Media Matters offers another intelligent answer to the utter nonsense we’re hearing about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and elsewhere.
Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody’s Economy.com, presented the facts in his written July 24, 2008, testimony before the House Committee on Small Business (see table below). On cable TV, only Rachel Maddow has reported on this as far as I know.
Spending beats tax cuts as an economic stimulus. Refundable tax cuts are better than non-refundable tax cuts. Temporary tax cuts are better than permanent tax cuts. A payroll tax holiday would be good. But no tax cut proposals beat government spending as a boost to the economy.
I’m watching the debate on TV now. In the Senate version on the economic recovery bill, they are ditching badly needed spending in favor of tax cuts, and reducing the size and impact of the legislation by around $100 billion. Why? Because Democrats are trying to attract the support of two or three Republican senators. Why? Because of the mythical “60-vote rule,” which apparently only applies to legislation the GOP opposes.
Why let Republicans sabotage economic recovery? We have 11.6 million Americans out of work, most of them with no unemployment insurance. “Sorry you don’t have a job,” the right-wingers will say, “but hey, good news, we’re cutting your income taxes.” On your nonexistent income.
Hormel, the makers of Spam (the meat substitute, not the e-mail) say they are having trouble keeping up with demand.
Maybe the right-wing slogan should be “let’em eat spam.”
UPDATES: (from Think Progress)
- Supporters Of $1.3 Trillion Bush Tax Cuts In 2001 Now Call $900 Billion Recovery Plan Billion ‘Too Much’
- Edging towards a depression
- Senate centrists’ plan = 600,000 fewer jobs
An economy in free fall, as Washington plays politics
UPDATE: Paul Krugman:
I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.
The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.
…My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.
The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.
UPDATE: CNN has a list of spending proposals cut out of the economic recovery bill in exchange for two or three Republican votes in the Senate.
UPDATE: Via OpenLeft, here’s a graph from Calculated Risk that compares job losses in all eight previous post-WWII recessions to the current Bush recession:
The orange line represents the 1981-1982 Reagan Recession. The red line is the first Bush recession that began in 2001. If you follow the link, Calculated Risk also has a graph that normalizes for changes in the size of the work force. It’s just as scary, because it shows that employment is still declining rapidly after 13 months, past the turnaround point for nearly all previous recessions.
UPDATE: Following the House-Senate conference, it looks like President Obama is getting almost exactly what he asked for from Congress. There will be $789 billion for economic recovery, and the proportion of tax cuts in the final bill seems to be in line with what Obama wanted.
#1 by Anonymous on February 7, 2009 - 12:33 pm
Yet borrowing and spending somehow will. The country is truly unhinged.
#2 by Ken Bingham on February 7, 2009 - 12:42 pm
Our economic troubles is a crisis of confidence. Going on a spending binge and paying later will not inspire confidence. Giving business’ and individuals some relief from over burdensome taxes will inspire confidence.
#3 by Anonymous on February 7, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Perhpas we should eat spam. That’s what I do when I have no money, that and eat ramen.
The Ramen no spendulus plan, only ramen noodles for lunch at the congressional cafeteria. What’s Barney Frank gonna do? He might lose some weight.
#4 by Ken Bingham on February 7, 2009 - 12:54 pm
Well, there’s egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;
Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
#5 by Ken Bingham on February 7, 2009 - 12:56 pm
Last post was lovingly lifted from Monty Python’s Flying Circus.
#6 by Anonymous on February 7, 2009 - 3:52 pm
Just caught this.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/economicrecoverymeetings/
Make your republican friends watch it. Tonic for the crisis weary.
#7 by cav on February 7, 2009 - 4:16 pm
We know Obama plays a long game — we’ve all gotten so used to expecting results immediately, that we don’t appreciate long-range planning or strategy.
Of course he knows what obstructionist assholes the congressional Rs are. Of course he knows they’re going to spit on his outstretched hand. They’re reacting to his dignified bipartisan outreach exactly as expected. They’re not surprising him — hell, they’re not surprising us.
I think Obama’s next move — or maybe it’ll be two or three moves away — will surprise all of us.
It would be untrue to say, I’m not excited.
#8 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2009 - 4:43 pm
I knew somebody would bring up Monty Python. Congrats to Ken!
I hope cav is right, but in the short run it sure looks like the Republicans are damaging the recovery plan without actually having to vote for it in significant numbers, thus escaping responsibility for their sabotage.
#9 by cav on February 7, 2009 - 7:24 pm
…and damaging themselves in the eyes of the voting masses in the process. Yea, give more money to bankers why don’t ya.
#10 by Ken Bingham on February 8, 2009 - 12:06 am
If all these Obama cabinet appointees would pay their taxes maybe we could afford these trillion dollar “stimulus” packages.
#11 by cav on February 8, 2009 - 12:46 am
I’m not saying Obamas picks were in this league, but I think there was something of a tax revolt in response to some of the previous administation’s skanky policies. Any such nonviolent approach to altering the country’s direction can rightly be seen as playing a part in the money debacle we now face. That, the greed of the corporate / hawk types, and their mindless supporters, pretty much assured some fubar in a very different dimension would be occurring. Here we are.
Perhaps if we hadn’t been so spooked by the WTC attack, all the fear and propagandizing, and pursued a more temperate course in response to it, there may have been no need for any of this. We tried and are still after it to this day.
