Comments for Bad Faith Economics »
Posted By Beau7890 10 months, 3 weeks ago in Business & FinanceAs the debate over President Obama's economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan's opponents aren't arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don't want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don't want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 35
-
-
36%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's a fraud. If what Obama, Pelosi and Reid want is defined as success and economic stimulus:
Reply
* Swimming Pools
* Arts funding
* Contraception programs
* Sports stadiums
* Parking garages
Then I hope they fail too.
The quickest way to stimulate our economy right now would be to allow the people who earn the money to keep it and spend it on what they want, not what politicians want. That means tax cuts.
Democrats want nothing but spending ... no tax cuts. Pelosi says she'll judge ideas by ability to create jobs. Bull-cocky! She'll judge the ideas based on their ability to grow government
Let's take the birth control bit. There's about hundreds of millions in the "stimulus bill" for birth control funding. The aging hollow-eyed hippie has an explanation. We are supposed to stop having children in order to reduce costs. Stopping women from having children will "help states meet their financial needs." Yeah .. they have all those expenses from health care and education. New human beings are bad for the economy.-
89%
GWHayduke10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, those Bush tax cuts had a wildly positive affect on the economy.......assuming you're among the top 2% wealthiest Americans.
Reply
Democrats want nothing but spending.........HAHAHA!
Take a look at the budget from the past 8 years bucky.
The greatest spending spree in history; all at the hands of the "fiscal conservatives".
Right into an unaccountable trillion dollar deficit, and the largest increase in the size of governmental bureaucracy ever!!!
Saying it doesnt make it so, but apparently it DOES make you believe the crap you parrot.
Funny stuff.-
29%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The greatest spending spree in history; all at the hands of the "fiscal conservatives"."
Reply
"Right into an unaccountable trillion dollar deficit, and the largest increase in the size of governmental bureaucracy ever!!!"
And it pales in comparison to what Obama is suggesting. More of the same as you so rightly pointed out is not the solution. If the last 8 years taught us anything, we cannot spend our way out of this. Think about it, $1 trillion dollars. He makes Bush look like a miser!-
-
100%
GWHayduke10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nor was Bush spending the money on domestic matters.
Reply
Quite the contrary; infrastructure was neglected in favor of nation building in Iraq.
Whatever happened to those pallet loads of free money printed up by the treasury that disappeared in Iraq?
Now THATS some sound fiscal policy!-
33%
beavith110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
with all due respect, what about Bush and the democratic leaderships so-called 'stimulus' expenditure of $150B last spring and summer?
Reply
it caused a temporary 1% uptick in the economic growth for the MONTHS that the money was mailed.
the money that was spent ON iraq over 6 years doesn't equal what we've plowed into TARP and "stimulus" over the last year.
GWH. i know our political views don't line up. i accept that. what i don't understand is your slavish attempt to justify this financial spending train wreck. if $150B was *****ed down a rathole, won't $825B be going in the same direction?
let me be clear: i don't want to see Obama fail.
unfortunately, if Krugman's lousy arguments in this op-ed are what's used to justify this expenditure, i would argue we stop and rethink what we are about to do.
i don't really care if he's a nobel prize winner. clearly, his ship has sailed...-
-
Neutral
GWHayduke10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have not justified any spending package - ever.
Reply
I opposed the bailout of the financial sector.
I still oppose financial support of domestic automakers.
Giving public money to private corporations with no oversight is idiotic.
I do, however believe that investing in the public sector must happen to prevent complete collapse.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, look, buck: you have no reason to believe that Obama's plan is the same as Pelosi's and Reid's, other than that they're members of the same political party. I will agree in that I'm not happy with the way this legislation appears to be shaping up so far. (The process is not finished, however.)
Reply
Spending on those bulleted projects you enumerate accounts for a tiny portion of the entire bill.
Tax cuts in fact made up a significant portion of the package as introduced in Congress, --more than I'd recommend, in fact, as they really don't do anything to stimulate the economy or job creation. (We've already had tax cuts for the top income brackets and for employers over the past eight years, and it didn't prevent the current crisis, nor did it create many jobs.)
