefits is not exactly an incentive to not find a job
It’s certainly not an incentive to find one, is it?
And how exactly does that spending create a job or put someone back to work?
Dr. Obama isn’t treating the patient’s illness, he’s just trying to make his stay in the hospital more pleasant and comfortable.
Extending unemployment benefits is not exactly an incentive to not find a job.
I’ve known people for whom it is, or would be. They’re in the extreme minority, despite what the welfare warriors would have us believe. They’re not for whom we ought to set the policy.
Fifty years ago corporate income taxes accounted for about a quarter of federal tax revenues; now they account for just one-tenth.
Startling. I did not know that.
So what’s your suggestion, Dave? Lots of “that won’t works” but little “here’s what we should do instead”.
What’s your plan, Dave? Would like to know.
First, how about we separate the “prescription for short-term spending” stuff from the “strategy for long-term economic growth in areas like renewable energy and health care and education”? Anything that won’t impact the economy or kick in within the next two years gets tabled for the moment.
Once the true ’stimulus’ bill is passed, then start discussion and debate on what long-term investments we can/should make that will help drive growth and job creation beyond the two year point. And for a change of pace, why don’t we use the normal legislation process, where it’s proposed, reviewed, debated and voted on openly and in committees, rather than the current Pelosi-Reid “We Won” plan, whereby they draft it in a closed room and then try to shove it down everyone’s throats. There are a few “Blue Dog” Democrats that have a problem with this process as well (at least 11 of them in the House).
Here are a few ideas (15 to be exact) that I think should be applied to any stimulus bill. Lots of examples of “here’s what we should do” in there. Of course, those are all open to debate. I’m not trying to shove this down anyone’s throat, after all.
How does that sound?
I’ve known people for whom it is, or would be. They’re in the extreme minority, despite what the welfare warriors would have us believe. They’re not for whom we ought to set the policy.
But you can’t ignore it either. And how do you know that people who would delay or put off finding a job because they know they have more time until the benefits run out are an “extreme minority”? It’s normal human behavior. Knowing you have 2 months to do something will cause a different reaction than if you only have 2 weeks. “Nothing sharpens the mind at night more than the thought of being hanged in the morning” and all that. It’s called procrastination, and you don’t have to be a “welfare warrior” and think the unemployed are all slackers or something (or whatever it is that “welfare warriors” think) to know that it’s going to be a factor.
And here’s an argument against throwing money at those “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects.
I’m glad that we agree that any further tax cuts for wealthy Americans would be a bad idea.
As for the stimulus bill, that’s the title: stimulus. It’s not perfect, but ask any banker and they’ll tell you that the Fed has to step in the get credit markets moving again so that people can take out loans to create new businesses.
For the past eight years, Republicans have spent like there’s no tomorrow. Now we’re in a real hole, and the stimulus bill is something of a gamble. But it’s a worthwhile one, given the alternatives (unemployment going to 15%, shanty-towns, etc.). Pardon me if I have a hard time taking any Republican seriously who is all of a sudden concerned about “fiscal responsiblity” not that a Democrat is in charge.
To put it another way, 800 billion is very expensive. But it’s also a lot cheaper than all the money (not to mention lives) we’ve squandered in Iraq.
Spend American tax dollars here at home to rebuild our economy, not to prop up pro-Iranian dictators in Iraq.
Anything that won’t impact the economy or kick in within the next two years gets tabled for the moment.
I agree, there is probably a whole lot of junk in the current bill that could wait until the federal budget or at least the State of the Union.
Actuaaly, the price tag for the stimulus is about half what we’ve spent on iraq so far ($500 billion, give or take). In 6 years. Are you finally beginning to grasp how ENORMOUS this bill is and why rushing to pass it would be a catostrophic idea?
As for the stimulus bill, that’s the title: stimulus. It’s not perfect, but ask any banker and they’ll tell you that the Fed has to step in the get credit markets moving again so that people can take out loans to create new businesses.
That was supposed to happen with the previous TARP bailout. Didn’t happen, thanks to an incompetent Bush administration and SecTreas. And what steps are the Obama administration taking to correct this? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
So your answer is, “no it’s not perfect, but we have to do SOMETHING and we have to do it RIGHT NOW”. Again, that was the cry last fall with the banks and mortgage industry and we saw exactly how effective “Urgent Washington Action” can be.
For the past eight years, Republicans have spent like there’s no tomorrow.
So the Democrat solution is to immediately do the same, but to spend even more?
Now we’re in a real hole, and the stimulus bill is something of a gamble. But it’s a worthwhile one, given the alternatives (unemployment going to 15%, shanty-towns, etc.).
Show us who is seriously claiming (and backing it up with actual facts and data) that we’re approaching the era of 15% unemployment and “shanty-towns”.