#12 by Federal Farmer on February 8, 2009 - 3:18 am
Warnick’s desperate attempts to justify the Democratic stimulus plan is almost comical; just another example of how far Obama apologists will go to protect their president and party.
Richard, I would like you to briefly explain, in your own words, exactly how this “economic stimulus” is going to ensure “economic recovery?”
What is the main purpose of this bill- Stabilization of the American credit and/or housing markets? Does it ensure jobs? Is it true that 90% of such jobs produced will be in the private sector? Is it going to encourage investment? Address a growing money supply? What exactly is this “stimulus” supposed to do, anyway?
For no matter how much time I spend reading over its proposals to shell out hundreds of billions of dollars for unemployment and healthcare benefits, plans to fund numberless social programs such as STD prevention, its provisions to afford energy assistance for low-income families, child support for broken homes, and education grants for disadvantaged children, or how it offers significant tax write-offs to Hollywood moguls— I just can’t seem to see exactly how this is going to stimulate our economy!
Does increased government spending lead to jobs creation? Yes, only if the spending is handled correctly and specifically confronts the areas of concern. More than a quarter of this stimulus (somewhere around 39% of the $550 billion) is designated to state/local governments’ social programs, while a little over 10% will be going towards actual infrastructure projects. This country has a significant unemployment rate in areas of construction and manufacturing (ideal for infrastructure), and yet a significantly LOW unemployment rate for “government workers” (ideal for social programs and bureaucratic jobs)… and yet the stimulus seems to ignore this reality altogether.
Democrats continually cite the growing numbers of unemployed, as if this ridiculous stimulus will be able to bestow employment opportunities for each and every jobless American. First, it is being assumed that these individuals have the adequate background for such jobs, and it is also assumed that they will actually take the jobs that the stimulus will supposedly create. Many of these government jobs require some degree of education/training, and in a best-case senario, thousands of Americans will undergo training and preparation to someday assume their jobs; this will only further delay the “stimulus” for our economy.
Why focus just on job creation? Well, that seems to be the most plausible argument for a longterm stimulus of the economy, not to mention, it seems to be the hallmark of the plan for Obama and his underlings.
Come on cav, are you serious? This stimulus is getting flak from experts on both sides precisely because it won’t have any longterm economic benefit. If you are going to defend the plan, stick to the short-term. While such an argument is also ridiculous, it is more believable than your “long-range planning” idea.
cav, you’re apologetics are making me roar with laughter. Especially how Republicans are “going to spit on his outstretched hands” – to be honest, I am getting a mental image of an Obama-Jesus figure being shamefully abused by Pharisee-like Republican lawmakers.
You make Obama sound too noble, cav, no doubt this absurdity just contributes to your overall deification of Barack Obama. First, if Obama and other Democrats expect Republicans to join them hand-in-hand in supporting this stimulus plan, it would be wise to insist that the Speaker of the House at least allow some Republican input in the creation of the bill itself; that might just be a little more “bipartisan” than barring any Republican from participating.
It also might be effective to at least attempt to conceal some of your typical Democratic pork. This bill shamelessly flaunts an age-old agenda, and humorously labels it an “economic stimulus.”
Keep believing in Obama’s grand strategy, for surely its “two or three moves ahead” of everyone else… you may be the only one left when this stimulus gets resolved. The more this stimulus is being examined, the less effective it is believed to be.
Not even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) can jump onboard with this one.
Government spending didn’t work under Reagan or Bush, but all of the sudden, Democrats are estatic over the government-spending argument. National debt? Forget it, that was just a talking-point during Republican administrations.
Obama and his Democratic mob of idiots are quickly losing this debate, and world nations are equally critical of the proposals. Does this economic “stimulus” address the housing or credit crises? Does it provide for longterm economic growth? Can it even claim to solve rising unemployment? Or is this just a Democratic agenda deceptively bundled up and injected with worthless pork projects.
Other world leaders are becoming increasingly concerned as the Obama administration pushes to pass this stimulus, especially because of its highly protectionist standards for “buying American.” The Hawley-Smoot Tariff in the early thirties prolonged the Great Depression, and that is an obvious lesson from history. Maybe while he is studying the lives of American presidents like FDR, Obama should pay considerable attentiont to the mistakes made during the Great Depression, and how protectionism crippled this nation!
Richard, how on earth do you expect anyone to buy that this stimulus is going to stimulate the economy? If it didn’t work in the 1970’s for world nations, what makes government spending the solution today? What about past “stimuli?” If we are just supposed to spend ourselves out of this crisis, what happened to all of that money that we received last year? Or the billions spent on supporting those banks and firms “too big to fail?”
Hopefully cav’s almighty Obama can rescue us from this disaster through his omnipotence and mercy. But I wouldn’t guarantee it.
#13 by Becky on February 8, 2009 - 7:46 am
FedFarm, I haven’t read your entire comment – don’t know if I will. But I’m still giggling at your request for Richard to “briefly” explain.
#14 by Becky on February 8, 2009 - 7:51 am
Ken,
Your attempts at humor got lost in the seriousness of the crisis. The cabinet picks are not going to matter much if we don’t get people back to work and soon. All this grandstanding and nitpicking is politics as usual. As Richard said (I think) earlier, the Dems don’t need 60 votes, they just need a majority to pass the bill. I think they should just go for it and if the Reps decide to filibuster, they will just show themselves for the obstructionists they are.
#15 by cav on February 8, 2009 - 8:15 am
Federal Farmer.
Yes, I’m serious about what seems like the ‘longer term’. We’re no longer talking about whether the price of gas goes up $.04 or $.05′while we sleep tonight. It’s more about if we’ll even be able to turn this Titanic and Utter Failure of the last twenty or so years enough to even begin to seriously think (let alone act), on re-setting societal goals that might conform to who we say we are. It’s about ditching much of the Status quo, setting in motion something quite different, then nurturing it for the sake of the many of us who go unrecognized by the muckety-mucks. Now, THAT’S going to take a longer view.
Given the catastrophic successes of the previous administration, is there any question that there’ll be more shit hitting the fan before we decide to cool ourselves using some other means? So, by all means, let’s talk more about bipartisanship. Republicans can vote with their hearts and still dig us deeper. Not always but you must admit there’s a possibility, and ample precedence
Obama and his democratic mob, just like GW and his republican mob are really nothing more than the tools, We the People are being asked to make use of in a situation that may really require something else altogether. It may be audacious to hope that we can rectify our messes without a drastic re-write by Mother Nature, (but I wouldn’t put that off the table).
I’ll agree with you that banking on one small team’s Omnipotence and Mercy ain’t gonna do it. But how can you put much trust in Republicans when for so many years, they’ve gotten so much of it exactly wrong? Still, we as a society / civilization haven’t gotten it ALL wrong in EVERY instance, so working at correction is really our only option. Wouldn’t you say.
For the sake of continuing the discussion, I’m ready to entertain a posture similar to that held by Global Climate Change opponents. It’s simply not our doing. It’s written in the stars, no fault here. If that is where you’ld like to take this: I’ll yield the rest of my time to distinguished Lizard from the great era of the Pleistocene
#16 by cav on February 8, 2009 - 8:20 am
And top of the morning to you, Becky.
#17 by Becky on February 8, 2009 - 8:48 am
And to you, too, Cav. Coffee is kicking in. Feeling pretty cheery.
#18 by Moribund Republic on February 8, 2009 - 10:27 am
Not to many many dominant lizards in the Pleistocene cav.
#19 by cav on February 8, 2009 - 10:40 am
Picky, picky.
#20 by Tim Carter on February 8, 2009 - 10:57 am
I thought this was an interesting article from 2001:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2059246
It seems some were aware of the effect he Bush tax cuts could have on the deficit.
#21 by Richard Warnick on February 8, 2009 - 11:11 am
Ken–
To paraphrase Matt Yglesias, describing an $820 billion economic recovery bill as if it was going to cost $1 trillion is like calling a one dollar candy bar a “$180 billion candy bar.” You’re off by the same amount.
FF–
I think it’s highly ironic that the Republicans in Congress who voted for former President Bush’s $1.3 trillion tax cuts, his $1 trillion plus invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the Wall Street bailout without asking any questions at all have suddenly discovered the virtues of balanced budgets. Look at the job loss graph above and tell me nothing should be done to save the economy.
The Republicans lost the last two elections and they are running scared. They wrecked our economy, and are justly being blamed for it. But they’re against economic recovery because they remember the New Deal ushered in 40 years of Democratic Party dominance.
What is your evidence for calling me an “Obama apologist”?
#22 by Becky on February 8, 2009 - 11:19 am
Tim, excellent article. If we (all of America) could only have known then what we know now. And, of course, the wisdom of Homer always mirrors life so well (Simpson, not the Greek poet):
#23 by Tim Carter on February 8, 2009 - 11:29 am
Here is a pretty good interview from this weekend:
Scarborough: Let me just say though, George Bush over the past eight years had the most disastrous spending policy. They decided to cut taxes. They decided to increase the deficit. They decided to increase entitlement spending while they were fighting two wars. They made no tough decisions what so ever. You can’t say that that’s the traditional conservative approach to economics. It was a disaster and I think we can all agree with that can we not?
Krugman: You’ve got some mythincal image of what a modern conservative is. Reagan increased spending while cutting taxes. Bush increased spending while cutting taxes… Who is your ideal here?
At 2:25 from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIu94vj9onM
#24 by Tim Carter on February 8, 2009 - 3:01 pm
To be fair, I’m not a fan of the stimulus. And Fed is right, spending our way out of it, probably isn’t going to work. Spending got us where we are at. Obama knows he has to do something, even if it is wrong. So here we are. We’ll see what happens. I don’t think it will do much, other than further de-value the dollar.
Richard, Cav and others are right also that: Where were the Republicans that are attacking spending now, the last eight years? Why weren’t they holding their party accountable? But now they need to be heard? 10 trillion dollars later, and now 180 billion in stimulus spending is bad. Bullshit.
I guess we have to hit bottom before Americans finally get it. I think 180 billion in stimulus spending will only get us there a little faster.
#25 by Rich Okelberry on February 8, 2009 - 3:18 pm
Richard,
I have a question… Well more of a thought experiment with a bit of Socratic Method thrown in for good measure.
If $800 Billion in new spending will help the economy, why not increase it to $800 Trillion in new spending? That’s Trillion with a capitol ‘T’, in case you were not reading correctly. Before you answer you should think of all the schools and windmills you can build for a few hundred Trillion dollars.
Would you go for that, Richard? Why or why not?
#26 by cav on February 8, 2009 - 4:23 pm
My credit line is presently $5,000.oo. $800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 might just bring that island purchase I’ve been contemplating into reach.
Work with me here.
#27 by Tim Carter on February 8, 2009 - 5:49 pm
Hey Cav. I say go ahead and buy the island. When you can’t make the monthly payment, cry ‘predatory lending’ to your bank, and we’ll all chip in to help out. Problem solved. I’d commit soon though. I don’t see us being able to afford another round of ‘bailouts’. I think they will almost certainly be asked for.
http://thekomisarscoop.com/
#28 by Tim Carter on February 8, 2009 - 7:13 pm
Hey Cav, tell me what you make of this:
“On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically. The treasury tried to help with $150 Billion. It was an electronic run on the banks. But could not stem the tide.
The treasury intervened but had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawled and collapsed and within 24 hours the world economy.”
From 2:20 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INAGMSARPYw
#29 by Shane Smith on February 8, 2009 - 7:20 pm
“If $800 Billion in new spending will help the economy, why not increase it to $800 Trillion in new spending?”
One word, stagflation, look it up.
Now I have a question, is this your economic equivalent of CO2 destroying inversions?
Honestly, do you bother to learn or think about anything before you comment?
#30 by cav on February 8, 2009 - 7:31 pm
I had no idea taking my retirement just then would hit y’all sooo hard! (And btw, thanks peeps!) But since that was only the half of the magically disappearing monies, I suspect some body’s scamming here. Madoff, can I speak with you in my office.
Tim, my ‘puter won’t crack youtube very readily, so I’d appreciate your take on that enormous draw-down. The usual suspects, I s’pose.
Editorializing: We need to detach the value of our labors from the dollar or it won’t be worth working at all.
#31 by Rich Okelberry on February 8, 2009 - 7:51 pm
Shane,
To be clear, since you seem to think I need help with this subject. You are saying that $800 billion is not too much for the government to spend but $800 Trillion is certainly too much, right? So, please use your obviously large brain and tell us at what point, stagflation happens? At what point does spending by the government become detrimental to the economy as YOU have just suggested.
Also, I don’t drive a Hummer. I drive a 1971 Ford Bronco frame off with a gasoline sucking, modified 302 pushing over 375hp and a 6 inch kit. Hummers don’t have enough power to weight ratio or clearance for me.
I imagine you walk everywhere shoeless and live in an earth dwelling heated by a compost pile, right? The funny thing about Treehuggers (Obama’s term for environmentalist like yourself), no matter how hard you try you will always be a hypocrite because there will always be someone conserving more than you. BTW: I lost track of our last conversation, did you ever figure out why the green house effect doesn’t work in a SLC inversion? Did ya?
#32 by Tim Carter on February 8, 2009 - 8:09 pm
“Tim, my ‘puter won’t crack youtube very readily, so I’d appreciate your take on that enormous draw-down. The usual suspects, I s’pose.”
Yeah Cav, I didn’t fully understand it. I was sincerely hoping to get your take. I just thought it was interesting.
‘Puter won’t crack Youtube? Just old or band width? USU up here has a surplus sale in March. Older comps (Pentium 4s) for pretty cheap (under 100). Let me know. Then you can enjoy cool stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4cQ3BoHFas
#33 by Becky on February 8, 2009 - 8:33 pm
Tim,
That last YouTube vid was crazy. However, the first with Congressman Kanjorski, I just don’t get it. I googled the incident he talks about that you referred to (the sudden draw down of money market funds) and I can’t find anything else on it. Is he making this up?
#34 by Tim Carter on February 8, 2009 - 8:48 pm
Yeah Becky, I didn’t get it either. I tried to research further also, but maybe I wasn’t looking in the right places. From the interview, his statement of: “We don’t even talk about these things.” makes me believe he wasn’t just pulling it out of his ass. I don’t know for sure though. Maybe that caller chewing his butt at the first of the interview rattled him, and he said something he wasn’t supposed to.
Oh yeah ‘Korean Madness” is top-shelf.
#35 by cav on February 8, 2009 - 8:53 pm
I’m just romantically attached to the evil ‘Dial-up’.
#36 by cav on February 8, 2009 - 8:57 pm
Tommorow, I’ll hit some econo-blog archives for more info and check that youtube offering.
Til then.
#37 by Becky on February 8, 2009 - 9:22 pm
Nite, Cav.
#38 by Federal Farmer on February 9, 2009 - 11:39 am
cav, to be completely honest, I see where you are coming from. And I like what you are saying (for the most part) about “resetting societal goals.” I agree that there have been some serious irresponsibility that has been allowed to exist for decades now, in both the private and public sectors.
I for one have been a consistent critic of the Bush’s administration’s reckless spending record, and naturally, I have also lost a lot of respect for Congressional Republicans who call themselves “conservatives,” yet can’t seem to get their taste for spending under control.
I think that Barack Obama has an opportunity to change things, and for that reason I was glad to see him elected and not John McCain. Nevertheless, I fear now that Obama is caving into Democrat demands from the Senate and House. I don’t believe that Obama himself is as supportive of this stimulus as some may think, but I also feel that he understands the importance of not dividing his party.
But cav, spending billions and billions of dollars on social programs and pork projects isn’t going to magically turn things around. If the government is going to indulge in massive spending in order to ensure economic recovery, it must be done intelligently and at times, sparingly. I worry that this “stimulus” is going to threaten inflation and send our country into an even deeper recession. We would be borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars more from China, which in turn will need to be paid off by generations of Americans. Are we certain that this particular stimulus is worth the risks?
Tim Carter, you are spot-on here. I don’t disagree at all. Republicans have severely disappointed me over the past decade or so, and I for one feel that they didn’t deserve to win the presidency again. The Republicans have lost touch with most of the tenants of their party that made them relevant. If they continue to seek guidance from “Joe the Plumber” and Sarah Palin, they will no longer be a relevant political party.
Good points here, too.
I hope that both sides can find common ground on this issue, but I could never feel comfortable with this kind of spending on these kind of projects. Simply put, they will stimulate the economy in a way that will change things; it is highly probable that they will in fact, make things worse.
Republicans have a chance to revive their “conservative” identity here, but if they continue to play political games they really are no different than the opposition they are supposedly standing up to. If they are true “economic conservatives,” then they need to be against increased government spending, even when it could be used to fund Republican pork projects.
Too often House/Senate Republicans stand up against a spending bill all in the name of “economic conservatism,” yet when the bill can be modified to include their own pork, they are suddenly in favor.
I agree with you, Richard. I can’t believe the hypocrisy of many Republicans. It angers me too.
I don’t agree that Republicans alone “wrecked the economy,” but that is probably another debate. No one is against, “economic recovery” either, and it would be pretty far-fetched to say that this bill is going to guarantee economic recovery. If you are a fan of the New Deal, you must recognize that this “stimulus” is nowhere near to the New Deal in terms of spending and the kind of spending taking place. This stimulus is not designed to accomplish the same goals that the New Deal was designed to, yet similarly, it is being trumpeted as an “economic recovery” for the US, which is misleading.
#39 by Richard Warnick on February 9, 2009 - 12:04 pm
FF writes:
What about the opinion leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh?
I do agree that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 isn’t a complete solution to economic recovery. The Obama administration has other measures in the pipeline, this is just the first. More is needed, especially because Republicans– who aren’t going to vote for this anyway –damaged some of the most important features of the bill.
#40 by Rich Okelberry on February 9, 2009 - 2:42 pm
Which condemned features are you talking about Richard? Millions for condoms and ACORN? Also, please tell us before you go on; how many more times is Obama going to ask for a trillion dollars to put toward economic stimulus? You seem to think this is just the first payment.
#41 by Anonymous on February 9, 2009 - 2:50 pm
Federal Farmer,
We are going to be spending trillions anyway. That’s part of what we do. Under consideration is whether we compress the time some, and whether we reset some of the direction. Nof of which is frightening or novel. I say yes to both. There will be time for taxcuts when and if we can crawl to the rim of the hole we’ve been digging.
They can print it only so fast. It’s our challenge to match that on the circulation side.
What the hell. Conservatives aren’t the only ones capable of sustained psychosis. Only when we’re ankle deep in it, will we start to get a sufficiently undeniable clue.
#42 by cav on February 9, 2009 - 3:53 pm
Tim Carter: Re Senator Janjonoskis; reflection on where multiple billions of dollars might have gone on September 15, 2008
That was the day AIG lost 65% of its value, WaMu lost 24%. The DOW dropped 504 points and Atrios suggested we were going to need a $90 Billion cash infusion just to make it through the nite.
Then there’s this from practically that moment: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/09/aig-ny-state-governor-to-make-statement.html
Very hairy times!
#43 by Tim Carter on February 9, 2009 - 4:52 pm
Hey Cav! Nice work! Something funky definitely going on. I scanned pretty briefly through the comments on the site you linked. Didn’t find much, but it was a quick scan. Alot of talk of Warren Buffet being involved, but nothing substantial.
I saw this:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7634a0a-8315-11dd-907e-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Anyway thanks, good lead, I’m pretty sure alot of tracks are covered by now.
#44 by cav on February 9, 2009 - 6:07 pm
And thank you Tim for a very compelling tip. There’s really alot out ther that provides context, whether the Sanator phrased it rightly or not. I nut-shelled like crazy ‘caus I had to move along.
If you haven’t discovered Eschatonblog.com, you ought to. It’s fun, funny and loaded with links on lotsa econ and lefty stuff. The archives are rich as well.
Loads of BS, loads of links, and lotsa great people.
#45 by Federal Farmer on February 10, 2009 - 6:40 am
Richard, first of all, Rush Limbaugh is no more the “leader” of the GOP than Leo DiCaprio, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen or any other entertainment elite is for the Democratic party. Someone can be influential and outspoken, but that doesn’t make them the official leader or even spokesman of the party.
Second, as I mentioned before, I am highly critical of any politician from either party doctoring the bill to simply replace “pork for pork.” The current group of “centrists” trying to doctor the bill are doing their own kind of damage, and I don’t support their sudden desire to “reform” the stimulus.
Again, my major objections with the stimulus are with the basic fundamentals contained within the original bill. Basically, the entire stimulus is a farce. Therefore, I will disagree with you that the stimulus is “not a complete solution,” to me it doesn’t even come close to a solution. And I worry exactly what Obama has planned for the future… if this is just the beginning, Rush Limbaugh’s absurd “socialist rhetoric” may not be so absurd.
Inflating social programs and seeking to expand government jobs won’t address a floundering economy and rising unemployment. It will just redefine the role of government and tighten the strangle-hold that the housing/credit crises have around the economy. If Obama wants to really execute change in an economic policy, he needs to address wasteful spending and an outdated and inefficient tax code. He should be willing to draft a plan which invites both parties to the table (unlike the Speaker’s definition of “bipartisan”), and what’s more, he needs to stand up to the leaders of his pwn party (Reid, Pelosi) in order to get a more efficient and effective plan for economic stimulation. I believe in Obama, but he needs to get a spine and reject the pointless pork proposed by influential Members of Congress.
#46 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 11:12 am
Richard,
Here is a better chart…one that more accurately reflects reality.
As Jim says about Pelosi’s chart:
and
Brave enough to post it for comparison to Pelosi’s bogus chart?
Jim Manzi – National Review
#47 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 11:55 am
Jim Manzi’s chart appears to ignore the differences in the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated unemployment rates now and in the past. It’s not an “apples to apples” comparison.
The official unemployment rate is now 7.6 percent. A Merrill Lynch analysis puts the real rate at 13.9 percent, which is the highest in 15 years.
Nice try, though.
#48 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 12:24 pm
Richard,
The Highest in 15 years also ignores the 81-82 recession.
Can you deny that Pelosi’s chart was deliberately misleading?
Have any evidence that his chart ignores the difference or is it just something to confuse the issue? From what I read at the BLS, it appears many of their statistics were adjusted to reflect the change in how it was calculated.
Again, will you post the graphic for everyone to see. Many people won’t click over.
#49 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 12:54 pm
I think the point of the Speaker’s chart was to show that the economy is going over a cliff, headed to a full-blown depression. That’s what it shows.
Another reason why the comparison of unemployment rates with the 1981-82 Reagan recession is misleading is because the starting rate in 1981 was 7.5%, compared with 4.7% just before the current Bush recession.
I won’t post the misleading National Review graph, however I will add a graph above that shows the current recession job losses compared to all eight previous post-WWII recessions.
#50 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 12:59 pm
Richard,
Nice dodge there. You claim there is a problem with the chart, when asked to provide proof, you change the subject.
If the unemployment rates now are less then prior recessions…is it really fair to say the economy is “going over a cliff, headed to a full blown depression”.
Manzi’s chart show that may not be the case.
You call the National Review Chart misleading but don’t label Pelosi’s chart misleading.
Isn’t that a little bit of a double standard?
Keep making excuses Richard.
#51 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 1:02 pm
Bob S.–
I have better things to do than debunk bogus charts from National Review.
There is nothing misleading about the original chart I posted. Take a look at the chart I just put up from Calculated Risk. The job losses loss since November were the biggest 3-month drop since immediately after the end of World War II, when the defense industry was shutting down for conversion to civilian production.
I don’t know what your argument is, exactly. Do you not believe the economists? Do you not believe the headlines? Are you lost in some right-wing alternate reality where the Bush Economy was really good? What will you and National Review say when more layoffs are announced?
#52 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 1:29 pm
LOL! Richard you make it too easy.
Why not put up the second chart at Calculated Risk….You know the one where it shows things in percentage terms
One that kinda debunks much of your claims? Oh, maybe I answered my own question.
Headlines written by the Left Stream media…the ones trying to make money by scaring everyone.
The economists, which ones ?
Some of the hundreds that oppose Obama’s Stimulus package?
From the Cato Institute:
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
I don’t claim the Bush economy is good, I just don’t want to ruin our country trying to solve the problem…especially since most of the spending seems to be increasing the size of the government instead of doing something useful.
#53 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 1:50 pm
The percentage graph’s just as scary IMHO, because it shows that employment is still declining rapidly after 13 months, past the turnaround point for nearly all previous recessions.
Debunk my claims? What are my “claims”? That the economy is in trouble and tax cuts won’t save us. Well, duh.
How is investing in infrastructure and helping struggling out-of-work people with stuff like food stamps going to “ruin our country”?
Sorry, but the right-wing dogma bites. Beware of the dogma!
#54 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 2:34 pm
Rachel Maddow last night put it more elegantly:
What would a right-wing Republican President say to a homeless woman living in a car with her family? Would such a person even have been allowed into a Republican town hall meeting?
#55 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 2:44 pm
Change one word and I agree — just swap out against with FOR.
Like the Speaker using a misleading graph.
Looking at the percentage graph, it seems to me that 3 other recessions had higher percentage unemployment for a longer time. So I’m not sure where you are getting the “past the turnaround point”.
Richard, did you read that someplace else?
What is the current price tag on the stimulus package? Nearly a trillion dollars? Somehow I think that “investing in our infrastructure” is a very small part- what is the current percent, 17% of the $825,000,000,000 dollar package is going to be on infrastructure.
Only 20,000,000 dollars (That is 20 BILLION for those having trouble counting that many zeros) is going to be spent on food stamps – approximately 2.4%.
Only 39,000,000,000 dollars is going to help newly unemployed with health care.
Tell me again how the government is wisely spending our money????
#56 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 3:03 pm
Look at the graph– the job loss trend in six of the eight post-WWII recessions was reversing or leveling off by the 13-month mark. This time employment is still headed down steeply.
I borrowed this analogy from Matt Yglesias earlier, with attribution. I’ll use it again. To say that the Senate’s version of economic recovery bill is $1 trillion (or “nearly a trillion”) is like saying a one dollar candy bar costs nearly $162 billion. The two statements have roughly the same accuracy.
The Senate Republicans insisted on cutting a lot of infrastructure spending out of the bill. I’m glad you agree there ought to be more.
Nothing is stopping the Obama administration from coming back in six months or a year with more worthy projects that will help our economy in both the short and long-term. Thousands of infrastructure projects built during the Great Depression (and condemned by Republicans as “make work”) are still in use today, having paid for themselves many times over.
#57 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 3:30 pm
Richard,
I am so sorry, I didn’t realize that the economy had to obey the dictates of past recessions.
Silly Economy, you straighten up and behave right now. Don’t you know OBAMA is president now and he won’t stand for any of this silliness
#58 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 3:44 pm
Bob S.–
You are the one who’s putting so much weight on job loss trends. I think that massive unemployment is just one factor.
We also have to worry about the collapse of the credit system, lost housing equity, declining GDP and consumer confidence. We also have to worry about entire state governments going bankrupt. Not to mention two unwinnable wars that are still costing more than $187 billion a year– more than $830 billion to date.
Did I mention that Bush’s tax cuts don’t expire until next year? Another thing to worry about.
#59 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 3:53 pm
Richard,
You are right, I should worry about more things. (Of course, I actually do but that wouldn’t meet your image of me, so I’ll play along).
I think I am really worried about Bush’s Tax Cuts….passed by what branch of the government? Congress, right? So does that mean Bush controlled 400 something people making them vote for the tax cuts?
I really worry about the tax cuts, I worry that Congress won’t have the sand to renew them.
Please tell me if the stimulus package, including the stimulus refund checks are such a good idea; Why isn’t letting people keep more of their money without it having to go through the government wringer?
#60 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 3:57 pm
Bob S.–
I suppose you could read the post above, but I’ll save you the trouble. Tax cuts are the least effective way to jump-start the economy. The fact that Congress likes nothing more than to cut taxes for rich people doesn’t mean anything except in political terms.
Say, can you explain why the Senate Republicans took out money for aid to states, food stamps and school construction and then added a billion dollars for nuclear weapons?
#61 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 4:09 pm
Richard,
Added a billion dollars for nuclear weapons, great.
What good is it have an recovering economy if the nation doesn’t exist.
I would have thought that even you, especially you with all your vast military experience could understand that.
Nuclear Deterrence works.
#62 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2009 - 4:12 pm
On nuclear weapons– did you even read the link? I would indeed question the need for a massive nuclear stockpile, if only because the only thing we’re doing with so many warheads is guarding them against terrorists. Instead of throwing more money at security, let’s reduce the number of weapons– that will make the country safer.
Remember when right-wingers threw a fit when anybody dared to criticize former President Bush? “Unpatriotic” was one of the more polite terms they used to describe anyone who departed from Bushism.
Well, that was then and this is now.
#63 by Bob S. on February 10, 2009 - 7:06 pm
Richard,
I think you are showing how little you are thinking for yourself here.
You cite a liberal, very biased, website citing a blogger, I mean a Senior National Security Analyst at the Center for American Progress.. Hm, wonder I make up a card saying I’m the Senior National Security Analyst for the Center for the Prevention of BS if I can get an article published.
Here is the actual citation from the Congressional Record
I can see how it is very ominous to you…I mean, let’s not worry about modernizing the designs of our nuclear deterrence, let’s not spend any more money maintaining the ones we have, let’s not research any better ways of getting rid of the waste.
Heck, that money could be going for the exact purpose you want, getting rid of them for all you know.
Hey Richard, Remember when many of the Liberal Left WingNUTS were shouting “Dissent is Patriotic”?
#64 by James Farmer on February 10, 2009 - 7:46 pm
Bob:
When you refer to “dissent,” you don’t mean, for example, dissenting prosecution of the Iraq war while the government cut taxes for those most able to pay taxes, do you? That scenario is, after all, largely responsible for bringing this country to its financial knees, correct?
Or, on the other hand, did you have something else in mind when referring to “dissent”?
#65 by jdberger on February 11, 2009 - 1:24 am
No – I think he means the out of control deficit spending. You know – the government spending enormous amounts of money that it doesn’t have.
Consistency…..
#66 by Bob S. on February 11, 2009 - 6:28 am
JD,
Thanks, got it in one.
James, try it with a local bank. Find someone with massive credit card debt, a over priced mortgage….shortened hours or laid off from work.
Have them ask the bank for a couple of million dollars so they can spend their way out of debt. How well will that work out?
It doesn’t make any more sense on a national scale.
Consistency – got it in one again JD. Notice how the largest percentage of the “stimulus” is Tax Cuts….which under Bush was “BAD” but since its Obama tax cuts are “good”.
As far as the people most capable of paying, they are also the ones most capable of providing venture capital for NEW companies to start up. You know…taking people who are unemployed and giving them jobs, making more jobs at existing companies.
They are also the ones most capable of buying stock in those troubled banks…keeping them afloat so they an loan money to those who need it.
They are also the ones most capable of buying MORE things; you know actually purchasing things besides groceries so the people making the things can keep there jobs.
So, in liberal lala land, it makes sense to take that money away from them and give it to those that haven’t made as much. Insanity.
#67 by cav on February 11, 2009 - 8:19 am
Inconsistency = giving the OK to runaway spending when it is done in one situation (say – Let’s Have A War), then, just as it had become ‘a way of life’, just when we realized we had purchased a lemon – and because it was a lemon it required that we sink more money into it, attempting to rectify the shortcomings that made it a lemon, we begin to strenuously balk at any further spending. Sure we’d rather be spending it in other, saner ways, but…
Are we to be left with the lemon, and no recourse? Is the previous administration the only one afforded money for the creation of their (and our) lemon.
#68 by Becky on February 11, 2009 - 8:29 am
You are oh so right, Cav. And Utah’s senators, after our war-spending drunken orgy, have suddenly gotten the fiscal-conservative religion. Or is it just partisan politics as usual? You be the judge.
Bennett:
Hatch:
#69 by James Farmer on February 11, 2009 - 8:57 am
jd:
Would out of control deficit spending (as you say) include funding the war in Iraq? Sorry, but I’m not sure what point is being made above by you and Bob.
#70 by Richard Warnick on February 11, 2009 - 9:10 am
Bob S.–
I’m for securing nuclear weapons– but (1) we’re spending plenty on that already, and (2) we don’t need over 5,000 of them. The priority ought to be reducing the stockpile, which will make it easier to secure. As it is, the Air Force sometimes has trouble remembering where all their nukes are.
You’re right, dissent can be patriotic. So why is Michelle Malkin dissing patriotism?
#71 by B.D. "Buzz" VanDyke on February 11, 2009 - 12:42 pm
Richard, cut taxes on all actual production, tax all unearned income from land and currency speculation out of existence- thus taxing away all future bubbles. Then stimulate the economy from the bottom up- give the money equally to the citizens, who will spend swiftly to survive- rather than to the corporations and the bureaucracies who serve them.
#72 by Larry Bergan on February 11, 2009 - 2:57 pm
Tim Carter:
That “Korean Madness” video is very funny! There is so much stuff on YouTube that I was never able to see until I got my broadband, and there’s some stuff I wish I never had, but there are some real gems out there.
Check this one out.
#73 by cav on February 11, 2009 - 3:08 pm
We just had to pursue some threads over there on the dark side, and this is where it got us. It’s just gonna be dark for a while, a couple of generations anyway. Get used to it. We’re in charge, so when we say “Grab your checkbook / ankles”, know that this is really only the tip of the iceberg. Further, you may never get to where you really want to go, but frankly, there’s nothing you can do about it.
(Tard blather)
#74 by Tim Carter on February 11, 2009 - 11:06 pm
Yeah Larry, that was cool. I love that kind of animation. I think youtube is the ultimate TIVO, even though I’ve never had one. It comes in pretty handy in political discussions on blogs like this. I like to look at the number of views on videos. They seem to reflect the same interests I noticed when I had television.
Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWNoiVrJDsE&feature=related
Compared to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL_wmg9SWdQ&NR=1
It is nice to go find your own interests in the video format, than have it programmed for you. But you are definitely right about the ‘heads up’ about things you have seen but didn’t want to. Me too. Some of the new ‘pop culture’ can be very graphic.
#75 by Larry Bergan on February 12, 2009 - 12:22 am
Yeah, I’ve noticed that most people who vote on YouTube aren’t too political. That hearing is stunning, but it disappeared because nobody seems to care. The media could generate the interest, but they don’t want to.
The county needs a much better broadband network that’s accessible to everybody. It seems impossible to get on a computer at the library, and they don’t have sound anyway.
The worst thing I’ve ever seen on YouTube was actually a PETA film, (I think.) Of course it was about cruelty to animals, and I’m actually not sorry I saw it once, but I don’t ever want to see it again. It was brutal!
#76 by Tim Carter on February 12, 2009 - 1:21 am
Larry: “The media could generate the interest, but they don’t want to.”
You are sooo right about that. But I think the internet provides a way around the MSM. Here are couple of questions from last night press conference. I wasn’t a fan of Huffpo getting a question, just because I thought it would look like Obama was being biased. But when you look at the questions, I’m glad they were there.
Huffpo: Q Thank you, Mr. President. Today Senator Patrick Leahy announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that before you turn the page, you have to read the page first. Do you agree with such a proposal, and are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?
Washpo: Q Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez’s admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?
Are you kidding me?
#77 by Larry Bergan on February 12, 2009 - 3:01 am
If the Bush administration gets a truth committee, then I think the peanut farmers should get one too. Leahy wants to see the farmers go to jail, (and I’m not saying they shouldn’t), but let’s be fair and balanced here.
If the Washington Post said THAT, they better have been trying to bring attention to the recent travesty of a REAL athlete who made America proud in the Olympic Games without using any performance enhancing drugs. If he had been chugging a beer, he would have gotten a lucrative contract with Coors.
What a country!
#78 by cav on February 12, 2009 - 7:36 am
Do you suppose letters to Leahy. Obama, and the new Justice Dept. head Eric Holder, would provided some small indication of the publics conviction?
It’s our govt, not just a tv show.