As I've said all over Propeller in the past few days, Congress is a huge obstacle that Obama cannot surmount on his own--yes, that's both parties. Members on both sides load up important legislation with favored projects, so less important spending and other proposals (like electronic health-record databases) can be buried in it and voted on at once, with little public scrutiny, in massive packages like this stimulus.
You may have reason to complain about Pelosi and Reid. The fact is, the same thing was done when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House. But don't lump Obama into your complaint unless you can show he supports this ridiculous legislative process. And don't pretend it's something only one party does, either.-
100%
flyonthewallzz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My prime criticism is that it seems to lack bold creativity.
Reply
The status quo is crippled and I am not seeing new seeds.
I wonder if there is a way the government can encourage new companies to rise from the bottom and take out the industries that are "Too big to fail" instead of considering them entitled to their profits.
I have no faith in anti-trust laws and it seems that the bailout money is being used to create even bigger Juggernauts, that lay-off thousands of folks while they play with the billions.
I think large publicly owned corporations need to have a different set of rules than a small business. Maybe even treated like a foreign entity to tariff.-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree about what you call the bold creativity, though I have to admit I can't figure out a way to stimulate the economy either that would ever get through Congress. I'd like to see the government start up a WPA/CCC-type program, but I can't imagine how that's gonna happen--there'd be opposition from unions on the left and small-government types on the right. I'm very disappointed with the way Congress works these days, and I'm not sure how that's ever going to change...
Reply
More to your point about replacing the companies that are "too big to fail," I've come to the conclusion that the short-term thinking of large public corporations is also virtually impossible to surmount. It seems to me that the way the stock market works, boards of directors and company officers will always look to the short term--if they were to take losses in the short run in order to invest in R and strengthen their long-term prospects, stock prices will fall and shareholders will vote the directors and officers out. It seems an inherent problem with publicly run corporations.
But I know you're smart...any ideas?
-
-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To buckncindykill:
Reply
RTDA!
(Read the dang article)
Every thing you mention is addressed in the article.
And refuted as being wrong.
Write something about why Krugman is wrong - takes some quotes (heck, just one quote) from his article and research it and refute his point.
Otherwise, you're nothing but a shill.-
50%
beavith110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nothing is addressed by Krugman in the article. he brings up straw man arguments then knocks them down.
Reply
FTA:
"Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens."
WTF is he talking about?
he goes on to say that no one believes that a tax cut dollar spent is always better than a gov't dollars.
well 'duh.' but no one (heh) had said that.
his argument about school lunches is another example of misdirection. he would argue that the cost per meal served to a school kid is only the amount that they charge (or account for to) the kids, not taking into account he overhead that the program requires. duh. seeing that the program COSTS the total amount budgeted, that's what it COSTS. the difference between what gets charged and what it costs is the subsudy that goes into the program.
as time goes by, i'm forced to ask what planet Krugman comes from. it sure isn't earth.-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The air-traffic control argument addresses the common argument that the federal government does nothing better than the private sector. And many people on Propeller would say that a tax-cut sollar spent is always better than a government dollar. I'm also certain you've heard many politicians say that, though I'm sure no one with a brain actually thinks they believe it.
Reply
Your argument about Krugman's school-lunch argument is directed at a different issue than he's talking about. Krugman is saying that the complaint about the stimulus package is that the costs over many years are divided by the benefit for only one year. Overhead costs are a different matter entirely. If you want to talk about that, then the money in the stimulus package do include overhead (and most of the overhead spending comes from jobs created to set up programs, so any comparison you might make to Krugman's argument doesn't really address the stimulus. Maybe he used a bad analogy, but his fundamental point about the package is still not disproven.
-
-
-
-
flyonthewallzzComment removed: Spam
-
100%
flyonthewallzz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://pndblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099631d0883301...
Reply
Here is a decent chart.
I think the Obama team made a tactical error by offering such a huge tax cut in the beginning.
I tend to read the .pdfs and the one put out by the previous administration said they could balance the budget by 2010, and even a dumb carpenter like me could see huge holes in it.-
100%
flyonthewallzz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was just looking at this one.
Reply
http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1t...
No "pie in the Sky"!
I know many folks here will disagree, but I think we are dealing with a straight shooter here.
Death to the SPAM monster! -
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that the tax cuts will not be effective. I believe they were added to make the plan more palatable to the opposition, though oddly enough Republicans are now complaining about them.
Reply
But in the chart you found (great chart, btw), if you look at all those tiny wedges at the bottom right of the circle, those would all create new industries (and jobs along with them). And there's a case to be made that all those other expenditures (except for the tax cuts) would either prevent job losses or create new jobs in existing sectors...although it's hard to tell from the chart exactly how that money would be spent--the intention is kind of nebulous.
I'll have to read the 14-page PDF you linked to in the other comment to learn more about the plan.
Doesn't it say on this (and every other) page in Propeller that we're allowed to post up to three links per comment? Any time I post more than one, my comments get removed as spam, too.
Incidentally, I seem to have trouble with ampersands in comments...in the reply I gave above to your comment about stimulating new, smaller companies to replace those that are "too big to fail," I now notice that where I intended to write "R and D" using an ampersand, the "and D" was truncated.
-
-
100%
DenCuddy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great story Beau and a better link fly. Just wait though, The poor republicans world is crashing down around them and they don't have a delusional president to reassure them everything is OK.
Reply
Guess what guys republicans screwed the economy and concentrated on the wrong war. Now reality shines in and they start screaming obscenities and convulsing, LMAO! -
67%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The only thing I ask is focus in the bill
Reply
If the money/project does not create or save a job remove it
There is just too much we need in the way of infrastructure to be wasting money on anything else right now
Obama promised to go through spending bills line by line. This will be the first test of that promise
The St Petersburg Times has an interesting article - Politifact.com
They have listed over 500 promises Obama made during the campaign and are tracking the progress of each promise
Here is the section on the economy:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/s...
No. 457: Invest $150 billion to encourage "green" business sector - No action
No. 505: Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs
Stalled - apparently Copngress didn't like that one
No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
Most are listed as "no action" so apparently Congress hasn't included them in the stimulus bill-
67%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you are interested the St Pete article starts here:
Reply
PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter. We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ -
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama can go through each bill sent to him by Congress line by line--and should, as members of Congress should before they vote, but he doesn't have line-item veto power, which means he has to either sign a bill or reject it as a whole. And as I'm sure you know, he can't add lines either. All he can do is keep working with Congress to get particular items added or removed. How long will that take, and do you think it's possible, even after months of negotiating, for him to get the exact bill he'd like sent to him?
Reply-
0%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beau
Reply
It's the one thing politicians never seem to learn - Don't make promises which you know you can't keep
You and I and most members on Propeller know what the realities are on that promise
How many members of the general public know? - I would venture a guess that the majority really believed he was going to be able to go through bills line by line and remove unnecessary spending
It is just the type of promise that will lose him support among the public. All that needs to happen is for the media to point out pork project after pork project and the public will be angry. And who are they going to be angry at?
He made that promise in stump speech after stump speech
And then what can he say? "I can only veto or sign a bill. I can't remove items"
What will that make him look like - the typical lying, pandering politician-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think Obama ever said he'd go through each bill line by line to eliminate unnecessary spending.
Reply
What he did say is that he'd cut spending by examining every federal agency to see which programs work and which don't, and that he'd eliminate those that don't and make the one that do more efficient. And that is actually within his power. That was his response to McCain's promise to cut spending by a certain percentage across the board (which McCain wouldn't have been able to do either--that's another function of Congress).
But we both know that until the general public wises up, there will always be lying, pandering politicians. Lying and pandering works because most people don't have the patience or desire to think about details--they just want to hear about saving money in a simple, easily understood way.-
0%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LA Times:
Reply
Obama promises to weed out wasteful spending
"We are going to go through our federal budget, as I promised during the campaign, page by page, line by line, eliminating those programs we don't need and insisting that those that we do need operate in a sensible, cost-effective way," Obama said.
Line-by-Line
By John Kamensky
One of Candidate Barack Obama’s standard lines in his stump speech was: “As President, I will go through the federal budget,line-by-line, ending programs that we don’t need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.”
Do you think he will keep this promise?
Obama Team Draws Line: No Earmarks In Stimulus
Vice President-elect Joe Biden stressed on Tuesday that there would be no pet projects for lawmakers included in the stimulus bill that Barack Obama will sign upon taking office.
This piece of news, from the pool report on Biden's meeting with economic advisers, is a proverbial throwing down of the gauntlet to members of Congress.
"It's important for the American taxpayer to know that it's not - and I want emphasize this having served many years in the Senate -- this is not going to be politics as usual. And we will not tolerate business as usual in Washington. There will be -- I will say it again -- there will be no earmarks in this economic recovery plan. I know it's Christmas. I know it's the Christmas season. But President-elect Obama and I are absolutely determined that this economic recovery package will not become a Christmas tree. Every dollar will be watched to be sure it's used in an effective manner. We'll spend what we need to turn this economy around and no more. The American taxpayer deserves to know that his or her tax dollars are going be used wisely. And the American worker needs to know that help is actually on the way."
The Obama-Biden team has, in the past, stressed an anti-earmark message, especially on the campaign trail. But efforts to exclude pork from a potentially $1 trillion stimulus could be challenging. The bill will not be subjected to congressional pay-go rules. And sources on the Hill stress that members of Congress won't just hand over a blank check to the Obama administration without having a say in the legislation's construct. At the same time, as the Christian Science Monitor reports, Obama's transition team "points out that congressional leaders have vowed to keep the stimulus bill devoid of earmarks."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/obama-tea...-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay. You interpret that statement differently than I do. The federal budget is submitted to Congress by the president, and of course Congress returns something that's been greatly amended. I'd reply that Obama meant he'd look at the current budget line by line, and submit a new budget to Congress that has been fully examined for waste. It's true that he can't do anything about individual items Congress tacks on, but I don't think that was what his campaign promise referred to.
Reply
As for Biden's comment that the package will not become a Christmas tree, we still haven't seen what Obama will accept--it's not a done deal.-
0%
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Doesn't matter what you think Obama meant or what I think he meant
Reply
What is going to matter is: what did the general public believed he meant; especially the people who voted for him
Perception Beau. It's always about perception
It looks like they decided the funding for coupons for converter boxes for going to digital television has been squashed by the Senate
Digital TV switch likely rescheduled
The big switch... you know -- the one they keep reminding you about? Well, it will likely be pushed back to June.
That's because the U.S. Senate voted yesterday to delay the conversion for a few months until the summer.
http://www.examiner.com/x-963-DC-Pop-Culture-Exami...
Will be interesting to see if the House removes that spending from their version of the stimulus package-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As long as it's always about perception, pandering and misleading the public will reign supreme.
Reply
Part of the reason for the movement to delay the switch to all-digital TV was because funding had run out for the converter boxes.
But switching to all-digital was originally a boondoggle meant only to free up public airwaves for communications companies anyway. It should never have been allowed to happen, and wouldn't have if the FCC were performing their appointed mission of protecting the public airwaves rather than treating businesses they regulate like clients.-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, yes, as it so often is. I believe the original FCC ruling was made in 2004, with the switch to digital transmission scheduled to take effect some time in 2005 and later pushed back to February 2009 (and now pushed back again). Though I could have my facts wrong about this--the switch to digital has been in the works for years, and the ruling has been modified several times.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well DemCuddy this may surprise you but you won't see me criticizing Obama for any vacations he takes
Reply
That line was ridiculous when Bush was president and it will be just as ridiculous if it is used against Obama
Since it seems to be a problem for you with Bush, what are you going to say when Obama goes on vacation?? How are you going to justify that?
We are not living in the days of the pony express or even the telegraph
Doesn't matter where a president happens to be, he is in contact 24/7. There is almost nothing he can't do "on vacation" that he can do in the oval office
Just don't be outraged when it gets thrown back in your face
-
-
-
Neutral
thoughtforsale10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If everybody agreed with Obama´s plans to save the economy, there was something wrong with them! It is quite normal that this discussion is abused for political struggles. There might be, with good reasons I think, fears arising, when so much money is spent. It seems to be contradictive to invest, when everyone is talking about liquidity problems, but remembering that recession is basicly caused by a decline of demand and consumation, it becomes easier to understand that the government must support banks and enterprises by investments and financial bails.
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.