And it doesn’t have to be a $1 trillion “gamble”. Like I described above, cut out the stuff that won’t have an impact with the next two years and you’ve just cut it down to a $300 billion gamble (or maybe less). You personally might like to “bet it all on 31 black” when you’re in Vegas, but I prefer the people in charge of the economy to be just a little more prudent with OUR money.
You’re really just parroting the “Obama says we have to do something NOW” line.
Pardon me if I have a hard time taking any Republican seriously who is all of a sudden concerned about “fiscal responsiblity” not that a Democrat is in charge.
You’re pardoned. I’ve been just as disgusted with and against the Republicans spending like drunken sailors (no disrespect meant to sailors), but in this new era of Democratic control of the White House and Congress, I don’t see the problem (or behavior) getting any better.
To put it another way, 800 billion is very expensive. But it’s also a lot cheaper than all the money (not to mention lives) we’ve squandered in Iraq.
Your math is wrong. $500-600 billion (current estimated Iraq & Afghanistan costs) is not larger than $1 trillion no matter how you twist it. How much of that was spent on Iraq? Are you saying we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan either? And how much of that $500-600 billion would have been spent on normal peacetime operations?
Time to get a new talking point, Jam. Iraq’s only cost us $550 B, give or take.
I agree, there is probably a whole lot of junk in the current bill that could wait until the federal budget or at least the State of the Union.
Exactly. Or are we doing away with the normal Federal budget process and plan instead to fund everything through a series of “Immediate and Urgent Actions”?
Show us who is seriously claiming (and backing it up with actual facts and data) that we’re approaching the era of 15% unemployment and “shanty-towns”.
Jaim, if you’re using Nancy “500 million jobs lost every month!!” Pelosi as your information source, I’d think again.
Pass the damn bill NOW, warts and all; the key word is NOW. Doesn’t it dawn on the neocon debate squad here that where Paul Volker, Paul Krugman and Jim Cramer all AGREE, there must be a strategy that’s substantially sound? You have to go to the loony Cato Institute to find economists who believe in tax cuts vs. massive cash infusion; the overwhelming number of others believe in a multipronged expenditure of government capital.
The image of intellectually challenged Republican obstructionists as arsonists getting in the way of the fire trucks is a good one.
I think Obama should table Lincoln for the moment and channel LBJ: the arm-twisting he did to pass the Civil Rights Act was reportedly rough but, in the end, totally justified. Does Obama have the leverage over dullard Senators that LBJ had? If not, I wish to hell he did.
You personally might like to “bet it all on 31 black” when you’re in Vegas,
Like Paulson and Bernake?
but I prefer the people in charge of the economy to be just a little more prudent with OUR money.
Which is why Obama wants limits on exec pay for companies that get federal aid.
Time to get a new talking point, Jam. Iraq’s only cost us $550 B, give or take.
I think jam was talking more about the cost of blood.
This whole short-term/long-term argument doesn’t wash for me. I’m all for cutting items from the stimulus package that don’t actually stimulate the economy. A good part of that has been accomplished in the house, but the opposition was either sleeping or didn’t notice that a good part of the hot button items (like birth control) had been removed.
As I understand it, what needs to be done is to get people confident in the economy so they start spending money again. That’s the aim of the proposed plan. What President Obama didn’t count on is the inability of most of the republicans to get beyond party affiliations and really engage in the process.
With the exception of some proposals from centrist republicans (a rare breed), all I’m hearing from the Rs is talk about tax cuts. But you know, that’s all I’ve heard since, oh, about y2k. Tax cuts didn’t keep the problem from starting and it surely won’t fix what’s broken today.
Dave in SoCal:
Have you ever been on welfare? While I haven’t, I’d dare so that it’s not anything great. Most times it is not enough to pay ones bills. All welfare is supposed to be is something to help people get to their next job with out going homeless. Try living on welfare sometime, Dave. Tell me how you’ll love living the highlife while collecting welfare/unemployment benefits.
What President Obama didn’t count on is the inability of most of the republicans to get beyond party affiliations and really engage in the process.
Would that be President “I Won” Obama? And that process, would that be the “Pelosi-Reid drafting the bill behind closed doors with ZERO Republican input ()and little Democrat input)?
Your accusation of the Republicans being the ones partisan in this mess is touching, if a bit inaccurate.
With the exception of some proposals from centrist republicans (a rare breed), all I’m hearing from the Rs is talk about tax cuts.
Then you need to listen more. I gave you a link above from Coburn. He’s not the only one. The claims that “Republicans only want tax cuts” is a myth that Oliver and other people here like to push.
Dave in SoCal:
Have you ever been on welfare? While I haven’t, I’d dare so that it’s not anything great.
Touching speech. If you can’t refute the argument, play to the emotions. Right from the Liberal Handbook.
Tell me how you’ll love living the highlife while collecting welfare/unemployment benefits.
You do know that “welfare” and “unemployment” are two totally separate things, with different purposes, don’t you?
Like Paulson and Bernake?
Or Geithner, President of NY Fed? We saw how THAT all worked out, didn’t we? What’s that saying about repeating things and expecting a different outcome?
Which is why Obama wants limits on exec pay for companies that get federal aid.
And I agree. But what’s he doing on the far more important issue of keeping himself and Congress from bankrupting us all with out of control Federal spending?
CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
By all means, anotherbozo, let’s ram this thing through, warts and all. Although those warts are looking more like malignant tumors.
RE: “malignant tumors.” You’re sending me to the Washington Times, Dave? The Rev.-Moon-owned reactionary rag? Anyway I’d trust the consortium of economists, Nobelists and otherwise, over the CBO any day.
And the chorus of intelligent, let’s-do-it advocates of stimulus is deafening. Krugman doesn’t think the package is big enough, nor do most others, but acknowleges it’s a first step.
“Iraq’s only cost us $550 B, give or take.”
You mean the direct military expense. The total cost of the “He Tried To Kill My Daddy” War will tally to about 1.2 trillion in total cost when you factor in reconstruction costs, healthcare for wounded vets, disablity payments and interest- thats a conservative estimate, BTW..
Anyway I’d trust the consortium of economists, Nobelists and otherwise, over the CBO any day
So where is the analysis coming from this “consortium of economists, Nobelists and otherwise”? A lot of opinions, sure, but actual analysis?
And by the way, some of the economists signing the Cato letter are Nobel laureates too.
It appears Oliver is okay with the CBO as long as it supports his position:
CBO: Bailout Could Make Economy Worse
September 24th, 2008 | 7:57 pm
Oliver: Scared yet?
The total cost of the “He Tried To Kill My Daddy” War will tally to about 1.2 trillion in total cost when you factor in reconstruction costs, healthcare for wounded vets, disablity payments and interest- thats a conservative estimate, BTW..
And how about the $1 trillion stimulus bill, much of which creates and funds new programs or substantially increases funding to existing ones? It’s setting a new baseline for an awful lot of spending. What’s the long term cost of all this increased funding? I suspect it will make your $1.2 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan estimate look pretty small in comparison.
Here’s a shocker: The Washington Times is oversimplifying. Click here and read the source document for yourself.
“A lot of opinions, sure, but actual analysis?”
Dave, you may be sure, when an economist has given you his opinion, he has analyzed the situation. His professional reputation is at stake. And yes, I know some of the Cato economists (Milton Friedman?) are Nobelists. To make judgments of judgments requires subtlety and regular reading, ie, of Krugman’s column and TV appearances, not to mention Jim Cramer’s show and books, to be able to assess them with any degree of probity. Such judgment, on the part of lay people like myself, relies on our objectivity and education in most cases; here, as I said, it’s easier: the volume of the consensus is pretty deafening, to THINK STIMULUS and THINK TRILLIONS. And ACT NOW.
Very pretty op-ed from the man who once warned us that lipstick on a pig is still a pig.
Translation: “Who does this elitist think he is? What with all his fancy ‘words’ and ’sentences’. A real man talks and writes with grunts and moans! Ooga-chaka! Ooga-chaka!”
I agree about the need to get people working again. But spending almost $1 trillion to get “some” people working again is ridiculous. Despite a lot of talk about how this bill will create jobs, I’ve yet to see anyone provide any kind of detailed analysis that shows how spending this much money will result in significant numbers of jobs created. Instead, we get funding for various (and often nebulous) “programs”, each which, we are assured, will (possibly utilizing magic) create new jobs.
I explained how this works. These “programs” aren’t magically run by robots. People run them. People whose job it is to run them. People who are paid to run them. I don’t know how I can make this any clearer.
So which is it? This bill is super awesome “as-is” and should be passed immediately and without delay, or it has spending in it which won’t help stimulate the economy and will only contribute to the deficit problem (like the “misguided” critics have been saying)?
This objection would make sense if the opponents were opposing it on a few specific points. Instead, they are objecting the stimulus on the grounds of it being a stimulus in the 1st place. It’s possible to defend a general idea while thinking it could use some improvements.
Let’s cut those corporate taxes and then raise the top income rates to around 60%. That should keep some of that money in the business.
And yes, I know some of the Cato economists (Milton Friedman?) are Nobelists.
Well, there’s a red flag.
What’s the long term cost of all this increased funding? I suspect it will make your $1.2 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan estimate look pretty small in comparison
Nope, that’s just Iraq but keep digging and dodging, ol boy!
Dave in SoCal says:
February 5, 2009 at 3:18 pm
CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
Actually, not so much.