home

On The Stimulus: The Question Is Not Did It Help, But Was It Big Enough?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:19:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Matt Yglesias points to Tim Fernholz on CEA Chair Christina Romer's speech (PDF) regarding the stimulus bill. This part of Romer's speech, excerpted by Yglesias, appears to raise as many questions as it answers:

The role of the Recovery Act is clearest in state and local spending. Sharp falls in revenues and balanced budget requirements have been forcing state and local governments to tighten their belts significantly. But, state and local government spending actually rose at a healthy 2.4% annual rate in the second quarter of 2009. This followed two consecutive quarters of decline, and was the highest growth rate in two years. No one can doubt that the $33 billion of state fiscal relief that has already gone out thanks to the Recovery Act is a key source of this increase.

(Emphasis supplied.) There is a certain DUH quality to this passage. It raises these questions - (1) why didn't the Obama Administration put in more state and local aid in the stimulus bill? (2) Why did they allow Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter and Susan Collins to cut out state and local aid from the stimulus bill? (3) Why did they allow them to include the non-stimulative AMT fix? (4) Why, in short, did the Obama team mishandle the stimulus bill?

Speaking for me only

< Sotomayor Confirmation Vote | Sotomayor Confirmed As First Latina Supreme Court Justice >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On The Stimulus: The Question Is Not Did It Help, But Was It Big Enough? | 92 comments (92 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If the states don't get more aid (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    2010 will be a bloodbath for Democrats, who control a majority of governorships.

    Why can't state pols (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Cards In 4 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    raise taxes if they need the money.

    The problem with sending money from the feds to the states is people know the feds are just a conduit for the states. People send their money to D.C, they take a cut and send it back to the states who then take a cut.  Unless we will never pay back the money borrowed for the stimulus we will pay for it eventually.  

    If they can convince the voters the money is needed they should have the courage to ask for more taxes.  We have too many politicians that blame Washington.  But it's pretty hard to see the teacher down the street getting a raise when my property taxes go up and my business is cut in half.

    Parent

    Why indeed? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:06:55 PM EST
    I'll believe someone is a gifted politician when they can convince the populace, both state and federal, that we need to raise taxes across the board, not just on the rich (though it should be progressive).


    Parent
    The Dems. in CA Legislature tried to (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    raise taxes.  Governor sd. he would veto such a budget.  

    Parent
    That wouldn't be a gifted politician... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    ruffian, but a gifted con-artist.

    A gifted politican wouldn't dream of doing such a thing until first going on a ineffectual program eliminating (cough-war on drugs-cough:), efficiency improving, cost cutting, "lets get our freakin' act together" rampage the likes of which we've never seen.  Then, if revenue is still short, convincing the American people across the board to kick in some more.

    Assuming of course you meant politician to mean leader, and not con-artist, to begin with:)

    Parent

    Besides the obvious (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    No governor will get re-elected if the raise taxes - easier to shift the blame to DC....

    It's easier to get federal tax dollars that are paid in by more people, than to try and get tax dollars out of a state where the unemployment rate is approaching 20% (officially, because of course, we all know the REAL unemployment rate is higher than what is announced).

    Parent

    But who (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cards In 4 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:26:30 PM EST
    pays the taxes to the federal government?  They come from the people living in the state with high unemployment and low unemployment.  The federal government doesn't have a secret source of tax receipts from people living in Brazil or France.

    Congress is the restaurant where the bills are totaled and all patrons pay the same average cost.  So everyone orders steak and dessert and hopes they can eat more than the average.  Of course the bill is paid by us, not Congress.

    Parent

    The states (none / 0) (#43)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    are slated to receive more money as the entire stimulus package is being disbursed to each sector over a period of 3 years. So the states are already on the schedule to receive more.

    And in the broader sense I can't see how anyone can honestly say the stimulus was too small when so far only 11% of it has been disbursed.

    In news that you will never read on this blog, given the rise in the stock market, home prices and new home construction, an easing in job claims, a few months of increased consumer spending, banks reporting decent profits, and increases in other areas there seems to be an upward trend that combined with the almost 90% of the stimulus still to be payed out could make the stimulus very effective. Additionally programs like the 'clunker' are increasing car sales which both saves jobs and increases gross profits and could increase tax revenues.

    So some of the posts I read here seem to me to be grossly uninformed and short sighted.

    Parent

    The rise in consumer spending (none / 0) (#57)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:19:22 PM EST
    for the month of June was not due to a rise in consumer confidence, or more money rolling around. It was due to a rise in food and energy prices.

    I've provided a link for you, since you are recently known for accusing TLers of not being able to back up statements with proof. This way, you won't have to do the heavy lifting of googling it yourself.  

    Parent

    Did I say June anywhere? (none / 0) (#63)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:17:01 PM EST
    NO!

    Frigging cherry pickers! And then to cherry pick you have to make things up to boot. Funny.

    Parent

    Hey Mike - the clunker program ALSO (none / 0) (#66)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:46:59 PM EST
    1. gives free taxpayer money to people who can (or currently think they can) afford to buy a new car, and

    2. DESTROYS trade-ins that would otherwise make affordable used cars for those of us not so blessed as to still have a 2-income household who could actually buy a new car. The stimulative effect on the auto industry is temporary at best, as this doesn't predict building of more cars (creating jobs), but merely selling through excess inventory.

    Appealing for the short term, but not of any benefit whatsoever for the long term. So YOU may be the short-sighted one here. Oil prices are on the way up again, bank profits are a chimera built on gov't bailout money, and suppose Roubini is right (again) and the current recession is of the 'double-dip' variety, and the new cars being sold today are repo'd in 6 months when the happy consumers lose THEIR jobs?

    I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I think many of your assumptions are excessively optimistic right now. Unemployment here in CA is 11.5% (and that's only the ones being counted), many of whom will lose ALL benefits shortly. We're not buying ANYTHING, and Scwartzenegger has just put the screws AGAIN to the most vulnerable.

    As always, I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but folks are suffering everywhere (i'm also leery of your claim about several months' of increased spending. Unless consumers are in a position to reinflate the debt bubble, this will only go so far. Also, don't forget that they regularly go back and adjust all these figures after the fact, so we don't really know the real numbers, now do we?

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#77)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:14:03 PM EST
    selling through excess inventory is a bad thing? From a business stand point it puts cash in both the manufacturers pocket and the dealers pocket when the financed excess inventory moves. That cash helps both the manufacture and the dealer to stay in business and meet payrolls.

    As for destroying those cars, from what I read, the ones that qualify get 18mpg or less so the program is also energy and environmentally friendly which is a good thing. I see tons of used vehicles on the lots that get better mpg than 18 if you are looking for a car.

    As for our recovery I didn't say we were out of the woods because we are not. But the situation with home prices and growing 401k's is bound to put confidence back in peoples minds at some point. Look at it this way - things could have gone down more; or stayed the same; or increased. Only the latter of those three can eventually boost confidence and it is the later of those three that is happening. If that trend continues, even if in fits and starts, we are headed in the right direction.

    Parent

    Small point (none / 0) (#80)
    by coast on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 09:08:48 PM EST
    Most dealership inventory is financed through a "floor plan" which is basically a line of credit from the finance company with the cars as collateral.  Point being, just because a dealership sells excess inventory does not necessarly correlate to money going to the manufacture.  In addition, most banks that previously financed these floor plans are getting out of that business.  This means as the car dealerships sell off their excess inventories, they have no means of financing the purchase of new inventory.  This program is moving some cars off lots, but it is not in any way going to help the manufactures and dealerships in the long run.

    Parent
    This was part of my point, and I just can't (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by allimom99 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:07:12 AM EST
    figure out why they want to destroy those cars,the selling of which could repay some of the taxpayers' money, which is a concern to me. I pay taxes, but since we're down to one job and already drive a 10-year old car that gets 30 mi/gal, can't afford to take advantage of this deal. It would have been more fair to include age as a factor in defining a "clunker." Trading in a 2-year old Hummer for a newer Hummer that gets 2 mpg better mileage doesn't seem like progress to me.

    Some of these so-called clunkers are in excellent condition - the idea of simply destroying them instead of at least parting them out makes NO sense. Maybe Mike wouldn't find these cars desirable, but I guarantee some of my fellow citizens in Humboldt County would see them as several steps up.

    Oh, and selling them might allow the dealers to be able to afford new inventory. My main point was that the destruction of the cars is terribly wasteful, and it would have been nice to get at least SOME of that 3 billion back.

    Parent

    With Pols it's best to ... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    assume they do things because it's what they wanted to do, until they demonstrate otherwise.

    Makes the analysis easier.

    Hence, on the economy, the Obama administration is more wedded to a Herbert Hoover path, than an FDR one.

    And, until they prove otherwise, that's the only reasonable inference one can draw.

    Makes a lot more sense than suggesting they were rolled by a handful of weak Republicans.

    Do you think the difference (none / 0) (#13)
    by Samuel on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:12:19 PM EST
    between FDR and Hoover was primarily that of magnitude of capital injection and price fixing or are you suggesting Hoover did not participate in both these practices heavily in the latter days of his administration?  

    Parent
    The former ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    and I'm not interested in getting into one of those "Hoover found the plot at the end of his presidency" debates.

    So if you're teeing up for one of those, save yourself the effort.  I won't respond.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:51:50 PM EST
    it was going to be more like "FDR ruined the country with his liberal policies... but so did Hoover!"  Smart move to steer clear of that discussion, IMO.

    Parent
    Quit it with the substance. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Samuel on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:04:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Found what plot? (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Samuel on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    Just wanted to know if you recognized their policies were extremely similar.  

    Parent
    These lessons (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    don't appear to have affected the healthcare process at all...

    "Why did they allow . . . (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    . . . Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter and Susan Collins to cut out state and local aid from the stimulus bill?"

    no clue but it likely has to do with why he is letting them write the health care reform bill.

    33 billion out of nearly 800 billion (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    (if I remember the final total correctly) seems like such a pittance. What recovery does she think can be attributed the 400 billion or so in tax cuts? I sure haven't seen any rise in consumer spending or confidence.

    The saving rate has increased (none / 0) (#85)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 02:17:54 AM EST
    meaning once again that tax cuts are not a very effective stimulus.

    Parent
    Why, in short, did the Obama team (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    mishandle the stimulus bill?

    Hmmm...let's see:

    (1) Just like with health care, they didn't invite ALL the people to the table; they left out those economists who were likely to call BS on Wall Street.

    (2)  Just like health care, it had to be "bipartisan," and the message was out early that the Democrats were willing to bend over or roll over or contort on command in order to get Republican votes.  Which they didn't get.  Which means all that contorting was for nothing, economically speaking - but there might be some breakout gymnasts that USA Gymnastics should roll tape on before the next Olympics.

    (3)  Just like health care, industry honchos were driving the agenda.

    This is how Obama rolls.

    Anne (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    why do you hate?

    Parent
    I really wanted to be wrong about Obama, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    wanted to feel like a fool for not casting a vote for president, wanted to be shamed for not having enough faith that there was a grand plan I just wasn't smart enough to see, wanted him to be a fighter for what I believe in...

    I don't hate the guy, even if I have the same viscerally negative reaction to his voice that I had with Bush, but I find him utterly useless in advancing anything remotely liberal, and see ahead of us at least three more years of more Bush-like policies, more rightward movement, and unless the Congress wakes up, not getting any of the badly-needed legislation we've been waiting years for.  The promised transparency and accountability?  Pffft.  Not gonna happen.

    It's just demoralizing, to an extent I had not appreciated when Obama was just an idea and not a reality.

    Parent

    More fuel for the fire: (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

    From today's NYT.

    Parent

    Posted that in the (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    "About Those Right-Wing Protesters" thread earlier today, and said there that this kind of back-room deal-making is not emblematic of reform as much as it is proof that we are being treated to the Big Bamboozle.

    Maybe "more" proof would have been more accurate.

    Parent

    Sorry. I took a break to hear (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    Paul Neubauer coach a graduate school string quartet in this piece:  Overture on The Flying Dutchman as performed by a Terrible Health Resort Band at 7:00 am at the Village Fountain (1925)
    Paul Hindemith.

    Parent
    Now now (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:23:17 PM EST
    you know it's racist to bring up drug deals!

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#68)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:53:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Startling (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

    "We were assured: `We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,' " Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. "Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don't keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead."

    A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin's account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.

    "The president encouraged this approach," Mr. Messina wrote. "He wanted to bring all the parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform."



    Parent
    Laugh of the day (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:12:38 PM EST
    The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.

    We keep lobbyists at a distance, but we make secret deals with Billy freakin' Tauzin. Does it get any better than that?

    Parent

    And this surprises you why? (none / 0) (#69)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:54:06 PM EST


    Parent
    jbindc, why do you not see (none / 0) (#67)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:51:55 PM EST
    What is happening here in the reality-based community? Obama is showing himself to be a corporatist. If you want to support that, fine, but please don't conflate disagreement with jis policies to hate.

    As a fellow Californian, it seems to me that Anne's observations are right on the money. I don't see anyone accusing you of 'hating' because you disagree with us.

    Parent

    Not that I speak for jbindc, but (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:37:24 PM EST
    the "why do you hate?" was total snark... ;-)

    Parent
    Oh, totally so (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 09:48:22 PM EST
    if I also dare not speak for jbindc, but as a regular reader of hers.  Someone here apparently is not a regular reader of our snarky co-commenter. :-)

    Parent
    You may both speak for me (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 08:24:51 AM EST
    Yes, it was total snark.

    I think my new tag line will now be one stolen from Wendy Williams (I believe):

    "Don't hate...Congratulate!"

    Parent

    Example: Allimom, see (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    comment #25 below.  Or maybe you didn't know the rest of the "why do you hate" meme? :-)

    Parent
    Sorry, my bad - I don't get over here (none / 0) (#90)
    by allimom99 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:10:04 AM EST
    as much as I should. My snarkometer must be on the fritz. Apologies, jb. Guess I've just seen to many posters who (still) say these things seriously.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    You wrote:

    This is how Obama rolls.

    ...you read Somerby, I take it ;-).

    Parent

    I do. Sometimes I agree with him (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    and sometimes I don't, but Somerby has been pretty good at pointing out the inanity of what the administration is saying on health care.

    Parent
    Get real (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    and get over it.

    Until Obama, Immaculate Hillary and everyone else stop having to raise millions from the banks and the finanacial lobby every four years, this is how they all roll.

    And you know it.

    Parent

    Cause there's a giant group of people (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Samuel on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    who will do anything to avoid recognizing they've been lied to and robbed.  

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:21:46 PM EST
    nearly every economist save for 4 were saying it was enough.  Economists with secure jobs who are not living week to week i might add.

    Because "deficits don't matter" is patented by
    Cheney and Obama didn't want to go there.

    Because inflation cropping right around the next pres election scared the heck out of him.

    Because we set aside 750 bn for the banks.

    Because Bush was elected twice and he did nothing for job creation.

    Lastly, because healthcare was a bigger priority as it will be his legacy and starting a huge brouhaha before he was even out of the box on healthcare would have made the division even greater.  This is the most short sighted of all the reasons because if he had committed MORE to stimulus and demanded an earlier spend, VOTERS would be feeling more confident about the prospects of their financial situations and would have been MORE likely to default support his way for HC.....

    And Obama (none / 0) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 02:50:11 AM EST
    and the rest of his White House staff are neo-libs and neo-libs, regarding economics, are a bit too much like conservatives bowing down to the free market Gods.

    Ever since he was inaugurated it's come out in policy and tactics.  That silly fiscal responsibility conference in February signalled a nightmare about to come true.

    No one should be surprised.  

    Parent

    Because as Biden admitted (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    Obama, et al., didn't think the economy would get this bad.  So then the question becomes why didn't they think so?  Because they listened to the wrong economists -- and if you look back here, you will that some of us were very concerned about the sort of economists who were and are his advisors 'way back in the campaign.  Why more people didn't see that the economy would be this bad, and why more didn't look closely at his economic advisors?  The answer is . . . oooh, look at the big rallies and the free food and the styrofoam pillars, etc.

    CC (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    now you're hating too.  LEEEAAAVVEEE OBAMA ALONE!

    Parent
    So he just has to do what FDR did (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    which is:  Get better economic advisors.

    Just like what Lincoln did:  Get better generals.

    Those are the presidents he invokes (well, other than Reagan:-).  So he may well do so.  FDR did it faster, but there's that lack of experience thingy.  On the other hand, it took Lincoln years to do so.  So let's hope Obama is more like FDR.

    Of course, to also be like FDR, Obama has to be willing to, uh, change.  To toss out what doesn't work and get back to work to try something different.  So far, all I'm hearing is "the stimulus is working."  If there is an admission that it's not working, not fast enough, then we can, uh, hope for, uh, change.

    Parent

    Don't hold your breath (none / 0) (#87)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 02:54:57 AM EST
    on the FDR thing.

    Obama's convictions, what there are of them, aren't in the same category as FDR's.

    Parent

    Again, jb, HOW is this hating? (none / 0) (#70)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:55:49 PM EST


    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:02:21 PM EST
    new so you apparently don't realize that he's being sarcastic.

    Parent
    Again, allimom (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 09:51:40 PM EST
    -- are you really not aware of the infamous fanvideo for Obama in the campaign?  Of the fangirl crying, pleading, begging "why do you hate. . . ?"

    Parent
    Yes, again, I apologize - it was late... (none / 0) (#91)
    by allimom99 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:11:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Carefuly calibrated to be just enough (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    to get him re-elected. I'm beginning to see that is true of everything he is doing so far. He's not going to go all out with anything, because to do so would risk alienating some large block of voters.

    He's counting on we lefties having nowhere else to go. That remains to be seen.

    This has always been his way. (none / 0) (#71)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:56:32 PM EST


    Parent
    "Why........." (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    If you recall, at the time of the debate Re: stimulus, some economists, Paul Krugman comes to mind, warned that too small a stimulus would be worse than no stimulus because: A) It wouldn't work, and B) Precious time would be wasted. Remember... "Throwing a ten foot rope to a person drowning in twenty feet of water."

    The White House scoffed at Krugman (and other Nobel economists), rejected expert advice, and chose instead to give this critical decision to non-expert politicians (Olympia Snowe, et al) After hacking down an already too small bill, these Republican "traitors" strutted up to the microphones and proudly proclaimed how they had "cut" wasteful spending (anything that helped the middle class) but left in the worthless tax cuts.

    You Post-Partisanship Unity Schtick at work.

    For argument's (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    sake who on earth ever thought Obama or his economic advisors could handle the problem? There's nothing in Obama's background that says he was up to this job and his economic advisors come out of the same economic school of thought (Univ. of Chicago Milton Friedman apostles) that brought you this disaster of an economy in the first place.

    I hate to say it but I knew this wasn't a good bill when Krugman said it wasn't but I guess since being shrill is more of a sin than being wrong, I guess we'll all have to live with consequences.

    The worst part of this whole thing is that Obama is setting up the country for a right wing totalitarian in 2012.

    I wrote yesterday (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    that I think Obama's political advisors are sending him over a cliff.......and the country with him. When questioned about his sliding poll numbers, these clueless sycophants retort smugly, "well, you know polls; they go up and down...."

    Everything I've seen tells me they got it half right. As insane as it would have been six months ago, I think we're looking into a Republican Blowout in '10 & '12.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:46:45 PM EST
    Obama's advisor problem all leads back to the fact that he has so little experience that he is way too dependent on them. This reminds me of Bush and Iraq. His advisors were filling him with garbage and he swallowed it whole.

    Parent
    We were given a choice....... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    "Experience" or "Vision."

    No one bothered to ask, "What if the "vision" thingy doesn't work?"

    Parent

    Vision? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    What vision? All I remember being offered was post partisan namby pamby crap.

    Parent
    You had to drink the kool-aid (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    to see the visions.

    Parent
    I always HATEd Kool-Aid, even as a child... (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:58:17 PM EST


    Parent
    I thought it was experience vs (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    ponies . . .

    Parent
    close (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:25:45 PM EST
    experience vs pony excrement

    Parent
    Aw, c'mon Capt (none / 0) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:40:59 PM EST
    why use five syllables when three tells the story quicker, and better: "pony-poop".....

    And for our obscenity-sensitive members....."pony p**p"

    Parent

    Be fair, now (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:55:28 PM EST
    We were told, even here, that experience doesn't matter for a presidential candidate.  Not sure why it would be any different for the leader of the free world, when experience matters for an entry level $20,000 / year job, but that's what we were told.

    And I'm still waiting for my pony....

    Parent

    Thanks -- my kids are out of work (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    and looking hard, but they keep running into that experience thing in the job descriptions, even for entry-level jobs, as you say.  

    Now I see that they're going about this all wrong.  I'll tell them to just apply for all those jobs, anyway, and fill up their resumes with their "visions."  If it worked to get hired for the White House, surely it will help them, huh? :-)

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure that even Obama could get hired around here these days.  Law firms are laying off, campuses are on furloughs and also not hiring, community agencies are closing for lack of funds. . . .

    Parent

    Remember "plastics" in The Graduate? (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:18:16 PM EST
    Today's NYT says the new word is "statistics."

    Parent
    "Ben, I've got just one word (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 09:53:32 PM EST
    for you. . . ."  Yeh, I loved that scene.  So reminiscent of so many people with so much advice for me at that stage.  Btw, the advice I got was equally idiotic. :-)

    Parent
    as far as I am concerned as a progressive (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by iceblinkjm on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    Obama is a failure with only minor accomplishments. Fool me once well shame on you fool me twice shame on me. I won't be voting for Mr.Obama in 2012 and it's a good thing I like all of my Senators and Congressmen or the Dems would be SOL as far as I am concerned.

    big enough??? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by diogenes on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:13:49 PM EST
    The stimulus did not spend much money in 2009, when it was actually needed.  It will keep spending money in late 2010 when growth will allegedly be occurring (and coincidentally when the Congressional elections are being held).

    Good enough for caucuses (1.00 / 0) (#92)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:36:07 AM EST
    Busing people in to various state caucuses from who-knows-where? That's OK. Intimidating caucus-goers? Dandy. Falsifying forms filled out by caucus-goers? No problemo! When Hillary's supporters supplied documented evidence that Obama supporters were doing all this and more at the caucuses, they were shrieked into silence with accusations of racism, but now the shoe's on the other foot and they are whining about "local rights."

    So pardon me if I fail to get too worked up about this.

    Frankly, Obamacare needs to be killed and if a bunch of misinformed Republican morans are the ones to kill it, so be it. Clearly, the Democratic Party pays more attention to unhinged Republicans than it does to its own voters anyway.

    Why? (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    You're kidding, right?

    Nope (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:29:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Why doesn't a major leaguer bat 1.000 (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    The difference between a poor hitter and a great hitter is at most 2 more hits out of every 10 at bats.

    The point at which one decides Obama is no longer being imperfect and has started being incompetent will remain ongoing.

    And there are few triple crown winners (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    Obama is batting for average, not home runs or stolen bases.

    Parent
    Or is he batting for Money Ball? (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:10:17 PM EST


    Parent
    We know why (none / 0) (#9)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    It's wrapped up in the fantasy of bi-partisanship.

    so sometimes he's prtisan with men and (none / 0) (#73)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:02:17 PM EST
    sometimes with wimmin?

    Parent
    A better answer (none / 0) (#10)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    If I accept the premise and framing of the question, I'd say it's because While a proven all star on the capaign trail he's still basically a top prospect who was brought up to the bigs too soon.

    wow (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    a sports metaphor I understand and agree with.

    a first.

    Parent

    My theory (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:27:37 PM EST
    Sun Tzu doesn't say anything about bi-partisanship in the Art Of War.

    If you want to win, you need to fight and accept that there will be casualties.  Don't be a McClellan!

    Parent

    Bonus points (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:33:39 PM EST
    For being right and usins Sun-Tzu and George McClellan in the same reference!

    Parent
    Which Stimulus? (none / 0) (#20)
    by SOS on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    Ours or Theirs?

    Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

    But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

    http://www.rollcall.com/media/37552-1.html

    As if I needed another reason (none / 0) (#75)
    by allimom99 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:04:41 PM EST
    to eschew party membership.

    Parent
    Not enough stimulus? (none / 0) (#42)
    by maddog on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    Not sure what you mean by that because only a very small percentage has been put into the economy.  A majority of it won't hit until mid to late 2010.  I think it is the timing rather than the amount.

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    his advisors have even said that they screwed up and miscalculated. So maybe we all can hope that they're wrong about this too.

    Parent
    Stimulus or Stymied (none / 0) (#53)
    by joze46 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    Stimulus package for the economy or
    The Stymied package intended to foil Obama...

    Rachael Maddow along with Keith Olberman has exposed the real side of the Republican Party. Identifying many groups that are being transported to town hall meetings across the country specifically to disrupt and shut down discussions about health care. Also, deliberately creating visuals that make it seem the general electorates do not want single payer insurance.

    It's my believe that what ever money the Republicans are going to get they will spend it to stymie any progress in the health care development. Actually the perfect algorithm to take free tax money to kill what they do not want. Or should we say what the status quo does not want. It's the perfect storm with what looks like a very duped loyal following that would lounge around with the directions from Rush Limbaugh in a three step process to yell, hackle, and insult to jam honest discussions in health care. Everything and anything to kill the idea.  

    What is so horrible about this stuff is these individuals have no respect for "local rights" meaning, if it was my home town. I would take it as an assault on my rights in possession and property, an infringement to be able to talk about securing a healthy advantage against probable cause of disease or failed health.  

    A basic infringement that crosses the line from free speech to free physical treachery is happening with out any one doing something about it. These people basically have no property rights to even appear at these meeting. They do not pay the local taxes. Worse in my opinion these persons are in violation of basic laws in the Constitution totally disrespecting respecting the local establishment of the people to peaceably assemble. They are criminal...  

    You do know that (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:21:30 PM EST
    the property-holding requirement for voting was dropped in the 1820s?  So renters can't participate in asking questions of their members of Congress?

    But let's say that participants in local town halls ought to at least meet the criteria that it took to participate in, say, the crucial Wisconsin primary last year as a "local": residence (including as a renter) for several weeks, with proof being mail sent to a state address -- or a state resident saying they know you.  Or the criteria that it took to participate in the Iowa caucuses as a "local": residence for a few days . . . or intent to be a resident.  If it was good enough for the Dems for caucuses, it's good enough for the Dems for town halls, wouldn't you say?  With similar results.

    Parent

    On The Stimulus: The Question Is Not Did It Help, But Was It Big Enough? | 92 comments (92 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment