home

President-Elect Obama On The Stimulus, January 7, 2009

Time magazine's false report that Congressional liberal lions called the shots on the stimulus is belied by this January 7, 2009 CNBC interview with then President-elect Obama:

[JOHN] HARWOOD: Tomorrow you're going to give a speech and talk about your economic stimulus package. [. . .] It looks like it's going to be at the high end of your range, around $775 billion.

Pres.-elect OBAMA: That's correct.

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. [. . . MORE . . .]

HARWOOD: It's going to get bigger.

Pres.-elect OBAMA: Well, we don't know yet. But what we are concerned about is making sure that the money is spent wisely, that there's oversight, that there's transparency. We are going to use this money to temporarily boost the economy, to create or save three million jobs, but also to put some down payments on things that we should've been doing over the last several decades that can help create a more competitive US economy. Examples: making sure that we are doubling alternative energy, and creating much more efficiency in our buildings and in our transportation systems, making sure that we are reducing the cost of health care using health information technologies, building up world class schools so that our children are benefiting and can compete in the global economy. So what we want to do is make sure that any money we're spending is, number one, creating jobs, stabilizing the economy, but also is being used prudently so that when we come out of the current stretch that we're in, we're going to see a stronger economy, a better economy, a more efficient economy.

Speaking for me only

< The Narrative | Thursday Afternoon College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Start towards the low end (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    and see how it develops" is Democratic negotiating strategy in a nutshell. Just awful.

    It's pathetic (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    really just pathetic.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:28:40 PM EST
    They failed "Negotiating 101."  You always start at the high end, and then, if you have to give a little, you'll still wind up with something worthwhile.  They like to start at the low end, and wind up with something even lower.  OTOH, we also have to consider the strong (and getting stronger) possibility that the unacceptable (to me, and many of us) end results are exactly what Obama wanted in the first place.

    Parent
    "Negotiating 101" is so overrated! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by mexboy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:58:47 PM EST
    Starting negotiations at the lower end is so much better because...uhm...because...well, it just is, okay?

    Hope and Change. Yes We Can!

    Parent

    Really amazing (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:01:38 PM EST
    That's it in a nutshell. 2 things:
     1. the WH does not trust the "liberal" Dem congress. Heavens, they will just raise any amount I start with!!!
     2. At the same time, they think the Dems that would spend more have control over the conservatives. Ha!
     3. They side with the conservatives.

    OK, that's 3 things...

    Parent

    I'm sitting here with (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:11:55 PM EST
    my mouth hanging open after reading that.  "We're going to start on the low end"-- that truly ought to be engraved on the man's headstone when he passes.  Un-f&&&-ing-believable.

    Parent
    That must have been what Daschle and (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by observed on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:05:56 AM EST
    Kennedy and Durbin were thinking in 2005-6 when they were recruiting a candidate for 2008.

    Parent
    I've been enlightened that (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 12:57:04 AM EST
    I def don't suck at negotiating :) I may not be the best due to my nature, but OY. you would never hear those words out of my mouth . . .

    Parent
    It is the right strategy if you want a low number (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:25:46 AM EST
    The WH never wanted a big stimulus.


    Parent
    Pure negotiating incompetence (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    Why not just start at zero then?

    No chance for graft (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by me only on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:43:35 PM EST
    Same reason for "cap and trade" instead of revenue neutral carbon tax.

    Parent
    forgot the skim and vig (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:40:59 PM EST
    thanks for reminding me

    Parent
    It seems more like the WH (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:23:22 AM EST
    wanted a low number. They were starting low and willing to get negotiated up a little but, not the other way around. In that sense they negotiated just fine according to their own goals.

    Parent
    IMO the WH has achieved (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:08:45 AM EST
    their objectives in all the legislation that has passed. We got the legislation that they wanted. All the rest was just theater to fool the rubes.

    Parent
    Yup, I am more and more convinced of that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:50:21 AM EST
    Obama and his prenegotiating always rightward -- (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by jawbone on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    What a pol!

    Heh.

    In fruit production horticulture (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 09:09:59 PM EST
    excepting California, there's a saying. "How do you wind up with a small fortune?

    Start with a big fortune and grow strawberries."

    Seems like the description of this admin's economic plans.

    Now what? Seriously, I haven't a clue. Liberals have long been marginalized, now incompetent 'progressive' economists create a mockery of decent economic policy.

    And it appears that a Democratic president runs away from the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the Great Society as fast as his high-priced,brand-name,eco-friendly (same as those owned by others in th "creative class") running shoes can carry him.

    Oh well, time to go to Whole Foods and buy some eco-friendly organic strawberries for seven dollars a quart, "because I care."

    There are "patriots"on both sides, and (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:18:34 PM EST
    there are supply-sider Reaganites on both sides.
    We are so blessed.

    You're just mad because at the end of that (none / 0) (#3)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    interview, Obama said:

    I think Utah has a pretty good claim. They're undefeated. And Florida and Oklahoma both are well...(unintelligible)


    How could you have a revenue neutral (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:40:48 PM EST
    carbon tax?

    Someone has to pay it. And when they do the money they lose reduces revenue all across the board.

    uhh, you don't "pay" for a tax (none / 0) (#16)
    by beowulf on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 04:53:38 AM EST
    Its a tax not a spending program. Since it brings in revenue, to make it revenue-neutral simply means cuting taxes somewhere else to reduce revenue by the same amount.

    Since payroll taxes are collected on dollar one of wages and are paid equally by employees and employers, cutting the FICA rates is probably the simplest and fairest way to "un-pay" for the carbon tax.

    I grant you that taxing any activity imposes a cost and will lead to less of of that activity... So what do we want less of-- wages or carbon emissions?

    Leaving aside that tax bills can be passed by filibuster-proof reconciliation bills and regulatory bills cannot; is there anybody on the planet without a financial interest in the cap and trade market who supports that regulatory measure over a carbon tax?
    http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports

    Parent

    Still doesn't work (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 04, 2010 at 10:50:40 AM EST
    Cutting FICA and/or Medicare taxes will merely result in taxes raised elsewhere to fund these.


    Parent
    BTW - I will take more wages (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 04, 2010 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    and rely on technology to reduce carbon emissions...

    Said emissions have been going down for years... other wise the CO2 content would be drastically rising...the seas can only absorb so much...

    Parent