home

What Went Wrong: Not Recognizing The Need For Boldness

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 10:27:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Why was the 2009 stimulus too small? Two primary reasons -- one, Lawrence Summers misread the economic catastrophe at hand:

The memo argued that the stimulus should not be used to fill the entire output gap; rather, it was “an insurance package against catastrophic failure.” At the meeting, according to one participant, “there was no serious discussion to going above a trillion dollars.” [. . .] Summers [. . .] believed that filling the output gap through deficit spending was important, but that a package that was too large could potentially shift fears from the current crisis to the long-term budget deficit, which would have an unwelcome effect on the bond market.

Two, Rahm Emanuel misunderstood the Congressional process:

There were sound arguments why the $1.2-trillion figure was too high. First, Emanuel and the legislative-affairs team thought that it would be impossible to move legislation of that size, and dismissed the idea out of hand. Congress was “a big constraint,” Axelrod said. “If we asked for $1.2 trillion, it probably would have created such a case of sticker shock that the system would have locked up there.” He pointed east, toward Capitol Hill. “And the world was watching us, the market was watching us. If we failed to produce a stimulus bill, that in and of itself could have had deleterious effects.”

In fact, the Obama White House believed that Congress would increase the size of their stimulus proposal:

HARWOOD: If it's correct that, as your aides have said, the danger is doing too little rather than doing too much [. . .] why stop at $775 billion? Why not go to the $1.2 trillion that some economists have recommended? Is that because you think that the political figure of a trillion dollars is too politically charged to get over? Is it because you think more spending would be pork rather than stimulus? Or do you think you've figured out exactly the right amount of stimulus that's needed?

Pres.-elect OBAMA: [. . .] We've seen ranges from 800 to 1.3 trillion and our attitude was that given the legislative process, if we start towards the low end of that, we'll see how it develops.

(Emphasis supplied.) The President was failed by his advisors, but he also failed himself. This was his moment to be bold - to be great. Instead he chose the path of timidity and business as usual. And the end result was a stimulus package that was too small and too dependent on ineffective stimulative measures like tax cuts.

Perhaps nothing better could have been done. But what WAS done was clearly inadequate and doomed to be perceived as a flop. Obama's chances for greatness were squelched.

Speaking for me only

< What Went Wrong | TARP IG Issues Scathing Report >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Went Wrong: Not Recognizing The Need For Boldness | 190 comments (190 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Negotiation 101 (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    FAIL.

    You never start at the low end and hope someone else will go higher.

    EPIC FAIL.

    It's more like he was negotiating against (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    the Dems in Congress, instead of in partnership with them. Sign of things to come.

    Parent
    Definitely a sign of something (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    A huge error in judgment.  I think the administration bought into the whole "awesumness" of getting elected, that they just figured Congress would fall in line with whatever they wanted.  Congress had different ideas and said, "Ok, Sparky, we helped get you elected, now give us something we can work with."  Too bad the administration only listened to one side and will help get Republicans elected next week.

    Parent
    Immortality. (none / 0) (#178)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:02:00 AM EST
    They didn't believe that they could ever lose their mojo.  

    I read their failure as complete and total arrogance not as a lack of boldness.

    They were too cool and too enamored by their own reflections in the gilded White House mirrors to see or comprehend the fleeting nature of mojo in Washington politics.

    Parent

    Same fail with Healthcare (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:19:18 AM EST
    They started out with the Republican solution and never, ever offered the simpler and more effective single payer solution.  They gave them what they wanted, now they want more.  Never even gave them the chance to look like they compromised.  

    Parent
    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    Always, always start higher than you think you can get, in hopes that you can negotiate downward to something a lot closer to what you want.  The fact that he did not do this leads me to believe that he was naive, or had bad advice, or that the outcome was what he wanted in the first place.  He also never really tried to use the "bully pulpit" (well, he used it a bit, when it was too late) or the back-room arm-twisting.  I don't think that's his style.  

    Parent
    Creationism Applied to Jobs (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    I have a notion that they applied the magic of creationism to economics.  If government wants to create jobs, there is on true way: fund programs, projects that hire people.  All this magical, round about, incentives, tax cuts, tax credits is truly a big zero.  Somehow, the notion is, if you have faiths, the incentives will create jobs.  You have to have faith.  Summers, being one of the guys who is steeped in the orthodoxy of the system, cannot believe that the good old social democratic notion of direct job creation is the answer, it always involves sophistry and faith in the failed markets.  

    Should Rahm, not have known better?  Where is his genius if he ever had any, other than punching hippies?  

    Just like they keep saying businesses (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    aren't hiring because they are 'uncertain' about taxes, health care, etc. They have no faith!

    Well no...if they had demand for their products, they would hire.

    Parent

    Magical realism (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    A literary construct has taken over our economic policies.  Boldness, went out when we all became post racial and got transcended.  Sort of like the Secret, we really did not have to do anything, if we believed, it would happen.  

    Parent
    If I had a penny (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    for every time a criticism of Obama related to the economy or foreign policy, etc. somehow gets pulled into a criticism of "post-racial culture" I'd have a lot of pennies.

    It would be nice if people just said "Obama wouldn't be President if he were white" and kept the condescending racism overt instead of using tired code words that make them feel more comfortable.

    The funny thing is that many of the dems that do this somehow think that if Hillary were President there wouldn't be a contingent of folks bringing up her gender whenever something went wrong in a similar way.

    I guess that would be different or something.

    Parent

    It would be nice if Obama were (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by observed on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    such a smashing success that people would be wondering if it's because of his race.

    Parent
    Angry, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    My point is that I never bought that because white America voted for Obama that we became post racial.  We did not transcend and we would not have transcended if Hillary was elected either.  This was simply an example that the work was done, that we could move on.  The work on these issues is never done.  By the way, we are not bipartisan either.  

    By not being bold, we believed the mythology of the campaign season.  

    Parent

    Stella (none / 0) (#146)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:09:34 PM EST
    My point to you:

    Why are we still talking about the primaries that happened two years ago?  Gore REALLY DID beat Bush in 1999 but you didn't hear people talking about the primaries and the florida recount everytime Bush did something wrong.

    People accepted the fact that the man was President and attacked him for his policies.

    Underlying the non-stop references to the election are two very ugly things:

    1. A wee bit of birthirsim

    2. The left's version of birther-ism: that somehow the black guy cheated/stole/jive talked his way into power over a far superior (and markedly lighter) candidate and all would be right with the world if we could somehow go back in time and fix that horrible, horrible mistake.

    I've said this before, but the boldest thing a President could do right now would be to hold a relatively moderate-left position because you think it is the right thing to do and get attacked by all sides.

    The easy route is the one that has the fewest people yelling at you. If Obama has tried to do it the easy way, he's failed badly.

    Parent

    Seriously! (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:17:04 PM EST
    A wee bit of birthirsim

    A wee bit of a leap.  

    Parent

    Not only is Obama not a liberal, (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:03:22 PM EST
    but he isn't even left of center - and I am convinced that's because he doesn't want to go in that direction.

    Why?  Because he hates being labeled as a partisan, hates even more the "liberal" label, and goes out of his way to distance himself from any suggestion that he's on one side or the other.  Yes, I know, he's come out and given speeches that frame the GOP as being the party that wants us to go in reverse, but that's pol-speak: his policies and general ideology are much more Republican than Democratic, and those of us who identify as liberal or progressive know that - even if you don't.

    Why are we still talking about the primaries?  Good question - why don't you, who regularly invoke Hillary when things get a little hot against Obama, tell us.

    And while I completely get that there are people who will never believe a person of color - or a woman - is qualified to be president - or dogcatcher, for that matter - please be objective enough to consider that if you did a color- and gender-blind review of both of these individuals' resumes, I think even you would be hard-pressed to claim that of the two, his made him more qualified than hers.  

    As a woman, I could take the position that every criticism of every woman is gender-based, but I'd like to think that while that might be the easy answer, I do women no favors by defending them even when the facts and the situation are not in their favor.  In fact, I think I probably cast a more critical eye on women to make sure that I'm not putting my thumb on the scales, so to speak.

    Hillary Clinton is a formidable person, and a formidable candidate; where I think Obama went sideways is in rhetorically writing checks he was never going to be able to cash, leading people to believe that he was like Hillary, only better, without all the baggage.

    The truth will out, eventually, and where the truth has tripped Obama is that he is not who he sold himself to be, or even who he allowed people to think he was.

    If I were voting for someone to be a Pied Piper for the 21st century, Obama would be right up there on the list of potential candidates - but if I were voting for someone who could do more than figure out where people were headed before butting to the head of the line and proclaiming himself a leader, he would not be my choice - wouldn't even be on the list.

    And that has nothing to do with his race or his gender, but about his essential self; he's terrified to take a real stand lest people not like him, or he be seen as divisive, so he's constantly playing the ever-shifting middle, such that the resulting policy pleases no one.

    And I don't see any indication that he's going to change that essential self, dooming us to two more years of Republican-lite or flat-out Republican policies.

    I hope I'm wrong.

    Parent

    What this translates into is (none / 0) (#180)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    Obama is a liar. Not just a small liar, but a liar about almost everything fundamental to his candidacy, his presidency and his statements.

    Was Bill Clinton not a liberal? Obama record to this point is far more liberal than his.

    Clinton was signing DADT into effect at this point of his presidency.

    Let's keep some level of perspective here.

    Parent

    What THIS translates into ... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 12:07:03 PM EST
    ... is yet more nonsensical Obamapologia.

    Obama is a liar. Not just a small liar, but a liar about almost everything fundamental to his candidacy, his presidency and his statements.

    Probably a little further than I would go, but basically correct (i.e. I wouldn't say "everything").  Obama never claimed to be a liberal, but he certainly allowed his vague proposals to be interpreted/sold as such by his supporters and his campaign.  In those rare instances where he did make specific promises, he backtracked or flip-flopped many times.

    Was Bill Clinton not a liberal? Obama record to this point is far more liberal than his.

    Pffffftt ... uh,...... yeah.  Because he got HCR passed?  You mean a plan that's basically identical to the Republican plan of '94?  Ridiculous.  BTW - Clinton was a moderate Dem, and never allowed himself to be sold as anything but a moderate Dem.  Obama?  Well, depends on which group he was speaking to on any given day.

    Clinton was signing DADT into effect at this point of his presidency.

    Maybe you weren't around back in '93, but DADT was a compromise forced at a time when the DOD, Congress and the public were strongly opposed to a repeal of the ban, and Clinton paid a heavy political price for making the repeal a priority.  Obama?  Despite the support of Congress, DOD and the public, he sits on his hands, waiting for Congress to hand him a bill to sign.  I'm sure that will be a huge priority for the next (Republican) Congress.


    Let's keep some level of perspective here.

    Couldn't agree more.

    Parent

    From my perspective, it doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    matter where Bill Clinton falls on the political spectrum between conservative and liberal: he's not the president.

    What matters to me is what this president - Obama - is doing: what policies he supports, which ones he doesn't, which ones are worth twisting arms over and which ones aren't, who he's willing to sacrifice in service to his agenda.

    It is a colossal waste of time to keep bringing up Clinton in the context of how liberal Obama is in comparison, or how their respective poll numbers compare.  I mean, what purpose is served by looking at that?  Okay, I get that it makes you feel better, but the fact that you have to do that to feel better tells me that you're just denying what is obvious: that Obama isn't the transformative champion of transparent, accountable and responsive-to-the-people government he came into office proclaiming himself to be.  That he's dithered and conciliated and triangulated AWAY elements of true progressive policy to the advantage of those who already hold all the advantages.

    You simply do not convene a commission during dreadful economic times to look at the deficit "problem" and chair it and stack it with opponents of social safety-net programs, and configure it in such a way that it pretty much gets the last word, if you care about the people who need these programs as much as you say you do.  As far as I'm comcerned, he has less than zero credibility as a representative of the Democratic platform or the Democratic philosophy.

    The last two years have been filled with examples like this, all of which tell the real tale about who Obama is and where his interests are focused.

    And none of it has anything to do with Bill Clinton.


    Parent

    You go too far (none / 0) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:53:51 PM EST
    He didn't lie about everything. He did say that he was going to put everything about Social Security on the table. Also, in his interview with Wallace on Fox he said that he agreed with much of the Republican's approach on schools. As we have seen he has keep his promise to gut, I mean, "fix" Social Security by creating the Cat Food Commission and his education program is "No Child Left Behind" on steroids.

    Parent
    You forgot "3" (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:59:41 PM EST
    The left's version of birther-ism: that somehow the black guy cheated/stole/jive talked his way into power over a far superior (and markedly lighter) candidate and all would be right with the world if we could somehow go back in time and fix that horrible, horrible mistake.

    3.  False/ridiculous accusations of "Racism!!!" from Obama supporters/apologists that (apparently) continue to this day.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    he's failed badly

    Krugman:
    The real story of this election, then, is that of an economic policy that failed to deliver. Why? Because it was greatly inadequate to the task.



    Parent
    He's right ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:08:10 PM EST
    If Obama has tried to do it the easy way, he's failed badly.

    ... on both counts.

    Parent

    Do you get extra points for (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    combining Hillary and racists in your tactic of diverting the attention away discussion of Obama's policy choices?

    Parent
    to be fair (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    ABM didn't bring it up, and he has been discussing policy choices.

    IMO - also a valid point.

    Parent

    You are delusional if you do not think that (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Buckeye on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    Obama offering bi-partisanship and a post-racial America was used as a selling point to elect him.  No one is saying Obama did not do a lot to prove himself in the primary - but the historic nature of his candidacy was a MAJOR issue in that election.  

    What people are critical of, and have been for some time, is the concept of post partisan.  Politics is highly partisan and always will be.  Trying to work with republicans and bringing everyone together is a waste of time.  Things get done and agendas move forward by winning the debate over the country's future, putting all the pieces in place (white house, controlling majority in legislature, approval ratings of American people, etc.) and driving the right policy.  Obama did not do that partly because it goes against his nature and everything he campaigned on, partly because he had very bad advisors.

    Parent

    And that ruffian (none / 0) (#174)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 10:33:53 PM EST
    if they had demand for their products, they would hire

    Is the absolute and unchangeable rule of economics that far too many of our present day "economists" don't understand.  

    Too bad so many of our present day "economists" work for Obama.

    Parent

    Obama didn't see a dime's worth (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by observed on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    of difference between his stimulus package and the one economists preferred.

    Larry Summers was far more concerned (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:53:23 AM EST
    about making the bond market feel a little bummed out than he was concerned in any way about the job market being wiped out.  And would the bond market have been bummed out when the stimulus provided more vigorous recovery and tax returns?  Should I ever again be B.S.ed into believing someone is a genius when they don't even understand the basics, or maybe they had been such a large part of creating so much "fictional" economy that the real economy became unimagineable to them?

    MT (none / 0) (#175)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 10:36:29 PM EST
    superb comment.

    I'm copying it for future use if that's OK with you.

    Parent

    Every Quarterback (3.50 / 2) (#11)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    is able to call the perfect gameplan on Monday at 10:00AM.

    There is no realization in any of this analysis of the republican obstructionism he was facing, legitimate concerns about the deficit, the ramifications of the failure of the stimulus, etc.

    One very supportable train of thought says that the stimulus could have been substantially greater and STILL not had a dramatic difference on unemployment. Or at best a 1-1.5% difference.

    At that level, he would be getting crucified right now and the country would be in generally the same position.

    What the left and the right both share is an inability to come to grasp with the fact that it is possible that nothing could have been done to materially improve our current lot. Given how intertwined we are with other countries, it's not like we were going to be able to fix what is a global problem by throwing some additional billions out there.

    Could the stimulus have been bigger? Yes.Probably. But let's keep in perspective what that bigger stimulus would have done.

    You'd have the GOP blasting it as a failure even if unemployment were 2% lower and the Dems would still be in trouble.

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    okay, again:

    legitimate concerns about the deficit,

    a senseless conservative talking point.  

    You'd have the GOP blasting it as a failure even if unemployment were 2% lower and the Dems would still be in trouble.

    Sure, the GOP would be blasting the Dems for that.  But Dems would actually be able to say they lowered unemployment.  Dems would get to say "this worked."

    I'm shocked that you just don't care at all about the policy.  If you didn't think it was going to work, then why do you still support its passage at all?

    Parent

    Are you saying (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    concern about the deficit is senseless? If so you have good company I guess. Dick Cheney agrees with you.

    Parent
    In the short run? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:24:56 PM EST
    It is without a doubt senseless and idiotic.

    That has nothing to do with Dick Cheney.

    Parent

    Oh but I'm told (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:18:30 PM EST
    there are

    legitimate concerns about the deficit

    I don't know if people are just hypersensitive since it's election season but pulling out right wing tropes about the deficit to defend Obama does not inspire me.

    I think Paul's op-ed did a good job - he wrote what he believed was the right policy, and framed (rightfully so) the Republicans as being light years away from it.

    Incorporating deficit hand-wringing into the party line is just going to lead us down a road full of trouble.  

    Parent

    Thinking short run (1.50 / 2) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    is what causes long term problems

    Parent
    Sheesh (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    Any more "aphorisms" to offer?

    Do you really believe that this is the time to cut government spending because of deficit concerns?

    My effing gawd.

    Parent

    I didn't (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:08:00 PM EST
    say anything about cutting. You were arguing for increasing in an attempt to re-inflate the bubble.

    The National Bureau of Economic Research said the recession ended in June 2009. That's when economic activity stopped declining and began improving. The stimulus did what it was supposed to do. If it was meant to be a political ploy for elections, then yes I guess they could have doubled or tripled it to rebuild the house of cards and let it tumble harder and faster at a later date.

    Parent

    This is just nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    The stimulus did NOT do what it was supposed to do.

    As for reflating the bubble, what in blazes are you talking about? We have 17% real unemployment and you think there is a danger of reinflating the bubble?

    This is sheer delusion.

    Parent

    well, maybe the derivatives bubble (none / 0) (#142)
    by eparrot on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    but i don't think that's what the commenter was referring to.

    Parent
    And what did Keynes say about the long run? (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    Since we are tossing out aphorisms.

    Parent
    Guess, there are no short term problems now? (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:57:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (4.80 / 5) (#36)
    by PatHat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:31:17 PM EST
    Concern with the deficit is senseless during a recession. Think about it. The deficits are being financed at virtually 0% interest.

    More important is for government to SPEND money (they are the only ones willing and able to to that) to create jobs, which will increase tax revenue and decrease spending on unemployment and other support programs. People with jobs SPEND MONEY and will get us out of the recession.

    Deficits are about 10th on the list of worries during this economic crisis, with inflation being about 20th.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#38)
    by PatHat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:31:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by PatHat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    Concern with the deficit is senseless during a recession. Think about it. The deficits are being financed at virtually 0% interest.

    More important is for government to SPEND money (they are the only ones willing and able to to that) to create jobs, which will increase tax revenue and decrease spending on unemployment and other support programs. People with jobs SPEND MONEY and will get us out of the recession.

    Deficits are about 10th on the list of worries during this economic crisis, with inflation being about 20th.

    Parent

    I am focused like a laser on the policy (none / 0) (#155)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    The reality is that some of the conservative points on the deficit are legitimate.

    Clearly there is a sweet spot of spending/deficit control that is correct, but who knows whether the Krugman's have it or whether the conservative's have it correct.

    I like Krugman a lot, but there is something in his confidence that sounds like Thomas Friedman used to when discussing the Iraq War.  Whenever you hear that kind of certainty, your radar should go up.

    I just think it is entirely possible that boldness by Obama could have made things worse, both fiscally and politically.

    Parent

    NO (none / 0) (#176)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 10:58:41 PM EST
    Conservatives are completely wrong about deficits and they never even brought up the subject during the Bush years.

    Krugman's certainty is based on real history.

    During WWII we spent DOUBLE tax revenue.  The economy completely recovered from the depression, a pent up demand for consumer goods (not produced during the war) was built during the war that fired the post-war economy.  Vigorous growth continued for three decades.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Tony on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    "You'd have the GOP blasting it as a failure even if unemployment were 2% lower and the Dems would still be in trouble."

    And, what, 3 million more people would have jobs right now?  That is a very real thing.

    Parent

    3 million employed (none / 0) (#156)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    is certainly a real benefit. I cannot deny that. Fair point.

    Parent
    BTD is repeating what he said on Sunday (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:47:15 AM EST


    Parent
    BTD, Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:58:25 AM EST
    a lot of people were ahead of this one.

    This is what frustrates me about a lot of the "know one could have known" arguments, whether it's the housing crash, the Iraq war, or the Stimulus.

    A lot of people knew.  They just weren't listened to.

    Parent

    To be fair to me (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    I called it on Friday and Saturday, not Monday.

    Parent
    Me, too. (none / 0) (#127)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:11:18 PM EST
    I called that Obama would fail a couple days after he directed Reid to give Lieberman what he wanted - keeping his committee, etc. After that, it was all downhill b/c everyone saw they could get all they wanted by pouting and there would be no Democratic party discipline.


    Parent
    As for your analysis (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    I can only say if you believe this is insginificant:

    "One very supportable train of thought says that the stimulus could have been substantially greater and STILL not had a dramatic difference on unemployment. Or at best a 1-1.5% difference."

    Then you really have no conception of the problem in the economy - which is the huge drop in aggregate demand.

    The one real cure for the economy is JOBS! Jobs increase aggregate demand, reduce the deficit by increasing tax receipts and lower the demand on unemployment benefits.

    To the degree that the stimulus can be defended is the argument that being TOO bold may have jeopardized the stimulus that was passed leading to even higher unemployment.

    I personally do not buy that argument - the stimulus bill that was passed was always going to be there. The question is could the President have done better? In my estimation he could have and there was no downside to trying.

    Parent

    If I saw a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    out fixing roads and getting a government paycheck for it, there would be both less unemployment and more money being spent on consumption, with the consumption driving demand.

    Instead, we get tax credits which, for people making nothing, are pretty f'g useless.  I mean, a credit of 10 (or whatever) percent on your tax liability, when your tax liability is zero because you're not making any money and therefore owe no tax, is pretty f'g useless.

    Parent

    not exactly true (none / 0) (#143)
    by eparrot on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 04:56:03 PM EST
    if it's a tax credit, it's not a percentage, it's a fixed amount.  You get it even if you have no tax liability.  Which if I recall correctly is true of some of the stimulus tax stuff but certainly not all of it.

    It's hard to support the position that the stimulus didn't help the unemployment situation just like it's hard (ok impossible) to support the position that a bigger/better designed stimulus wouldn't have done a lot more.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#158)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    I can't argue with much of that. Those are valid points.

    I agree that he should have pushed harder and been more assertive.  But I understand why he didn't, if that makes sense.

    Parent

    1-1.5% (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    every little bit counts.  I bet 1 - 1.5% of the population would LOVE a job right now.

    There's something to be said for trying and failing as well - then going for a compromise.  But it's not like he even tried.

    And let's face it, it wasn't republican obstruction.  It was Joe Lieberman and the Blue Dogs.

    Whether the Dems would still be in trouble or not is irrelevant frankly.  The country would have been better off.

    Parent

    If unemployment were 2% lower, (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    it would have been 7.6% in September.  Obama would then have been right when he said unemployment will not exceed 8%.

    Even a 1% or 1.5% decease in unemployment would have meant more people were employed and able to not only survive but contribute to the economy. From my viewpoint, that is more important than whether or not the Republicans would say mean things about Obama and the Democrats.

    Parent

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Left of the Left on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:53:04 PM EST

    You'd have the GOP blasting it as a failure...and the Dems would still be in trouble.

    Really dodged that bullet.

    Hell of an argument, btw. "It might've worked, but if it didnt we'd be in the same spot."

    Parent

    But, when it's third-and-9, and (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    the defense is showing you an empty backfield, a checkdown to your running back for a two yard gain doesn't cut it.

    This was not the time to be "concerned" about the deficit, not when the government has the power to spend on programs and initiatives that create jobs - jobs that put money in the pockets of workers who (1) pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes on it, (2) are not collecting unemployment, (3) take their net pay and spend it in the local community, which (4) increases demand and spurs hiring by local employers to meet it.  Which makes the upward spiral keep moving up, instead of down.

    As for Republican obstructionism, if he knew he was going to meet resistance, why not go big - present a vision grounded in reality, use the bully pulpit to sell it to the people, and if you have to concede, do so from a position of strength, not weakness.  He never, ever did that - not on the economy, not on health "care," not on financial sector reform.  

    Talking about ushering in transformative change so people will vote for you is not the same as taking the often bold action required for anything to be transformative; but given that there is nothing in Obama's background that I'm aware of that ever suggested he had "bold" in him, no one should be surprised that he is still - even now - talking instead of acting.

    I am not exhausted from defending him - as that woman told him at the town hall recently, because there is no defense, in my opinion, for what has turned out to be a bamboozle of epic proportions; I am exhausted, however, by the idea of at least two more years of him believing that the answer is more "reaching out" to Republicans, and going small and weak when the situation calls out for big and bold.

    If a larger stimulus had  stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs and kept the unemployment level 2% lower than it is now, I wouldn't give a flying fig if the GOP had blasted the Dems for spending that money, because their whining would just make them look like the nitwits they are - and if you think voters wouldn't reward Dems for saving more of their jobs, I would have to question your political acuity.

    So many who voted for Obama did so because they believed they were on the cusp of ushering in a revolution of change; revolutions don't happen by talking, but by acting, and what Obama has shown me - and a significant portion of the country - is that he just does not have it in him to take the risks that bold action requires.

    Parent

    Ask Jay Cutler (2.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:38:04 PM EST
    how throwing on every down works?

    In Krugmans world if Cutler just thrown more passes they would have beat the Redskins.

    Parent

    There is historical precedent (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    The New Deal and WWII spending showed how get out of the Great Depression.

    Lower taxes from Bush II did not resurrect the economy--but it did cuase the surplus to evaporate and big deficits.

    Bill Clinton raised taxes, and the deficits ended and a surplus was created.

    Reagan cut taxes (and raised them back too) and the deficit exploded.

    Parent

    Who's talking about throwing on (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    every down?

    I'm talking about when it's crunch time - late in a game, and needing points to take the lead and win a game; good QBs will take the calculated risk associated with that strategy, because not taking it means the loss is probably inevitable, while taking that risk means you have a chance to win.

    No, sometimes it fails - ask Brett Favre, who tried to overcome his earlier mistakes in the game against the Packers last night, get the TD and win the game - and if Percy Harvin had had both feet in bounds in the back of the end zone, it would have worked.

    The economy is a big issue that called then - and calls now - for bold leadership - and Obama wimped out.  There were any number of economists calling for a much bigger stimulus, and their arguments were compelling; Obama chose to go with those giving him the play-it-safe advice, and I have to believe that when all is said and done "safe" is really where he prefers to be, thinking that as long as he gives everyone some part of what they want, it's all going to turn out okay.

    But it hasn't, not at all, and a good deal of the reason for that is failure of leadership and reliance on risk-averse policy that is the equivalent of choosing to be happy with a two-yard gain when nine yards were needed, even as time is running out, along with the chance to win.

    Parent

    And, the stimulus (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    had a large percentage of tax cuts....

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    a lot of the so called "creative class" saw him as simply being transformative due to the color of his skin not any real things that he might do because IIRC Obama really didn't campaign on having a mandate for ideas. It was all about him.

    Sometimes I wonder if he will run for a second term.  I really think that he's not that interested in the job of President.

    Parent

    The certitude (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Politalkix on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:19:30 PM EST
    of some in the left that another 500 billion dollars in the stimulus would have solved the nation's current structural unemployment is like the certitude of right wingers that all wars can be won by America if only more troops are thrown in. Go figure....

    Parent
    Uncertainty reigns and is why this (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    Stimulus and a bigger stimulus did/would not have worked.

    The reality is the economy is in trouble because two things are still with us after the stimulus

    1. lack of private investment
    2. poor housing market

    The stimulus did nothing to make either of these things go away and a bigger one from this administration wouldn't have either.

    In fact the other policies of this administration, Health Care, EPA, financial regulations etc.. etc... are working to curb 1) and prolong 2).

    Pro stimulusers can keep complaining about consumption but that's not why our economy is in the tank.  

    Too many people cannot sell, buy or afford their home so they aren't spending and business is reluctant to invest money because the government is going to take huge cuts out of any potential profits through higher taxes and regulations.

    So the trillions in private equity and possible investment sit on the sidelines.

    Why?  Uncertainty.

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    The problem is CERTAINTY - the certainty that demand is way down.

    All the rest is sheer nonsense.

    Parent

    Yes demand is down but there is the other side (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    of the coin.  The amount of capital sitting on the sidelines due the the UNCERTAINTY of the policies and enacted laws.  

    Companies (large and small) are risk takers when they see opportunities.  When they see or perceive threats/risks greater than returns they become turtle like and withdraw into the protective shell.  That translates into not taking the risks of expanding and hiring.  Self preservation is a foundational position that is driven by UNCERTAINTY.

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    Raise demand and all else will follow. The certainty of lack of demand currently is the issue.

    This is not even debatable.

    If you like you right wing myths, go debate them somewhere where there is a tolerance for them. I do not debate fairy tales.

    Parent

    How do you explain on the money sitting (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:41:53 PM EST
    on the sidelines?  Couple that with the extended hours of existing employees + increased temp. hiring and that shows that there is a business need (and capital) to hire more employees to meet existing demand.  Businesses aren't hiring new employees but squeezing every bit of capacity out of current/overtime hours and temps.  That is not debatable.

    If there wasn't those employment facts along with the money sitting on the sidelines, then it would be a pure lack of demand situation.  

    Parent

    Temps are hired (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    because you don't have to pay unemployment on them when you shed them and you don't have to provide them with any sort of benefits.  What employees are getting extended hours.  Mostly we are hearing about furloughs but employees are supposed to turn in the same work.  I would call this unpaid hours that are worked in order to keep your job.

    Where is your link to this not debatable demand for more workers?  What I see is abuse of employees because if you won't do it, the next guy will and you can get your crap and get out of here and get to be jobless.

    Parent

    Overtime and temps (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    are what happen before new hiring....a harbinger of higher employment....every single time.....

    You cherry pick....

    There is a tremendous lack of demand....

    But you can create any theory you like--including the moon is made of cream cheese.

    But, yes, just the psychological good feeling when Republicans are elected will--by itself--make everything better.  You can say that about anything.....This is what Reagan hath wrought.  It is the good feeling, not reality or facts that matter.

    Frankly, I like my Dallas Cowboys theory better--if they were to win the Super Bowl this year, the economy would boom.   People would just feel better.  And, I have data to prove it.  The Recession of '92 eneded when Dallas won the first Super Bowl under Jimmy/Jerry.  So, my theory is better supported by the data than yours.

    So, all good Americans hoping for a good economy will cheer Dallas on to beat the Giants tonight...

    Precedent and current data do not support you.

    Parent

    Those facts are not existent (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:18:43 PM EST
    At least, the one about increased hours.

    As for money sitting on the sidelines - for the umpteenth time - no demand means no capital investment.

    We are in a zero lower bound situation, not a cost of money issue.

    Parent

    Zero Lower Bound (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    Cool,  I had to google that.

    BTW, BTD:  Cowboys by 14.

    Parent

    The facts do exist, Sept. drop belies the trend (none / 0) (#115)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    Last month, the Labor Department estimated that productivity fell 0.9% to mark the first decline in five quarters. Yet worker output grew at a slower pace based on newly revised data.

    Real output grew just 1.6% in the second quarter, compared with a prior estimate of 2.6%. Output expanded at a much faster 5% rate in the first three months of 2010.

    Hours worked rose at a 3.5% annualized rate -- the fastest in four years.

    Link

    Companies are pushing more output from existing staff levels.  Overtime is cheaper than new hires and with less risk.

    The point made by another commenter that this is signs of growth are not true this time around - that is where I concede the demand part of the argument.

    I have not argued a single point regarding the cost of money.  

    Parent

    misleading figures on output (none / 0) (#145)
    by eparrot on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    because that is year over year and since Q4 2008, things have been horrible.  Look at the figures compared to say 2007 and the tale is somewhat different. With near 10% unemployment and much higher underemployment, not to mention dropping salaries in almost every income bracket, it would be very unlikely for the demand necessary for growth to exist.  And these figures certainly are not robust enough to suggest anything of the sort.

    As for the housing market, I agree that demand is muted because people are trapped underwater, etc. But that observation misses the larger point - housing prices were far too high, based on easy credit.  The market isn't coming back anytime soon, nor should it, at least not the same way it was.  certainly the administration and congress could be doing a lot more to address the structural problems that are left over from the housing bubble, but doing so would require going against the lobbyists, something few politicians of either party have the stomach for.

    Parent

    Wow, completely closed to other ideas? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    Is Fareed Zakaria a spinner of right wing lies?

    How about Ben Bernake in his PHD Thesis?

    How about Newsweek?

    You don't have to agree but to dismiss this argument out of hand shows a little close minded thinking no?

    Of course demand would help but lets be honest.  The American consumer is completely tapped out.   There is no more mythical housing bubble to increase demand anymore.   The stimulus didn't create one iota of demand.  It simply allowed local and state governments to keep people employed but those people where still in debt, upside down on their mortgages and any demand that was created quickly evaporated because it resulted in zero savings and reinvestment.

    The only way this economy will grow again is if consumers and business save money and reinvest it in new companies and ideas.

    If the government plans to tax and regulate away the profits from new growth well then businesses are better off keeping it under their proverbial mattress.

    Parent

    a job (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    in government is like a job anywhere else.  It pays the bills.  The American consumer would be significantly less tapped out if they had jobs.

    "simply" kept people employed indeed.

    Again with the tax argument.  Please explain how 60% < 0%.

    Parent

    How is demand created? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    Are we talking Field of Dreams-style build-it-and-they-will-come?

    Because that's just magical thinking.

    Why would I take my hard-earned savings and start a business if there was no demand for my product or service?  Why am I going to risk my retirement to go and compete against businesses and services that are already starved for customers?  If I already have a business, why would I spend my cash on hand to expand if there's no demand for what I sell?

    How long can I pay employees to sit around and play Snood while I wait for enough business to put me into the black?

    The only entity that can afford to spend without fear is the government, and it could get pretty darn creative about where and how to do that - if there were someone who had the courage to fight for it.

    Instead, we can look forward to those with the least being asked - or being told - to sacrifice more and more so that the wealthy don't have to.

    Parent

    I did not click your links (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    as I don't think Zakaria knows more than I do about economics. Frankly, I am sure he knows less.

    Bernanke, of course, knows a lot more. But my understanding is he is an ACADEMIC proponent of government spending in a depression to spur demand. In other words, a Keynesian.

    As for Newsweek, well, generally it is wrong about most things.

    I will, however address your comment. You write:

    "Of course demand would help [. . .]"

    Understatement of the year. Then you write:

    "The American consumer is completely tapped out.   There is no more mythical housing bubble to increase demand anymore."

    Indeed, precisely why government spending is necessary to increase demand. You then write:

    "The stimulus didn't create one iota of demand.  It simply allowed local and state governments to keep people employed but those people where still in debt, upside down on their mortgages and any demand that was created quickly evaporated because it resulted in zero savings and reinvestment."

    This is ridiculous. People keeping their jobs insures that demand is not reduced. Indeed, this is the type of stimulus spending that is most effective - it translates into direct transfers to people on the brink who will not save (you don;t want to create a savings incentive in a depression) the transfer, rather they will spend it. To wit, multiplying the effect of the stimulus spending. This is economics 101 btw, though it is true that Fareed Zakaria almost certainly does not know this. (Ben Bernanke does of course.)

    Honestly, these are not controversial concepts. The honest answer for a conservative is that we need this creative destruction over the longer term. I disagree but it is at least a defensible position intellectually.

    As an argument for good short term stimulus policy, it is sheer nonsense.

    Parent

    Bernanke's Ph.D. thesis (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    was on the dangers of deflation....

    He is not for lower deficits now....He has done everything to ease credit and lower interest rates....

    Parent

    More saving by consumers would cause (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:20:02 PM EST
    a great depression.....

    Your conclusion:

    If the government plans to tax and regulate away the profits from new growth well then businesses are better off keeping it under their proverbial mattress.

    The expiration of the Bush tax cuts would merely return us to the Clinton rates.   Those rates did not inhibit economic growth.  Case closed.  Actual data.

    "Regulation."  What do you mean by that--not regulating Wall Street in the wake of the financial collapse?  Most everyone agrees that the current mess was caused by a lack of regulation. Republican SEC Chair Chris Cox had admitted there was not enough regulation under him.

    When you say regulation, do you mean environmental regulation?  As in pollution is good for the economy?.....We have been too tough on off-shore drilling?

    Businesses will spend money on hiring when there is greater demand for their products....

    The formula for GDP is C+G+I=GDP.  Consmuer Spending, Government Spending and Investment.  Investment is a tiny percentage of GDP.  Consumer spending is a huge component--a super majority if you will--and that has always been the case, even under Reagan.

    You theory--that we give breaks to the rich, so that they will feel better is so stale.   All theoretical fantasy and contrary to history.  But it would benefit the rich.....And that is the always goal that the puppet masters of the Republican party always have.

     

    Parent

    in a way (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    regulation should help eliminate risk - or at least quantify it.  If BP had been properly regulated they wouldn't be on the hook for this giant oil spill.  If there is a cap on carbon, companies won't be on the hook in the future for massive environmental remediation due to too much carbon.  If anything, I think the problem is companies have been completely ignoring the real risk in front of them, and regulation forces them to face a certain amount of it upfront.  But that kind of risky growth is usually bobble-related, and when it pops we all hurt.  Good regulation helps provide a level of certainty in markets.

    I never understood the argument that people don't invest because of taxes on profits.  Would you rather have 60% of profits, or no profits at all?  Taxes will never be higher than profits.  So the risk will never be greater than the return.

    The reason you don't invest is that you think there is no money to be made.

    Parent

    It not a simple 2 is greater than 1 equation. (none / 0) (#71)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    The costs of doing business, to include complying with regulations can make the perceived risks not worth the effort/investment.

    If hiring a new employee triggers mandatory costs (like health care, etc.) that were not previously part of the equation, it becomes a barrier to taking that risk.  

    If proposed enactment of policies like EFCA are on the table, the projected costs also increase and add further barriers to expansion.

    The Cap & Trade/Carbon argument is not proven from the commercial point of view and is seen as yet another potential high risk/high cost factor.

    Parent

    yea but (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:03:41 PM EST
    a lot of times investment in things that don't comply with (or have) regulations aren't really solid investments to begin with.

    Like the housing bubble, for example.

    Or BP's "investment" in an oil rig in the gulf.

    Is that really the kind of investment we want?

    I mean sure, I guess gouging people with credit card fees is a good way to make money.  But it's not necessarily a good way to effectively grow the overall economy.  Someone is paying for that, and that's money they could have been spent elsewhere.  Just like health care.  Those costs existed before.  Shifting the burden means someone else has money to spend.  A bankrupt populace doesn't seem like a solid platform for growth either.

    Parent

    The investments that I am talking about are (none / 0) (#97)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:32:57 PM EST
    are new and/or expanded facilities for existing companies investing - which translates to more employment.

    The current climate, both demand and foreboding govt. interference is combining for the lack of increased hiring.  The "incidental" costs of building a new factory for a new product in the US are cost prohibitive due to the items I listed above, almost all are govt and special interest driven.  

    The BP incident is a strawman.  A one off when compared to all the hundreds/thousands of rigs and the thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs that are involved in that industry's supply chain.

    Just throwing govt money after more govt money is not going to build the foundation needed for long term stability.  FDR found that out when he reduced spending in '37-'38.  How long could he have continued without the change of focus to war manufacturing?  

    Parent

    gov't money (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    Where exactly do you think we got the money for all that war manufacturing?

    The BP spill will end up costing them close to 37 billion dollars.  Do you think it would have cost more than that to properly regulate all of their rigs?  I don't.  It's not a straw man, it's a direct example of what happens when you let companies manage their own risk.  BP didn't happen in a vacuum, and it's not the only example of a preventable catastrophic oil spill either.  Just like the housing catastrophe - it ends up costing you more in the end.

    My main point about regulation is that it forces companies to actually manage risk.  If they are going to grow by f*cking everyone else over, and themselves in the end as well, there's really no long-term benefit to the economy or the populace.

    Parent

    A one-off (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:50:32 PM EST
    Amazing, the lack of concern.

    By the same reasoning, 9/11 was a one-off.

    And, not it wasn't really a one off.  Oil spills are bound to happen.  We have catastrophic spills in the U.S. about once a decade....Around the world, they happen all the time....

    Parent

    1 spill a decade in the US (none / 0) (#118)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:59:42 PM EST
    How many rigs are in production at any given time?

    There are risks involved in everything.  Using your argument we should ban all cars from the highways because the ratio of accidents far exceeds the benefit.  

    Just how many spills, of significance, occur each year world wide?  How much oil is leaked and damage done in comparison to what naturally leaks?  

    Parent

    ftr (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:02:17 PM EST
    I wasn't talking about banning oil production.

    There is a reason cars have seatbelts though.

    Parent

    Duh.... (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:05:57 PM EST
    If you are congenitally pre-disposed to hate protecting the environment, you miss the obvious.

    Parent
    Yes, I understand the corporate/conservative (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:07:12 PM EST
    argument that pollution is good for the economy....

    Parent
    True re FDR (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    So, we should spend more on industry....

    High speed rail.....Highways, bridges,

    Investing in electric cars....

     

    Parent

    when FDR was President (none / 0) (#173)
    by Politalkix on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 10:22:02 PM EST
    we did not have to import to put people to work. A lot of effect of the stimulus is lost if you have to import steel, wind turbines,  photovoltaics, etc from other countries to put people to work immediately.
    Owing to the non-availability of "shovel ready" projects, a staggered stimulus became a necessity.
    Eg; There was no way we could have started high speed rail projects immediately. Even if they were started, Republicans would have demagogued against it. A change in governorships in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, etc would have brought these projects to an end, even if it got started quickly.


    Parent
    We had "shovel ready" jobs ... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:46:20 AM EST
    How do we know?

    Obama said so.

    Parent

    Cap and Trade was a Republican creation (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    Democrats favored regulating pollution with ceilings and limits.

    Republicans favored creating a market for pollution credits, as the reason for regulating pollution in the first place was that it was a classic externality without a market, i.e, no one paid the costs of polluting our air and water....

    Al Gore finally came around to Cap and Trade.  Republicans eventually balked because they say pollution is good for the economy, but they know pollution is good for their wallers....But their kids' health?  Funny how that doesn't matter much....

    Cap and Trade is dead.  It would not win during the last Congress, and it certainly couldn't during the next.  

    I think it is the fear of comets striking the earth that has rich people not spending....That combined with the lousy season the Dallas Cowboys are having....

    Pary the Giants lose tonight...

    Parent

    Pollution is not the same as carbon (none / 0) (#99)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:35:02 PM EST
    Additionally, the House C&T bill went way way beyond just carbon swaps.  Those far reaches in that bill is what killed it.

    Parent
    I know carbon is good pollution (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    But you have alreayd won that issue....

    Can't blame a nonexistent/dead bill for current problems....

    Parent

    A good reminder (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:42:15 PM EST
    "Cap & Trade" essentially arose from the market-incentive arguments that have been around since the latter 1970s. Mostly, they were urged by Republicans (beginning with a former EPA Deputy Administrator John Quarles following his service with the Agency.)  Interesting, tho, that earlier versions underlay even Carter administration proposals for providing market incentives to large operations like steel facilities and refineries via a plantwide "bubble policy." But, you are correct that "cap & trade" is an amalgam of evolving ideas about how to control and account for pollution control on a large scale...ideas that really represent a compromise over accountability mechanisms.

    Parent
    You sound like the Obama administration (none / 0) (#80)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    who has zero people with real business experience.

    Businesses work off of balance sheets.   Not economic theory.

    Reinvestment means zero profits short term and maybe single digit profits long term, unless your apple.

    Point being when government monkeys with the operating formula of a current business not only do future profits drop but current profits drop which means an acting business has to start defending its flank rather then putting money back into the economy in the form of reinvestment.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 04:38:43 PM EST
    As someone who has been involved in a small business they DO NOT operate off balance sheets. Do you know what a balance sheet is? It has fixed assets on it which are hard or impossible to liquidate right now due to the demand problem. The problem is not the government, not taxes (because they hardly pay any anyway) it is other business who don't pay their bills. You wouldn't believe the number of business owners who treat their business as their personal ATM giving themselves large salaries because they think like you that hey, they are special and deserve it right? So they don't pay the people who they owe money to or they go 90, 120 days etc. One of the worst offenders of this type of behavior is Wal-Mart who demands net 90 or 120!!! days on their invoices thereby having sold the merchandise many days before they even deem to pay the supplier.

    So in effect businesses have largely created this problem themselves and then when demand drops they are in quite a pickle due to their own sense of entitlement. All I ever hear from conservatives is how we need to coddle these entitled idiots and it is tiresome. If you aren't smart enough to run a business then maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

    Parent

    you sound like someone (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    who never studied the industrial revolution.

    Sure, there was lots of growth and business was booming.  But I wouldn't like to live there.

    Parent

    This is hilarious IMO (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:23:24 PM EST
    businesses will never operate seeking to lose a profit....well, until recently when we made losing a profit profitable in credit default swaps :) (We are such idiots)  Corporations are now used to making huge profits though.  Future huge profits are gone now and will not simply come to because you are sitting there or you have figured out how to offshore another 10,000 jobs.  Corporations must actually be innovative and come up with very desireable products to move the market.  They are lazy right now, and fat on corporate welfare too.  They are like welfare queens laying around the house eating bon bons.  They are not hungry, they don't need to take risks this minute because they are so flush, and by having no market to sell to we are insuring that this behavior will go on ever longer.

    Parent
    The opportunities aren't there (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    because the jobs aren't there.  People can't buy anybody's $hit.  They are tapped out, unemployed, broke, broken

    Parent
    It is business opportunities not employment (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    opportunities that I am addressing.  

    Parent
    A business opportunity (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    is one that has a market.  There is no market.  They killed the engine that runs the economy.  The only way you can us back on the road is by rebuilding the engine.  You have no one to sell anything too.

    Parent
    And when that sinks in corporations (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    and investors will become even more conservative in their risk taking.  This really isn't rocket science.  It is called contraction of an economy, and it is what austerity buys you when you in the position that we are in.

    Parent
    And as that certainty increases (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    things will get even worse

    Parent
    Hold on now BTD (none / 0) (#160)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    I believe a fair amount of that is correct. The states aren't spending their money.  The companies aren't spending their money. No one can sell their houses.

    Those are facts that are real and can't be erased by more cash in the pipeline.

    Here is my theory of what's happening to be rejected or ridiculed as appropriate:

    I think Obama and others know that no amount of stimulus was really going to get things moving. What mattered was creating the impression of improvement. So it didn't matter as long as the stimulus was of a certain size. The real key was the overall optimism of the economy. People save money until they believe that the pay check will be there the next day.

    I think that Europe and specifically the constant negative barrage from the conservatives were damaging, not only to dems politically, but to the economy.

    If you are the 50% of the nation that watches Fox regularly and you turned it on at any point during the last year, you heard that the economy (for wahetever reason was terrible and the stimulus was a failure.

    "The stimulus was a failure."

    No we all know that's not true. It saved millions of jobs, but it is perceptions that matter.

    Self fulfilling proficies are real and the conservatives, in their need to demonize dems at all cost, created a very damaging one.

    That's why to some degree, I think we're here regardless of how much cash is pumped in.

    The conservatives would never, ever acknowledge that the stimulus was good. People believe that and then the stimulus really isn't that good.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    if you truly believe this then why aren't you mad at Obama for laying down and playing ppus when he should have been fighting this narrative? You seem to think that there's nothing that can be done and we should all throw up our hands and surrender and that is EXACTLY what the GOP wants us to do.

    Parent
    I think Obama (none / 0) (#181)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    has trouble convincing half of America that he's not a muslim, terrorist, nazi, communist, anti-christ.

    How the heck can he convince those same people of the detailed nuances of economic policy?

    When W took us to war in Iraq, I at least listened to what the man said and gave him a fair chance. I ultimately disagreed with him, but I didn't start off with the concept that the man's goal was to destroy the country.

    That's the starting point for a big chunk of this country on Obama. To some degree, it just isn't his fault.

    It is the fault of a political party willing to demonize progressives for the sake of power.

    Parent

    If Obama could convince a majority of (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    voters to put him in the WH, then I think it's reasonable that he also be able - or at least make an effort - to convince the majority of Americans that the enactment of Democratic policy will be to their, and the country's benefit.  So what if he can't convince the ever-present fringe that he isn't Muslim, a terrorist, or whatever other ridiculous thing people believe?  Isn't this what leadership is all about - getting more people to believe in your vision than there are people who don't?

    As for the detailed nuances of economic policy, the only thing people understand is (1) do I have a job and am I likely to be able to keep it, (2) did the government make decisions that helped me get off unemployment so I can support myself and my family, (3) are the economic policies working for me or are they making it harder to keep myself afloat, (4) can I pay my bills, (5) will I be able to retire someday?

    That's what people understand - the answers to those kinds of questions - pocketbook issues.  We don't need someone who doesn't really understand these concepts that well himself trying to lecture the country as if we were all taking a college-level economics course - we need him to make good decisions, take bold action when it's called for, and stop dithering.

    I almost can't believe I am reading that because a good chunk of the country thinks he's out to destroy it, it really isn't his fault that things aren't going so well.  Once again - a significant chunk of the voters put him into office, and if he spent half as much time courting their support as he does Republican and conservative support that he's never going to get, if he spent half as much time looking out for the interests of human beings and not corporations - it wouldn't matter about the chunk that think he's evil personified.

    As for demonizing "progressives," are you kidding me?  Obama couldn't get away from the liberals fast enough - and he hasn't hesitated to keep chiding them and blaming them for his own inability to lead.  He's had willing assistance in that effort, so please - let's understand that he walked away from a significant chunk of people who would gladly have walked through fire for him if he had had any interest in getting a real progressive agenda enacted instead of the "something, anything" that ended up being warmed-over Republican plans or watered-down Democratic ones.

    I guess I could have saved myself some time and just the translation of most of your comments: it's always someone else's fault - leave Barack aloooooone!!!


    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 01:03:33 PM EST
    a large part of it is his fault because he legitimized the crazies in the GOP by always talking about how he wanted to work with them.

    The GOP always treats a Dem like that and Obama is no exception. You have to realize that they will never accept a Dem as President. The GOP feels that they are entitled to the presidency and anyone else is there illegitimately no matter how many votes or states they won.

    Obama had the chance to stomp them into the ground when he took office but he chose not to and that has been a fatal mistake for him and his presidency. It is a huge missed opportunity. He could have showed leadership and gone straight to the American people with policies that actually helped them instead of catering to the special interests in Washington. He seems to want to be the national community organizer rather than President.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#190)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    anyone who ever poses a serious threat to stomp anyone into the ground has any chance of accumulating that 400 - 500 mil war chest required to run for President these days. This idea that the present system could produce a President who would go straight to the people and not cater to any special interests, is pure, unadulterated, delusion. A pol can't even become a serious contender without catering to a plethora of special interests; which is a relationship that doesn't miraculously end if the pol has the good fortune to be elected to higher office.  

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    so shorter Jondee:
    Throw your hands up and wave the white flag. That is exactly the mentality that brought the tea party to power. They knew they were up against people who wouldn't fight.

    And where Obama's money gone? It all went over to the GOP so it was worthless for him in the end and as you see, they will abandon you in a heartbeat.

    If you don't produce something to motivate the people to show up and vote then all the money in the world can't help you. Example no 1: Meg Whitman.

    Parent

    Which political party are you faulting (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    for being willing to demonize progressives for the sake of power? Seems that Obama and members of his administration have been more than willing to demonize progressive members of their own party if they dare to criticize Obama's policies.

    Parent
    Remember this: (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    The American people will always choose strong and wrong vs. weak and right and Obama has done nothing but project weakness since taking office. So of course, the crazies are making hay because they at least have the appearance of being strong.

    Parent
    the states are broke (none / 0) (#183)
    by CST on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    because of limited tax revenue - but they aren't hoarding money.  They are spending what they have - and even with federal help they have had to make cuts.

    It makes sense that with more federal cash in the pipeline they would have made fewer cuts and spent more.

    I agree with you that there is a certain population that will simply hate the Stimulus and everything to do with Obama because of who he is.  But I think he could have held some of the more liberal voters if he had done more.  Whether more stimulus would have saved the economy or not is debatable.  But I do believe it would have helped - and politics aside, things are hard right now, every little bit counts.

    He was never gonna get the conservatives.  If the Stimulus was bigger, they would still hate him.  But I don't think they would hate him more than they do now.  What constituency was served by a moderate stimulus?

    I agree with this statement "I think we're here regardless of how much cash is pumped in."  "here" being the political climate.  But that's all the more reason to have just said f*ck politics and pass a bigger stimulus.  Because the economy, and people who are hurting, need it.

    Parent

    Certainty. (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:36:09 PM EST
    Trillions sit on the side cause there is no demand.  No demand cause people have no jobs.  No jobs cause no one is creating jobs.  No jobs will be created by the faith based side of the economy, faith in the market side.  Believe and they will make the jobs.  The only way government can make jobs is to fund projects/policies that create real jobs.  Everything else requires a belief in the system that failed.  

    The tax cuts during the Bush era:

    Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again. During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when America's top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the nation's average annual growth was 3.7 percent. But between 1983 and start of the Great Recession, when the top rate was far lower - ranging between 35 and 39 percent - the economy grew an average of just 3 percent per year. Supply-siders are fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan's 1981 cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. In fact, that boom followed Reagan's 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; it came in the wake of Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

    When they had certainty, they did not create jobs.  I thought the whole idea of capital was risk, taking risk.  Now they want government to coddle them and protect them against all risk?

    Parent

    Private investment (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by PatHat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    is down because there is no demand...in products, housing, etc. It is not because of some future concern about taxes.

    The housing bubble was a construct of the banks and investors needing mortgages to securitize and make huge profits on....until it burst.

    Parent

    You can (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    also attribute a large part of the housing bubble and its accompanying pain to people willing to refinance their current mortgages into longer term debt so they could live beyond their means. The consensus of buyers was, "housing prices never go down", giving them the willingness to chase short term living "high on the hog" at the risk of long term failure.

    Parent
    since many of those mortgages... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:02:26 PM EST
    ...were extended by banks who had no interest in them ever being repaid, because they were simply going to bundle that debt and sell it off, well, blaming some Americans for being sucked into the American money fantasy is a tad skewed. I have no real love for folks who genuinely went crazy, but none of it wouldn't have happened if financial institutions hadn't decided to create fraudulent instruments with all those mortgages, when they KNEW, full well, it was all b.s.

    I can blame the little guy when I have to, and here some of it goes to the little guys and gals, but a bigger share of the blame actually goes to those folks and institutions who actually control, in every way, the big money in this nation, and who decided, nah, what's best for the country can blow me.

    Parent

    So blame the homeowners (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    and not the banks?

    Parent
    Blame them all (none / 0) (#164)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    All of us are to blame in one way or another.

    Bottom line:

    If my house is worth $50,000 less than it was when I bought it, I am not spending money because I may be completely screwed if I lose my job.

    That's the way that I would think about things and a lot of others do as well.

    Nothing is going to change that until my wages go up or the housing prices at least start to rise again.

    Parent

    I think you are correct in a fashion (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    the other side of that contract agreement though is that the banks played the same game and made insane loans.  How can anyone loan someone 125% of what their house is worth?  I don't know how, but Countrywide ran the comercials 24/7 and the way most people were raised to allow money to manage them instead of them manage money, only stupid people didn't take advantage of that gluttony :)  And now the banks don't need to be responsible for making such insane loans in order to create more MBS, I will pay for that too.  Every day that goes by it looks like I will be paying for everything.

    Parent
    Most people are not smart financially (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    That is just fact. The banks used to provide a backstop, and they stopped when they could make money on high risk loans and credit cards.

    Parent
    It's not smart, is educated (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    People got the wrong education about personal finance.  They were told to borrow to leverage their wealth and get tax deductions like the big boys do.  Matter of fact, they were doing what was considered to be smart by the financial orthodoxy of the last 20 years.  

    In truth, their lack of economic education and understanding how their wealth (their home) was being gambled away by the same people they thought were on their side, the financiers.  

    The idiocy of over borrowing to save on taxes was the biggest fattest lie imposed on Americans.  

    Parent

    When the Fed was encouraging (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    "creative loans" then people figured that the loans must have been a good idea. It isn't like the average person is going to question the wisdom of someone whose whole life has been about the study of economics.

    Parent
    Right, that is true. I know the 'smarts' are not (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    in the genes.

    No one told people the big boys can take crazy chances because they are too big to fail, whereas the average joe following that strategy will wind up with nothing.

    Parent

    "Smartest People" (none / 0) (#132)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    Remember how smart the people who invented the debacle used to be?  Now, they are not smart enough to figure out what to do with the billions they have to re-boot the economy.  

    They want government to give them "certainty".  Great, we now invented a new agency:  "Administration of Economic Certitude"  AEC.  

    Parent

    Smartest People (none / 0) (#144)
    by Rojas on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:05:28 PM EST
    Ya know back in 1993 you couldn't even get a home equity loan in Texas. It was against the law. Seem to recall a few other States had the same issue. A very bright star in the Democratic party told us they were going to "Fix" that if we didn't.


    Parent
    There's (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:16:54 PM EST
    nothing inherently wrong with home equity loans. I know many people who have used them. The craziness that came in was when people were offering 125% home equity loans.

    Parent
    Nothing inherently wrong with (none / 0) (#171)
    by Rojas on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 07:19:47 PM EST
    Securing a note on your kidneys as well I suppose. Life's a bitch when they come to collect.
    These were homestead states so I expect you could explain why it was in the National Interest to get at those equities? Whose interest did Rubin, Greenspan and Clinton have in mind?


    Parent
    So securing a debt with your house ... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    ... is like securing a debt with a vital organ?

    Pfffft ....

    BTW - HJR 31 (allowing home equity loans in Texas) is a matter of state law, controlled by the Texas state legislature.  If you have an issue with it, maybe you should take it up with those legislators.

    Parent

    The banks provided a backstop (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    because creating a defaulting mortgage had no upside, until recently :)

    Parent
    Yup. silly us. (none / 0) (#117)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:54:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Belief in convenient fairy tales (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Gee if we just made the rich feel more comforatable, everything would be fine...

    Parent
    You said it yourself (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    Too many people cannot sell, buy or afford their home so they aren't spending

    People that have jobs cannot spend enough right now to create demand, for exactly that reason. More stimulus that created more jobs on government projects could have helped.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#84)
    by Slado on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    A government job probably would have paid less then the private job they once had.

    So now the economy is still at a minus but we're saddled with intrest payements in the future to creat a short term economic not as bad as it would have been but still worse benefit.

    You cannot create wealth through borrowing.

    You can only create wealth through savings and reinvestment.

    When the government "creates" demand it is borrowing the money from the existing economy or a future one.   The multiplier effect (what this whole argument is really about) doesn't work.  It is at best case an equal in that is fills the void for private demand but most of the times its less efficient which means in the long run it doesn't work.

    See stimulus from this year as my proof.

    What do you have other then theory?

    Parent

    wealth is not CREATED (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    It is transferred. Money is a completely inanimate object whose only value is derived from the simple thoughts and feelings of human beings. Nothing else.  It is casino chips which, right now, are used in a terribly rigged game. Look at the effective corporate tax rate for the richest conglomerations of wealth -- it is almost zero. That is immoral and societally destructive beyond measure. But we will keep fiddling while Rome burns because we as Americans, on the whole, hate our government (and the idea that it can be our savior sometimes) much more than we love the idea of a stable and secure country.

    Parent
    I adore your first sentence (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    Wealth is not created, it is transferred.

    Parent
    I actually disagree (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    I do agree that money is just a scorekeeper.

    But wealth does not exist independently of human effort.  It is not as if there are so many slices of wealth lying around, as if it were a natural resource like water, and we were just allocating a fixed resource.

    Wealth is created.  Making it more concrete, assets are created.  Houses, for example.  They are not a fixed asset.  You can build more, let the existing ones rot, or keep the current number.  Food.  You can get more by planting more.  Clothing.  You get more by making more.

    What happens with a general decline in demand, a' la the Great Depression and the current mess, is that fewer people are creating goods and services.....Less economic activity....Fewer assets are being created.....even intangible assets....

    So, an economy grinds down with more and more people just sitting around idle.  At the extremes, you have price deflation.  

    They key is to get people working again so they can buy more stuff.  With such a demand, more stuff is created--more wealth is created.

    This is the issue that Keynes dealt with....

    And, so, yes, the pie increases.  But I also have no problem adjusting the size of the slices either.

    Parent

    Some people sit idle (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:43:24 PM EST
    but my family never has, not even when the accepted notion of what was wealth was taking a dive.  Wealth is a concept that can get your needs met or not, depending on the circumstances, because something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it if there is currency that still has some sort of agreed upon accepted value.  A house is not an asset unless the participants in the economy agree that it is.  Some people live in yurts.  I wonder if you can get a securitized loan on a yurt anywhere in the world :)?

    Parent
    True, but few in our society want to (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:50:24 PM EST
    live in yurts.....

    We have enough food and shelter for everyone, and on that basis, and with appropriate distribution, everything else is gravy.  So, we have no problem with our economy, taking the argument to the extreme.

    Sitting idle in the economy, not physically idle......

    But unless we all want to live in yurts, we will need to have economic activity creating wealth--and, true, the goods and services created by that activity constitute wealth only if people say they have value....

    Parent

    What I see that has happened to us (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:57:54 PM EST
    is that they are squeezing us like a constrictor on our needs.  We need healthcare, and that is costing us all fortunes now and "reform" didn't help at all.  We need shelter, and that one is having big problems right now.  We need transportation, that one seems to be the most liquid.  We need food, that one is beginning to get expensive I've noticed the past two months.  When I add on legislated taxes and insurance they are squeezing the hell out of us all on our needs in the middle class and poor, there isn't much room left for any wants.  When I read gibberish about trying to force wages down I shudder.  It would seem that they all want us to start considering the yurt, because they are pushing people in that direction very hard.  Then when they destroy the existing social economic norms they will cry, and probably be demanding some sort of bailout again.

    Parent
    There's more of us than them (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    There are only so many gated communities.....

    Parent
    And, WWII proved the point too (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:44:16 PM EST
    You had wage and price controls and rationing....

    The rationing was done primarily to prevent inflation, not hoard resources for the war effort.  Everyone was working and getting a paycheck, so there was great demand.  But since Detroit was making tanks instead of Chevys (and there was a difference for some models), there was nothing new to buy.

    This excess demand could have taken the form of people bidding up the price of the stuff you could still buy like houses, steaks, and old cars etc.  And, you know, it worked.

    When the greedy capitalists agree to pull together, an economic fix can actually work.

    Parent

    They want huge profit margins though (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:59:55 PM EST
    they don't want to return to those smaller profit margins of the olden days.

    Parent
    I meant government funded projects (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    bid out to private contractors, not government employees. Though I suspect most people would be happier working for the government for a while than being unemployed, no matter what their old job payed.

    Stimulus means priming the pump, not a long term economic plan. Borrowing money at near 0% interest is acceptable to me to get more people employed.

    Long term, I think the trade agreements like NAFTA have to be redone. They have not proved to be beneficial to our country. I was open minded about NAFTA at the time, but as we see how it has played out, I think it was a mistake.

    Parent

    Frankly (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by cawaltz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    the whole entire hire private contractors to do the job has been a pretty mixed bag because the government doesn't have the means to police the contractors well.

    The results have been this.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/145050/why_is_the_government_paying_companies_fined_for_pollution_and_ accused_of_fraud

    Frankly, I'd prefer we spent the money on government employees and perhaps rebuilding some of our almost small enough to drown in a bathtub departments that police private entities and ensure they aren't wasting the taxpayers dime.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    Hiring more regulators is a great use of stimulus money, IMO. Get some ex-private construction experts policing construction contracts, ex NASA workers policing defense contracts, etc. Plenty of good expertise out there going to waste.

    Parent
    NAFTA (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    I dont think makes one iota of difference since it's China and India where the jobs are going. The problem is really the cheap labor mindset. Redoing trade agreements won't change that.

    Perhaps if we acted more like the French and took to the streets they would listen to us?

    Parent

    You cannot create wealth through borrowing? ?? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    Oh, yes you can.  And that is how it is usually done....That is why when the credit market for business seized up in 2008, panic set in.

    Easy example.  You have $1 million to invest.  Let's assume there are five available projects that all look profitable and they would all require a $1 million investment.  Without borrowing, you would invest in one project. With borrowing, say putting down 20%, you can do all five.

    Even if one or two of the projects fail, you would very often still come out ahead.....And, with five projects instead of one, you have five times the employment, five times the salaries, five times the consumer demand, and a greater likelihood that that increased demand makes all five projects profitable.

    Leverage makes the world go round.  True, it can get out of control....

    Your economy of more saving, less spending would devastate the world in a way never known.  Probably beyond the Great Depression....

    Parent

    Ya think? (none / 0) (#128)
    by cawaltz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    The whole it can get out of control thing is exactly how we landed here. A whole bunch of people borrowing(from banks) to create what they believed was going to be wealth(buying houses they assumed would only go up in value).

    The truth is that borrowing is not a sure way to create wealth, it's a risky way to create wealth.

    Parent

    There is risk and there is risk (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    Borrowing and credit is an important component of our economy....

    Un-informed borrowing, such as that of many recent residential loans, is a problem....

    But don't kill off commericial borrowing....That would kill alot of businesses, usually small businesses....

    Parent

    Uninformed borrowing? (none / 0) (#135)
    by cawaltz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:51:10 PM EST
    You act like these borrowers existed in a vacuum. They didn't. They borrowed from banks. The same banks who hand out commercial loans. So you're saying the banks who allowed "uninformed borrowers" to leverage more than they could afford are somehow miraculously better at determining commercial or investment loans? Why?

    We agree that small businesses are a cornerstone of the economy. However, they also have a very high fail rate. Furthermore, they will particularly have a high fail rate if there is no DEMAND for goods or services because 1 out of 10 people don't have jobs and 1 out of 7 people need the government to subsidize the work they have been able to find.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    Without business borrowing, you have much less economic activity....

    Business borrowing may have trouble, but it was the housing bubble caused by residential loans that caused the greatest crisis.

    I am not sure what your point is.  It is not as if I am supporting business over consumers.  

    I agree with you about aggregate demand.  My point is that if you curtail business loans you will have even less aggregate demand.  I was responding to the conservative view that we must save more now to help the economy....No, we must spend more, even if we have to borrow it--the point behind my "leverage" comment.

    Are you thinking that I am advocating some kind of pro bank position?  Not at all.  I think they should be highly regulated.  But we do need banks that lend and loans to business.....We can't save our way out this mess.

    Parent

    Venture Capital (none / 0) (#134)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    How do you think Silicon Valley happened?  It was all borrowing, had another name, venture capital, but it was a loan, betting on an outcome that would create wealth.  

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#137)
    by cawaltz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    Ahhhhhh the good ol' tech bubble that gaveth wealth and then tooketh away.

    Only a few corporate giants made it through and they took their marbles to India and other tech savvy places that don't consider education a smaller priority then blowing things up a million times over.

    Although to be fair there were plenty here that were more than willing to learn, paying them would have really cut into the profit margins of the last giants standing though.

    All is fair in love and investment.

    Parent

    What is your proposed alternative? (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:23:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#95)
    by cawaltz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

    Federal pay is actually superior to the private sector in 8 out of 10 areas. At least that is what every article I have read suggests.

    Heh, and here I was thinking every conservative wanted to privatize everything to save a dime and realize their dream of a utopia where they didn't have to pay the evil taxes.

    Parent

    The problem with that, though (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    Is that no one factors in cost of living.  I'd like to see a breakdown of where these federal employees live while they work for the government (my guess is, a large percentage live here in the DC area where the cost of living is ridiculous).

    My favorite statistic is the one being bandied about about government lawyers - I heard one stat that said they make 24% more than the average lawyer.  Now, that may be true if you take into account people in solo practices in Sioux City, IA, Kittanning, PA, Conroe, TX, or Boise, ID.  But if you're going to compare the government lawyers in DC, then you need to compare them to the jobs they could be doing - namely, working at a big law firm.

    I have a friend who Chief Legal Counsel for the minority on a Hill subcommittee.  This person has almost 12 years' experience, and is making around $140,000 a year.  If she went to a law firm here in DC, I can't imagine what she'd be making (way over $250K is my guess, since baby lawyers who just graduated from law school and barely know to use an umbrella when they walk in the rain are starting at $165K).

    But that's DC prices.  So I think if that disclaimer were made on studies like these, or at least factored into it, then we'd get a clearer picture.

    Parent

    A USA Today study (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by cawaltz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 04:30:07 PM EST
    looked at state and local too. The state employees came in a little under their private sector counterparts when you did not include their benefits and the county a little above. When you include benefits though government employees do significantly better then their private sector counterparts. You actually listed a field that was listed as an exception(lawyers). Some of the fields that require a higher education can do better in the private sector. Overall though,  government jobs provide decent pay and above average benefits(which of course means that we must destroy and eliminate them or at the very least reduce them to the lowest common denominator in our quest to out China China.)

    The only thing I actually can find to critique government jobs is apparently its become passe' to actually provide the oversight you are paid for (see BP ). I blame that on the regulation will kill business crowd though.

    Parent

    Law firm jobs are drying up (none / 0) (#168)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:11:48 PM EST
    250k in a private firm.  Mebbe....No, not mebbe.  Not a chance.  

    A government lawyer with 12 years experience would get a 250k job if he or she can bring business.....And try about 500k in business. Gov't lawyers don't have books of business; so, no, they can't waltz right in and get a job at double their salary.

    People are getting booted out of big firms all the time....

    140k without the threat of layoff.  A lot of lawyers would take that now....

    The 165k model is unsustainable.  The big firm model is imploding.  Major clients will not pay the rates necessary to sustain it.  And those 165k lawyers had better get ready to move because they are the first to get tossed out on their arse.....

    Parent

    As someone sucking on the (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    government teat that Al Simpson never looks at....Buwhahahahahahahaha  I'm on the free flowing military teat, and the cream is sooooo damned good.  Tricare has its sucky moments, but if I can find the person who will take it I pay nothing.  A pension at 45 means that a second pension can be gone after too in some cases, and it is a pension that has seen no stock market EVAH!  And to cut the pension or the wages that show up in the account like clock work, it will require an act of Congress......No really, I'm not making this up, it will :)

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#108)
    by cawaltz on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    when they were looking at income they weren't even including bennies like Tricare, they were solely looking at income.

    There's a reason that Joe Average snaps up a federal position if given the opportunity and that because the government provides decent pay, good benefits, and a certain level of stability to it's full time employees.

    The only ones who would look down their noses at a job like that would be the guys who have rigged the game to guarantee themselves a six figure golden parachute even when they screw up (corporate ceos.)

    Parent

    When did they know it was too small? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Saul on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 10:47:19 AM EST
    If it was before Health Care bill was on the table why didn't they shoot to increase it.  Looks to me it had a remedy.

    Also I might be wrong but I heard that tons of this stimulus money has not been spent or used yet as planned.  Is this true?

    A lot, if not most, of the money (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    went directly to the states to distribute. It would not surprise me at all if some of it is still unused.

    I think one of the mistakes was not to have the federal agencies in direct control of more of the money. That also would have prevented state politicians from grandstanding by 'not accepting' it. And Republican pols that did accept it, like Charlie Crist, are now in trouble politically. Might have cost Crist his Senate seat, stupid as it sounds. Help your state = get crucified in this case.

    Parent

    Hah (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:36:23 AM EST
    I forgot about all that stuff...the not accepting the money grandstanding.  God.

    I wish that Obama and co. had been able to somehow prevent the rise of the Tea Party and the Party of No b.s.  But I don't know if that would have even been possible.

    Parent

    Crist was still defending it in his (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:17:02 PM EST
    debate with Rubio this weekend. Maybe the net result is ging Dem governors something to brag about. I don't know. All I see is that Marco Rubio is going to be the next Senator from FL. I'm not a Crist fan, but he's a dang  statesman compared to Rubio.

    Parent
    Crist or Meek (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    I received a call about 2 or 3 months ago asking me to donate to the Meek campaign. I'm sure my answer didn't sit well when I asked, why would I contribute to the statewide campaign of a candidate that has zero chance of winning a statewide race.

    I don't believe in sitting out elections as many here do. I prefer to vote on everything. So Ruffian what do we do? Vote for the Independent with a slim shot or vote for a candidate hoisted upon us that can't win? Give me some sound advice as I'm voting either today or Wednesday. All I'm sure of at this point is, we're looking at Rubio.

    Parent

    It seems to me that Rubio is a done deal (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    the Orlando Sentinel quoted a poll this morning that shows Rubio 10 pts ahead of Crist and 20 ahead of Meek. So I'm voting for Meek. Can't bring myself to vote for Crist unless I think it will really help, and it seems that it won't.

    I'm hoping BTD throws in his 2 cents also. I have my absentee ballot ready to fill out.

    Parent

    I heard a snippet of the debate (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    They asked them about Iraq.  Meeks said it was not such a good idea.

    Crist backed it to the hilt....

    Vote Meeks.....

    Parent

    Definiteley on all the issues (none / 0) (#131)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    I'm with Meek over either Crist or Rubio. But I'm with Crist over Rubio, so if I thought he had a chance to win and Meek did not, I would throw a vote his way. But that does not appear to be the case.

    Straight Dem on the other races. I'd love to see Sink win. Wish I lived a mile to the west so I could vote for Grayson, but Kosmas will have to do.

    Parent

    Don't forget the very important (none / 0) (#114)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:51:24 PM EST
    Florida governor's race. And, to the extent that Meeks brings out more Democrats in general, that should help nail the gubernatorial race in a critical year.  Vote for Sink!

    Parent
    My vote for Sink (none / 0) (#121)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    is a given. Hopefully she will be the first ever female Governor for the State of Florida.

    Parent
    Obama is a very cautious (none / 0) (#25)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    politician.  He will never take a chance on a bold maneuver on any political issue.  His choice of aides and advisors told us that from the very beginning.  

    Incremental change is fine as a result but first a Democrat should fight for the best possible result, compromising only when forced to.  Bill Clinton's 6 years of successful negotiation with his Republican congress should have taught Obama and friends something.  Following this election, Obama may get the chance to think about that.  Until then, though, he has a Democratic majority.  Too bad he never used it.  Clinton did.

    Clinton successfully negotiated with GOP Congress? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    I must have missed that.  If you mean Clinton successfully co-opted and got through a few GOP ideas like welfare reform, NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagall, lowering capital gains taxes etc., I would hardly call these successful negotiations, they were capitulations.

    The positive things he did, like the 1993 tax programs got through without a single GOP vote.  The GOP House impeached the man.

    Parent

    I guess capitulation and (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    negotiation are in the eye of the beholder...I should have put quote marks around 'negotiation!'

    With the first two years of a Dem congress, Clinton got almost no cooperation except the big one which he fought hard for...the tax raise which made all the difference in the economy and the budgets to follow in the next six years.

    No point in arguing with those who think that vote lost us the congress in '94.  Dems were in deep trouble before that.  It may have been the icing on the cake in some districts but we had already dug our own grave by then (IMHO).

    Clinton did a masterful job of pouring red ink all over the R budgets for the next 6 years...he used the veto pen more times than all previous presidents combined.  It was a 'negotiation' tool, including entrapping them into shutting down the goverment for which they took a lot of heat if you recall.

    As for the legislation you mention:

    Welfare reform was backed by a lot of Democrats (including me) although we might have designed it a bit differently had we been in charge...the fact is, we had years and years to shape it up and take it off the R's campaign slogans re "welfare queens" etc. (When was the last time you heard THAT thrown at a Dem candidate?)

    NAFTA, too, was a mixed bag...some good, some bad.  Let's all remember that it only applied to Mexico and Canada (and Obama got all tangled up in that subject during the campaign..Canadawise.  Remember?  Has he 'fixed it' yet?  Or proposed a fix?)

    Glass-Steagall isn't revered yet, either and it doesn't appear this Dem administration wants to do it.  My senator is doing her best to work through it, but......

    As for capital gains...it made a big difference for me and other retirees like me who needed more flexibility in selling stocks, etc. There should, however, have been a floor (and not a ceiling) or indexed levels of taxation to protect those of us whose IRAs were worth a lot less under the old rules.

    The difference between presidents Obama and Clinton is simply this:  Clinton was a fighter.  Both presidents were/are moderates.  I could live with that if both were fighters for Democratic values.  That I seriously question and I think the evidence is on my side of the ledger...so far.

    Parent

    Not only that (none / 0) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    Given how intertwined we are with other countries, it's not like we were going to be able to fix what is a global problem

    but the fact that we've been dealing w/the bursting of two bubbles (tech & housing) that played, probably, the largest role in all that extra demand out there.  Where will the demand come from?  Rebuilding bridges and roads won't by itself do it.

    We need to build something in the US and as yet, we've not made the hard decisions to put us back out in front.  

    A key point, vicndabx (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:52:19 PM EST
    Most everybody--these days--will say with one voice that the problem/issue/concern is Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs. And, for a lot of us who agreed with P. Krugman the-stimulus-should-have-been-larger back then, well...we are where we are. Papers will be written about it; books will be written about it. But now, we are where we are.

    I wish, too, that this Administration had acted in a bold sweep at the outset. Then, I reflect that even the best of them--FDR--hesitated in mid-course around 1937 somewhat concerned (after Repub pushback) about expending more government funds, and the economy dipped down again until the focus increasingly became WWII. I wish that we had reflected on that historical lesson. If wishes were fishes....

    You conclude that "We need to build something in the US," and that is where I also focus today.  A project writ large is also a vision or a goal. Strategically, we need to define with some specificity what that goal is in terms of the "how" we move beyond the entangled mire.  We see from time to time that the economy is gradually recovering (usually the caveat is that it is slowly, slowly recovering.) But, that is insufficient in terms of engaging the people and of helping confidence to return so that demand can increase.

    Lately, there has been an expressed and growing focus on re-building manufacturing in this country again. To produce something, to see something concrete...that re-building has a solidity, a realness. (Nothing against high-tech. But, for many people & for nations, a sense of movement, progress often involves seeing, touching, etc.)  And, it goes without saying, manufacturing stimulates meaningful work.  Jobs.

    Lets hear it for building something again!

    Parent

    A big jobs project (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 01:58:22 PM EST
    would be great.  It's the kind of thing that I believe Obama is capable of doing.  Encourage boldness!

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    What leads you to believe that Obama is capable of bold action like this? And why has he hidden this capability from us for lo these many years?

    Parent
    How many years? Hyperbole? (none / 0) (#151)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 05:33:36 PM EST


    Parent
    The clock on leadership and strength (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    did not re-set to zero the moment Obama was elected and/or took the oath of office - whether someone has the leadership skills and is capable of bold action when it is required can be seen from that person's history, and what people are expressing is that there is little in Obama's past that demonstrates true leadership or anything even remotely bold.  He is, apparently, a conciliator and a facilitator, and there is, I believe, a huge difference between leading people where one believes is the best place for them to go, and mediating an argument over not just where to go, but how to get there.

    He certainly proved that he could get people to vote for him, but that does have something to do with the people who managed and orchestrated his campaign - and this has not translated to the governing side of things, which is where it really matters.  

    I know you are more comfortable, or are able to content yourself, with baby steps and small victories, and are eternally optimistic that these things mean we will eventually have what we all so desperately want.  But the window of opportunity is narrow - sometimes only as wide as the gap between elections - it called for bold leadership - not the kabuki of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    Parent

    Our dispositions, Anne, suggest (none / 0) (#192)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    our perceptions about what constitutes significant steps and what might correctly be termed baby steps will remain quite different.

    I do agree that narrow windows of opportunity arise, and such opportunities should be seized. I also believe--as Paul Krugman alluded to in his column yesterday--that there are other opportunities.  It is important to learn from past mistakes...for individuals, institutions, governments. In that regard, a number of your comments are the kind of comments that I would like to see the WH read.  Then, as we move past the election, it will be a time for taking the steps to move beyond the mistakes, beyond the who-argued-this-number-of-angels-or-that-number.  As is true in all aspects of life, the potential is there if we concentrate on what is ahead of us & what we can do today and not get mired down in the coulda-shoulda-wouldas. (The historians, analysts, and political scientists will have their own wide window of opportunity to pour over all that has happened.)

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#179)
    by sj on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    It is hyperbole to talk of "many years" when discussing Obama's level of experience.

    Parent
    Exactly what we need (none / 0) (#107)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    A project writ large
    .... and the nationalism said project would likely encourage.

    Parent
    The deficit hounds twist themselves... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 03:10:32 PM EST
    ...more than this guy (with an nth of the style) trying to rationalize their illogic.

    What Went Wrong: Not Recognizing The Need For Boldness | 190 comments (190 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment