Obama expands stimulus plan

All talk. No plan.

Not even a bad plan, but instead, no plan, after 4 years in the senate, and 2 years running for president.

No plan.

He's a lot smarter than me and I have total confidence in him, but if the boom isn't in the housing market or the auto market, how will it help if people buy, say for instance, big screen TVs since everything's made in foreign countries???

A further economic stimulus doesn't mean a lot to me, if means my taxes go up permanently. I'd rather the federal government keep their six hundred bucks, than the liberal illuminati try to give me an economic boost by levying high taxes for the foreseeable future.

Is this the same plan he pushed to make homeowners out of people who couldn't afford to be homeowners who are now dragging down the entire US economy?

Let me guess: this plan will have set-aside upon make-work provisions for anyone who isn't of european-descent including fresh immigrants, legal or otherwise, and anyone else that knows how to hold out their uncalloused hands better than how to use a tool or a machine to actually produce something.

This is just a way to get more 100's of BILLIONS of dollars out of the control of those who have actually contributed to whatever economy still exists to actually produce things and provide jobs, and into the hands of friends, contributors and general layabouts that are grasping onto this raft called Obama to float across the sea to the never-work-land of socialism and handouts-forever called Democratic-America.

SEIU plans to pressure Obama to replace secret ballot unionization elections with counting cards signed by employees (unless the union wants an election - fat chance) by saying "it's no big deal." It is a very big deal - taking away an employee right given during the New Deal. Rahm, don't let this deal go down.

Just how are we going to pay for this bit of idiocy? I hate this guy already.

Great Plan. Our infrastructure is declining and is a vulnerability for the country in the future. Besides, there are no other decent jobs left in the housing market as well as the service ideocracy to replace a continual loss of manufacturing jobs. The sad thing is some people have already made up their mind; damn him if he does nothing, damn him if he involves the government in anything, damn him if he gives money back to the American people, damn, damn, damn...

How are we going to pay for this? The question coming from a Republican after eight years of not paying for what we spent is arrogant and stupid. WE ARE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF IT. There will be more of an attempt made than Bush ever did. We are going to have inflation by year 2010. I do not like it any more than the Republican's do but the stupidity of the federal government, particularly the executive and the fed in not realizing that you can not give money to investers and lower interests and not have that money seek an opportunity for profit. Since none was available, Wall Street created an opportunity in a business which had not benefit to the long term prospects of this country in the form of mortgages to customers who were not suitable customers for the long term. The Fed depended on Wall Street to have the sense that the customers chosen would be suitable. Wall street in fact chose to use default swaps to make unsuitable investments into suitable ones. The rating agencies did not know what was happening but they want the money to rate these securities so they guessed at what the safety would be using the same reasoning as the creators of these securities.

Until that mess is undone and so far I think nothing has been done to unwind that situation the economy will struggle and we will have to depend on the government as the job creator.

If conservatives would accept responsibility and realize that undoing this will require government action that none of us want then we can start to untie the knot by undoing the default swaps and allowing those banks that were unwise to default.

Fred you hate Obama because he is throwing in your face the mess that your way of thinking creates when it is unfettered by government. Too much of a good thing is bad. You are blind to that!

Looks like Obambi has succumbed to his party's rhetoric. Unless he is talking about either nationalizing a lot of industries or creating 2.5 million jobs within the federal government himself, he isn't going to create a single job. Presidents do not create jobs in the private sector; business owners do. The best the government can do is to provide an environment that allows or encourages hiring. That's not likely if his expensive plans for the near future result in the depletion of investment capital. Sorry kids, but the President elect is headed in the wrong direction to achieve his goals.

Ron M:
.
1. It is never a dumb question to ask, "How are we going to pay for all of this?" regardless of who asks it. Many Republicans voters have been appalled by Congress' spending over the last eight years as well as Bush's approval of all those deficit budgets. The fact that some Republicans in Congress supported this spending is not a fact that speaks for all Republicans. Not all of them - voters or politicians - are conservatives. Ron Paul and Ted Stevens were not cut from the same mold.
.
2. The rhetoric that "Republicans did it" or "Republicans did something stupid" does not give the Democrats a free pass to do something equally stupid. Yet, I believe you are right when you say we aren't going to be able to pay for all of it. That's likely true because the federal government will try to spend too much and there will be a shortfall in tax revenue even if tax rates are increased on everyone. That being the case, then maybe the federal government ought to actually commit to doing something less stupid by practicing fiscal responsibility for once. We are not going to get out of trouble until and unless we start putting the feds financial house in order.
.
3. You say we will have inflation by the year 2010. That ship has sailed. We have inflation now. Our money is constantly being inflated by the Federal Reserve Bank and the federal government's conduct of monetizing the debt. The large scale bailouts and consequent deficits the government runs in the future are only going to make it worse.
.
4. Conservatives can and do accept responsibility, yet do not believe it is the place of the government to try and untie all of the knots woven by Wall Street. We say: Let them sort it out themselves; let them go extinct as businesses if they lived on unsound business practices, and let the buyer beware. The government bailouts create the moral hazard of encouraging risky business practices in the future. Moreover, in case you haven't been keeping up with the latest news, the treasury department has abandoned the idea of buying up toxic paper. Hence, there will be no fix as you suggest.
.
5. Aside from jobs inside the federal government, the federal government doesn't create jobs. The myth of government job creation needs to die.
.
6. The economy is going to continue to struggle, and lives are going to continue to be ruined, until we, as a people, realize that debt is not an asset, that we can't continue to spend or buy more than we can afford, and that too much leveraging is evil. This goes for individuals and governments alike.

John W,
In nearly every facet of the main causes of the public's repudiation of Bush had to do with his adherence to the principles of movement conservatism that you keep pounding your head against the wall with, both in its governance, such as:
.
*Foreign-policy debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
*A government that invades nations under false pretenses.
*A nation less secure and at greater risk of terrorist attacks than ever.
*A sinking economy.
*An expanding gap between rich and poor.
*Utter inaction on global warming.
*$5-a-gallon gasoline.
*An unresolved immigration problem.
*An incapacity to deal with natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
*A debacle in public-school education testing and funding.
*Declining food and consumer-product safety standards.
*A government that spies on its own citizens.
*A government that tortures prisoners held in their detention facilities.
---------------------

And in its politics:
.
*The absurd impeachment of Bill Clinton in spite of the public's broad disapproval.
*The caricaturization of a future Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, in the course of foisting a Bush presidency upon an unsuspecting public.
*The relentless campaign to portray anyone dissenting from Bush's post-9/11 war plans as insufficiently patriotic and "soft on terrorism."
*The tireless recourse to a string of "Friedman units" in excusing the interminable extension of the Iraq war.
*The swift-boating of John Kerry.
*The Terri Schiavo fiasco.
*The Graham Frost fiasco.
*The ritual and ongoing demonization of Latinos as criminals, welfare bums, America-hating, job-stealing foreigners.
*The crude dog-whistle campaign run against Obama, depicting him as a terrorist-loving, America-hating, secret Muslim brown man.
*The deeply disturbing way that conservatives acted on this rhetoric: spewing hate, racism, and threatening violence.

In nearly every single one of these instances, movement conservatives pronounced their avid support because they reflected "conservative values" -- and indeed, in a number of them (such as the opposition to gay rights, or inaction on global warming, or the Schiavo matter) they were directly at the behest of movement conservatives, particularly the religious right. You know, Tony Perkins' people.

Mind you, not only does it not do any good to point this out to ideologues like John W (and nearly every other Republican in sight), at some point it only makes sense to let them wander off into the political wilderness for a few years. They have it coming.

A further economic stimulus doesn't mean a lot to me, if means my taxes go up permanently. I'd rather the federal government keep their six hundred bucks, than the liberal illuminati try to give me an economic boost by levying high taxes for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: reagankid | November 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Little Ronny Raygun,
This is the problem conservatives face: Their principles -- particularly in their approach to governance and oversight -- were thoroughly repudiated by the voters because of the manifest failures of those principles put into action. So the legitimacy of their movement hinges on denying that. Yet they'll never solve their dilemma until they recognize that reality and come to terms with the whys. Maybe someday they'll figure out that being conservative doesn't require authoritarianism or xenophobia or apocalytpic religious fanaticism.

Meantime, they can blame the horse they rode in on all they like. But it can't change the fact that they themselves were the rider.

Spend, Spend, Spend, Spend, Spend, Spend, Spend, Spend.
I thought we weren't getting 4 more years of 'failed Bush policies,' which is what the 1st economic stimulus plan was. How does giving more and enlarging the deficit make sense? This guy is already turning out to be a joke.

And Obama spoketh and there was much rejoicing at the New Clinton Party (NCP).

Good thing that after 2 long years of rhetoric and telling us how he HAS a plan once elected, he NOW decides to 'craft a plan' in the weeks to come. Smooth. Like Exlax.

If Barack Obama walked on water, some of the people who post here would just complain that the president-elect can't swim. I say anything he does will be better than anything Bush did in his 8 years in office.

Interregnum also conjures up peculiar, inconsistent talking points from the right.
Particulary what with the distorting lens of impending financial ruin for the country.

The right preached "individual responsibility" etc. for years yet noneof them will take any responsibility for what they have done to the US economy.

Instead the t.p. is "Acorn" or those foolish folk who "bought more house than they could afford" or pulled the wool over AIG's eyes.

Alas, they won't be able to blame Obama for any of the current distress.

Maybe they would be willing to get W out now and get Barack in---so the blame could attach at once and they could get a head start on '12,

I thought Mr. Obama is the president ELECT. He is being treated by the media as if he is the PRESIDENT. "His weekly radio program?" Let him get the seat before we pay too much attention to what he proposes. Perhaps by then, he will have at least a little bit of information upon which to base decisions and plans. Ron M. you are exactly correct. The entire idea of living beyond one's means is simple stupidity and apparently there are a LOT of stupid people in America today. We need to learn and accept that some people can't afford to buy homes, will never make more than $15 per hour etc. etc. When I was growing up, it was a simple fact. If you wanted to buy a home, you spent the first ten years of your working life saving for a down payment. What happened to common sense?

Ron M,

I hate to take sides but you are wrong in my opinion. I'm an independent so I'm not crazy about either side, but I can say the Democrats are most responsible for the mortgage mess. It was the Clinton's administration's agenda to provide affordable mortgages to people with sub-standard credit back in the late 90s, and was backed by many democrats, especially Barney Frank. What the heck did they think would happen when they loaned money to people with bad credit and low income? And in 2003, the Bush administration tried to pass legislation to create an oversight committee for Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, because they were acting irresponsible. Yet, this seemingly liberal plan was essentially fillibustered by Barney Frank and the democrats arguing that it would make housing unaffordable to millions of Americans! Exactly, unaffordable because they weren't qualified. So this housing mess is everyone's fault but especially the democrats.

Dude is a Jenius. How many people are going to sign up to bust it for a minny wage job when they can hop the bus from Gary to Minneapolis and pick up Welfare?

So how many trillions will we have to print on this one? The effects of this massive inflation will be felt very soon. Bush didnt care about the dollar, and it appears Obama is right behind Bush too. The real "change" would be to pull all our troops out of all foreign countries, take that money that we spend to police the world and eliminate income tax. Lets keep our money that we work hard for. Then no one can complain about the myth of the rich paying less taxes because no one will be paying taxes!! Oh and lets go back to the Constitution and Gold Standard back. It worked great until it was destroyed in 1913. The dollar is only down 95% since then!!

This isn't much more varied than the bleeding hearts getting homeless people to sell StreetWise. Typical Procrustean top-down thinking. Not that the items on Obama's list aren't important. A radio story said he's going to consult pols on both sides of the aisle. The people he also needs to consult are the U.S. citizens who are actually unemployed! Few of them actually want to support themselves by featherbedding, and probably are pretty observant about work that needs to be done - they they can do - which isn't so easily seen from The White House.

Not enough credit is being given to the high gas prices this past year and it's serious damage on our economy and society. That one factor alone has caused serious stress in both individuals and businesses. A record number of homes and jobs have been lost as a direct result. And, while we are doing the happy dance around the lower prices at the pumps OPEC is announcing cuts to manipulate the prices upward again. We must get on with becoming energy independent.We can't take another year like this past. There is a wonderful new book out about the energy crisis and what it would take for America to become energy independent. It covers every aspect of oil, what it's uses are besides gasoline, our reserves, our depletion of it. Every type of alternative energy is covered and it's potential to replace oil. He even has proposed legislative agenda's that would be necessary to implement these changes along with time frames. This book is profoundly informative and our country needs to become more informed and move forward with becoming energy independent. Green technology would not only provide clean cheap energy it would create millions of badly needed new jobs. The Book is called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW. We have the knowledge and technology, what we seem to lack as a nation is a plan!

Why does everyone forget that Congress has been controled by Democrats for the past 2 years?? Those are the ones to blame for the spending mess we are in now. The other thing that I cant believe people are not noticing is that Obama is putting many ex-Clinton staffers into the White House, those policies worked because the economy was already on its way up when Clinton took office, all they did was ride the wave, and pummel the economy into the ground. Those same policies in these economic times will do nothing but make matters worse, not to mention, the first stimilus package did absolutely nothing for the economy, why would it do anything now? It wont, but everyone who elected Obama will need a token action that he will give all Americans a hand-out and that he is actually going to do something. I am actually anxiously waiting to see how far unemployment falls and taxes increase ao we can get rid of this guy in 2012!

John W,

Obama's focus will be on infrastructure of a sort that will not only put people to work but also improve the productivity of the economy. His words: "We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead."

In short, Obama's job-stimulus plan will be a down-payment on his larger plan to increase the nation's public investment. "These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis," he says, "these are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long. And they represent an early down payment on the type of reform my Administration will bring to Washington." He could not be more specific, at least while still President-Elect.

At a time when aggregate demand is shriveling because consumers aren't spending and investors have stopped investing, and exports are shrinking, Obama recognizes that government must be the spender of last resort. He will combine old-fashioned Kaynesian economics with newly-fashioned public investments to pull the economy out of its slump.

By putting his economic team in place barely three weeks after he was elected, and telling the nation what he plans to do immediately after he takes office, the President-Elect is asserting leadership at a time when the the Bush administration has all but abdicated.

John W, you waste alot of time on here vainly trying to bash Democrats and President-ELECT Obama even though he hasn't taken office yet. There's a very good reason why the Republican Party and Ron Paul were beaten like a drum in the last two elections, it's because their rhetoric doesn't match up to their governing.

It's sounds like your problems revolve around the heart of the Republican Party. Until you can get your leaders to implement your small govt talk, you will be on the outside looking in like you are now and you can be sure that Democrats like myself and many others don't give a damn about what you think right now. You should have spent the last 10-12 years telling YOUR parties leaders what you think because now you just sound like a crybaby.

What Now, Mr. Obama?

Well, you did it! You successfully duped 52% of the American population into voting for you, even though you have no record of ever accomplishing a single thing. You duped all the blacks except Larry Elder, Walter Williams, J.C. Watts and Michael Steele. You duped half the Latinos, quite a feat when you support partial birth abortion, a policy their Pope frowns upon. You duped the first-time voters, not surprising since they gather their information from MTV, MySpace, I-Pods and text messages. You duped the white liberal elitists, the whites who are still guilty about “four hundred years of oppression” and the poor whites who want the freebies you promised. Way to go!

Now it’s time to pay up, Mr. Obama. You made a lot of promises to a lot of people and they want you to deliver. Can you deliver?

The economy is a mess. By the way, that was a masterpiece of campaign strategy to blame President Bush for the housing market collapse when it was the democrats that coerced banks into making loans to people with no income. It is straight out of the DNC playbook that if you tell a lie over and over, the uneducated will believe it.

So who will you bail out next? You owe the unions for their vote bloc. Will you bail out the auto makers now that the unions have bankrupted them? If so, will the government and the taxpayers own the auto makers? After that, will you bail out the airlines? They are another industry that the unions have destroyed. Will the government own them too? How about the credit card industry? They are in deep trouble too. I guess paying off a card is not a top priority when you are losing your house and job.

What about National Security? You can’t vote “present” or “urge restraint” the next time Vladimir Putin decides to rebuild the Soviet Empire by invading his neighboring countries. You can’t blather on and on about hope and change when Iran threatens Israel with nuclear weapons. Will you send John Kerry to France to ask for permission to use our military strength? Whatever you do, please do not use our proud warriors as a global “meals on wheels” for third world dumps like Carter and Clinton did.

What about your promise to provide everyone in the country the same health care program as members of congress without raising taxes? Exactly how will you do that? Give us some specifics rather that just reading “hope” and “change” off a teleprompter. Socialized medicine has been tried in Europe and Canada and it does not work. Will you ration health care? How do you think the average American will feel about being told that he can’t have that triple bypass this month because “we can only do one a month under the new system and this month we are doing a citizen of the world that jumped over the Tijuana border fence last week”? Who are the doctors in your New America? Who is going to want to go to med school when their career options will be limited to underpaid government employee?

How about the energy needs of the country? You have already made it clear that you are against drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore, nuclear power and coal fired electricity plants. Shall we all ride our wind powered Obama-cycles down to the bus stop and take public transportation from our government housing to our government jobs in your new socialist workers utopia?

What about your pals in the hard left that got you elected like George Soros, Moveon.org, MediaMatters.org, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS and MSNBC? You owe them big time. Are you going to censor talk radio, close Guantanamo, surrender in Iraq, gut the military and repeal the Patriot Act like they want you to? The leftist whacko movement demands that you govern as a leftist but can you get a second term if you do? Will your sycophants in the liberal media turn on you and start telling the truth if you don’t?

So, what is next for my country, Mr. Obama? What is it like to have the first leadership position of your life be the most important job in the world? You have never led, managed or run anything. Not a business, a state, a city, or even a Taco Bell. Your couple of months in the Senate was useless unless you count voting “present”. The only times you cast a vote is when your core values like raising taxes, taking guns away from citizens and supporting partial birth abortions were at stake. The Senate isn’t leadership anyway. They debate laws. Big deal. Ted Kennedy could do that for forty years and accomplish nothing.

I certainly wish you the best because I live in this country too, but your record so far makes me very skeptical. I think you will be a one term, forgettable Jimmy Carter, useful only as an example of how not to run a country. I believe you are a charlatan, a fraud, a Manchurian Candidate and an empty suit. Prove me wrong.

This SWAMP story takes the cake for uninformed posters. Really, I do not have time to list off all the names here.

First, the stimulus package for the infrastructure creates excellent paying union jobs, for the most part, that benefit the middle class Anglo American.

Second, anyone saying that the President can not create jobs is just being anal about terminology and effect. The POTUS can increase US jobs by placing (or inspiring) tariffs on imported items that do not have FAIR trade policies, not free trade. This can happen in the first 2 months of presidency. He can incorporate this public works project that is proposed, and that does create jobs virtually overnight. He can create startup loans to bolster upcoming entrepreneurs….that can happen quickly. No one can refute that the President and the government both have an active and effective way of directly stimulating our economy.

Anyone that says the Dems are mostly responsible for the mortgage meltdown has not done their homework. The private industry took advantage of a democratic initiative by passing their liability to others via the derivatives market to cook their books that would meet SOX requirements. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/derivatives-new-ticking-time-bomb/story.aspx?guid=%7BB9E54A5D-4796-4D0D-AC9E-D9124B59D436%7D This is almost entirely the fault of private industry, and I do not know of any small banks that are having the problems that these banking giants are having. If any of what I just wrote was Greek to you, please stop posting your ignorance here.

The illuminati is almost exclusively used to refer to the Bush years and the NOW. Please do the homework on the strange beliefs you wish to expound here.

Any “conservative” that asks how we are going to pay for this makes me laugh. Know your own history pugs/ libs/ consti’s, show me the last time your president balanced the budget. As a dem, I can simply point out the last one to make my case. I think pugs may have to go back almost 100 years ago to find an example. So if we have to spend a little money to make a little money, then spend away. The dems have a track record of being responsible with money, no one else does.

Anyone here that said Obama was for change and it is looking like the same, also did not do their homework. Obama said MANY times in the campaign that he was going to surround himself with seasoned veterans, and I would point to his VP selection as proof that what he said he meant. If you were hoping for outsiders, you should’ve voted for Palin or 3rd party. Don’t whine now because you did not do your homework beforehand.

So, now that I have pissed off 90% of the posters from above…..prove me wrong. And for gods sake, do some homework. The ONLY reason that I have participated in the SWAMP blogs is that the typical posters here are much more educated then the others.

believe you are a charlatan, a fraud, a Manchurian Candidate and an empty suit. Prove me wrong.

Posted by: Forrest Mize | November 23, 2008 9:54 AM

I love listening to defeated Wingnuts cry...

All together now!
1
2
3
Waaaaaaaaah!

* * * * *
Posted by: agent orange | November 22, 2008 6:20 PM
.
You started off by stating:
.
"In nearly every facet of the main causes of the public's repudiation of Bush had to do with his adherence to the principles of movement conservatism that you keep pounding your head against the wall with, …"
.
You should have stopped there, because it was at that point that the wheels came off of your little red wagon. That's because "movement conservatism" is not conservatism at all. Yes, I have read Paul Krugman's articles in which he too attempted to equate all of conservatism with the paranoid, atavistic, warmongering activities of a few politicians, while often distorting both their records and words. What is telling is the fact that people, like Krugman who equate all of conservatism with "movement conservatism" actually cite Irving Kristol and his son William as sources to help them understand conservatism. Krugman even admits that he doesn't otherwise understand conservatism. However, Irving Kristol is the father of neo-conservatism and William is a standard bearer for the same political philosophy. The Kristols know as much about conservatism as they do about judging a chicken cleaning contest, which is to say nothing. Indeed, I believe a lot of people, including you, use an inductive method of determining conservatism. They look at what some alleged conservatives do and conclude their behavior hews the line at acceptable conservative behavior. They never once consider the alternate (and often correct) hypothesis that such behavior is heresy to conservatism and tolerated for a time only out of some sense of party unity.
.
I will address only the first part of your list, in which you cite the aggressive warlike behavior of Bush and company. This is the result of George W. Bush's overt adoption of militant Wilsonianism: The policy of attempting to export democracy, by force if need be, and interfering with the internal politics of other nations. This stuff is the brainchild of Irving Kristol and the neo-con movement. It doesn't come out of any orthodox notion of conservatism. Consider the fact that, prior to the administrations of Daddy Bush and Junior, the last time a Republican administration led us into a long term foreign war was 1896, in the Spanish-American war. Consider also the fact that Republican Presidents got us out of two wars. Why is there a disparity in behavior? I'll tell you why. The traditional conservative philosophy is to denounce war because it is expensive, bad for a free market economy, and immoral except when necessary to prevent a greater wrong. That is why the policy of Republican Presidents throughout the cold war was one of realpolitik and active engagement, maintaining dialogue with our perceived enemies while staying vigilant. When one lays the two positions side by side, the non-conservative nature of Bush's behavior in office becomes readily apparent.
.
I could go through your lists and explain how each phenomenon either represents a departure from traditional conservatism, isn't the fault of any particular party or government policy, or how you are simply wrong in your characterizations. I won't do this because my reply is already too long, you won't pay attention anyway, and there is already no guarantee that it won't get censored. I will leave off by saying that your initial faulty premise has invaded your whole spiel, and that it is only your ignorance that equates "movement conservatives" with conservatism, and what leads you to believe "movement conservatives" when they claim their actions reflect conservative values in every instance. Your well intended ignorance is only the tip of the iceberg.
.
And, no, I don't pound my head against the wall with or because of neo-conservatism "movement conservatism." I simply reject it for the simpler small government model of fiscal responsibility, national security, transparency, and constitutional orthodoxy. The latter will either be the way out of the forest for the Republican Party; or its rejection the reason the Party doesn't make it out of the woods.

* * * * *
Posted by: dano | November 23, 2008 2:19 AM
*
dano,
.
You are steeped in the rhetoric, but unable to perceive the larger problems Obambi has trying to carry out his plan without further ruining an already wrecked economy and an already wrecked government budget. I mean, really, what part of "We don't have the money" don't you get? Have you really forgotten all that has gone on?
.
Allow me to remind you. The government is already $10 trillion + in debt, and a full 10% of its budget is deployed exclusively to pay the debt service on what is already owed. We are projected to run budget deficits for the next several years, in part because of un-brilliant ideas like a $100 billion stimulus package which didn't do anything (and which Obambi supported) as well as giving the DHHS a belly busting budget that even eclipses that of the DoD. And all of this was true even before Congress voted in favor of the $810 billion boondoggle to bail out Wall Street. This is true even before Congress considers passing out tens of billions of dollars more on the auto industry and anyone else who comes along with an open hand. This is even true before Congress considers yet another stimulus package of $300 billion dollars, or a very, very expensive health care program. And, worse yet, all of this is true even before we consider the budget shortfalls that are going to turn into uncontrollable debt once all the Baby Boomers begin retiring in numbers, thereby obliging the government to pay many trillions of dollars in money that it simply does not have. Now take into consideration the likelihood that tax revenues are going to take a nose-dive as we slide into a deep recession/depression and only the non-sentient can come up with the idea that we can afford any of these large scale spending projects. We simply don't have the money to spend.
.
In light of the foregoing, your talk about "old-fashioned Keynesian economics [and] newly-fashioned public investments" rings very hollow. Governments do not invest. They consume. Whatever jobs are created by projects designed to improve the infrastructure will be temporary, much like those created in FDR's failed make-work alphabet soup programs. Keynesian economics was behind that stuff too. That's because it is based on a lot of dubious assumptions that have proven ineffective in practice. Hence, you have only reinforced the idea that Obambi will simply throw money at the problem at a time we cannot afford it.
.
Contrary to what you have suggested, I am not advocating a continuation of the way the current Republican administration has handled things. I have no love of fiscal irresponsibility. Nor am I being a cry baby. Where you got that from anything I have written is a total mystery. I am merely calling out for some common sense. It is that common sense that seems to elude pseudo-liberals like you - who have their heads in clouds of hero-worship to such a degree that they can't see that serious problems exist at ground level. Take that to the bank - if you can still find one not on the brink of failure.

no, I don't pound my head against the wall with or because of neo-conservatism "movement conservatism." I simply reject it for the simpler small government model of fiscal responsibility, national security, transparency, and constitutional orthodoxy. The latter will either be the way out of the forest for the Republican Party; or its rejection the reason the Party doesn't make it out of the woods.

Posted by: John W. | November 23, 2008 12:45 PM

John W,
These days, to be a Republican like you is to be a walking oxymoron: The party that beats its chest in paroxysms of self-reliance never takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong. They talk about lowering taxes. But more and more Americans won't be paying any because they are jobless. They talk about making government smaller. But a country that is in the midst of an economic meltdown is comfortable with the massive stimulus that only government can provide. Americans now want big government to protect them from the freewheeling free market that Republicans have touted.

Just when Americans yearn for a promising future and have defeated Republicans in back to back blow out elections, conservatives like you offer us a return to a mythical, past time when everything was allegedly ideal. So, they attack everyone and everything not to their liking — immigrants, gays and lesbians, abortion. Leaderless, they hold the political equivalent of séances to channel Ronald Reagan. But they don't appear to understand that young and middle-aged voters don't know, let alone idolize, him — or that those of us who do remember his declaring that government was the problem, not the solution, have lived to realize that their hero, Reagan, was the problem and he had no solutions.

********
Posted by: John W. | November 23, 2008 12:45 PM
***

For the last two decades, the Republicans have steadily purged themselves of all moderates, of anyone who did not toe the party line, of anyone who did not support the party leaders with every fiber of their being. Under leaders like DeLay and a dozen other of the top far-right powerbrokers, apostasy was ruthlessly punished. Moderates were primaried out, the religiously or socially tolerant were excoriated, the legislatively balanced were forced from their positions -- all in service to a supposed permanent ideological governance, one that valued ideological purity over all else. Over knowledge, over experience, over common sense, over the very fabric of the law -- the ideology of hard-right conservatism trumped it all. Toe the line, and you were granted jobs in the administration, or positions of leadership in Iraq, or plum committee assignments. Voice disapproval -- you were nothing. You woke up the next morning to a White House Press Secretary declaring that you were a disgruntled brat, one with emotional or mental impairments that were responsible for your pitiable desertion.

After twenty years of purging, all the Republicans have left is that hard-right extreme. They shoved everyone else out willingly: it seems hardly surprising that now, faced with the fruits of it all, they are finding that all constituencies of the nation that they sought to condemn, belittle or purge are no longer interested in supporting them now.

I have no particular interest in them learning this lesson, of course. As far as I am concerned the last thirty years have proven modern conservatism to be not just ill conceived, but paranoid, divisive, willfully incompetent, obtusely premised, and in sum utterly valueless to the nation -- a waste of political oxygen. Something to be burned at the stake, and the ashes scattered, never to be heard from again.

But I expect they will, in the next years, at least try to retool their party into one that at least pretends to be more tolerant of, well, anyone not fully immersed in the notion that Ayn Rand and James Dobson rule the universe. The coming bloodshed between the two factions -- conservative true believers who can look at the last eight years and see absolutely nothing worth doing differently, nothing but a smashing but sadly misunderstood success, versus those that truly wish to temper the party in an effort to regain at least some semblance of their former power -- will, no doubt, be a glorious thing to behold.

So save your breath for your own failed Republican party leaders, John W.
The Democrats aren't the reason that you don't have a strong voice within your own party leadership, that failure is yours.

Forgot one other nugget of stupidity on this topic: We are not in/ heading for inflation…..we are currently heavily entrenched in a deflationary cycle and will continue for probably the next year or more. *shakes head* Yeah, this topic REALLY deserves a SWAMPY for idiot posters.

John W,
I have a homework assignment for you. I want you to take this graph, make a copy of it and put it on top of the picture you have of Ronny Reagan under your pillow tonight. And then I want you to tell the class what you have learned tommorrow.

.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/deficits/jimiesq/deficits.jpg?o=1
.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | November 23, 2008 12:34 PM
.
You are a good example of what Ronald Reagan meant when he said, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
.
For starters, your example of Bill Clinton as having balanced the budget is a joke. A careful look at the numbers discloses a very different picture. When Bill Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the national debt was $4,188,092,107,183.60. According to U.S. Treasury figures, that debt increased every single year of his presidency as follows:
.
01/20/94: $ 4,500,676,535,249.79
01/20/95: $ 4,796,537,934,595.60
01/20/96: $ 4,988,397,941,589.45
01/20/97: $ 5,309,774,506,681.99
01/20/98: $ 5,495,525,658,807.45
01/20/99: $ 5,623,807,213,463.02
01/20/00: $ 5,706,174,969,873.86
01/20/01: $ 5,727,776,738,304.64
.
Thus from the day he entered office to the day he left, the government debt: (1) increased by $1,539,684,631,121.04, and (2) increased every year during his two terms. Given these figures, his so-called balanced budgets as well as his "budget surpluses" appear for what they really are: A lot of creative government accounting to smooth over a subtle lie.
.
And then you had the arrogance to suggest that Republicans could not point to a single Republican President that ever had a balanced budget. On that account, you are wrong. Dwight D. Eisenhower presided over balanced budgets in both 1956 and 1957, and he had a cold war to fight at the same time (which is a burden carried by every President until Clinton came to office). 1957 was the last time the United States recorded a true surplus, where the total outstanding debt decreased from one year to the next.
.
Next, I suggest that it is you who are ignorant when you suggest that a President or the government can create jobs in the private sector. It is ignorant because it is both oversimplified and fails to take into account many factors involved in business models with regard to hiring and firing. The government can only provide economic incentives or a more favorable economic environment. The latter do not cause businesses to hire with any regularity. Were the opposite true, then one would have expected "trickle down" economics to work. But, as we know, businesses just pocketed the extra cash or paid it out in dividends. In truth, businesses need to believe that extending or expanding their operations will be in their best financial interest before they elect to build new facilities and hire new workers. Some businesses are simply in the wrong phase of their business cycle to accommodate expansion even in the face of more favorable economic circumstances. Thus, the claimed ability of the government to "create jobs" in the private sector is a fiction. Private businesses make those decisions, and the reasons for saying so are more substantial than an anal-retentive fascination with cause and effect.
.
Then again, your ideas about what the government can do immediately to create jobs makes me shudder and want to sing like Ethel Merman (although I resist). The moment the feds starts slapping tariffs on foreign goods to carry out its labor policies we can all expect two, and possibly three, quick responses - none of which are any good. The first will be loud and long complaints to the WTO and any of the other so-called free-trade organizations to which we belong. The second will be an increase in consumer prices owing to the tariffs - which will make consumers bellyache. The third will be retaliatory tariffs and protectionism on the part of other countries - with the likely blessing of the WTO and the other free-trade organizations.
.
Lastly, I think the hope you have invested in this public works project is a bit misplaced. What repairs will they make, and how long will it take to accomplish them? I seriously doubt that it will take a lifetime, much less the time span of a career to accomplish these feats. Moreover, if anyone is at all concerned with efficiency (as we can all hope), then the tasks will be parceled out to the States to take care of projects on their own territories and carried out by the businesses with which they normally contract. Thus, one has to ask: Is that really going to create jobs, or merely prolong already existing jobs? I have already addressed the problem with trying to finance this monster, and so I leave it to you to read my other posts on the topic. I just don't believe we can afford it, or that it is going to be any more effective in job creation than FDR's alphabet soup.

You are a good example of what Ronald Reagan meant when he said, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

Posted by: John W. | November 23, 2008 4:57 PM

REAGAN IS DEAD!

TRICKLEDOWN ECONOMICS IS A REPUBLICAN SCAM TO MAKE THE WEALTHIEST 1% OF AMERICANS EVEN RICHER AND EVERYONE KNOWS THIS NOW EXCEPT FOR DEADENDERS LIKE YOU!

GET OVER IT, OLD MAN!
.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/zombie%20reagan/joyvonspain/zombie-reagan.jpg?o=3
.

John W
You attribute opinions to me that I do not hold. Christopher Cox chose not to regulate hedge funds and default swaps and Greenspan lowered interest rates and refused to regulate derivative formation by banks.

The mess we are in does not come principally from sub prime mortgages but from the credit default swaps that were supposed to protect banks but in fact has made them more suspicious of each other.

As I said the question of how we are going to pay for it is ARROGANT and stupid coming from a Republican. It is not inherent either arrogant or stupid. You choice of Ted Stevens who is no longer a Senator rather than John Cornyn or Mel Martinez or Imhoff may be an unconscious protection of your Republican Party. Ron Paul who does make sense although carrying the Republican label was a persona non grata at the Republican Convention.

If the government gives money directly to construction firms for infrastructure the government from my point of view is creating the jobs. And I will not engage in semantic arguments. I know that I am rejecting dogma with this point of view and I am unwilling to argue about that either.

At the time that a house is on fire is not time to start teaching a child about how to keep a neat bedroom. You get out of the house and start teaching when the fire is out and the burnt furniture is replace. That is my response to when we will start being responsible.

I think that Obama is about change and one of those changes is to start addressing problems in a responsible way that is a long term solution. He is not ideological so he may offend your political and economic sensibilities but he made an issue about pay as you go before credit markets fell apart.

I am not accomplished enough in economics to argue whether there is inflation now. I know there was in the beginning of the year but I have a hard time comprehending inflation when the 3 mo T bill is at .1%. But in the last 2 mo the prices of everything have been dropping except government securities and the exchange rate of the dollar and that sure does not feel like inflation.

Too much leveraging is dying as we speak. Our mindset is not oriented fully to the new reality but Obama's is.

I know that you may not see that there are any similarities of thought between you and I, but I have been a holder of gold since 2003 and that was based on the fact that I could not see this going on the way it has. The difference is that I do not people to change permanently but I do see Obama as a pleasant respite which I would like to enjoy.

* * * * *
Posted by: Otis | November 23, 2008 4:06 PM
.
One thing I will tell the class is that Otis (or can I just call you Mr. Elevator?) passes around phony propaganda. I say this because your little graphic continues to perpetrate the falsehood that Billy Clinton actually had "surpluses" when, in fact, the federal government added to the federal debt every single year of his presidency. The figures, given above in my response to Xcellentform, come from the Treasury Department. Way to go.

John, you are having an off day today. Maybe tomorrow will be better for you. Your posts are attracting valid comments like flies on blank. Really, if you just admitted the truths once in a while, it would lend a little more credibility to your posts. Government can create jobs. You seem to be the only one on your little pug island here. Otherwise, you can not believe in socialism. Take your stinking pick. I know you pugs like to have your cake and eat my cake, and Ron’s cake too, but come on!!! When you are wrong, just admit it and don’t argue it with 3 pages of fluff to try and prove a point that you can not prove. I know this is the little lawyer in you coming out, but step back bud.

I make a screwed up post once in a while too. I’ll retract/ amend/ or clarify what needs to be said, but I do not practice the pug way of trudging down a road just to save face.

If we want to play number tricks and word games, you and I could tango all week long. I never said Clinton cut the national deficit. I know your lawyer ears heard that loud and clear, so for you to spend so much time explaining your side does not change the facts of my statements. I, like you, choose my words carefully, save for a few typos. So if the last Dem president balanced his budget 8 years ago, and the last pug to do it was 51 years ago, where is your leg to stand on about fiscal responsibility? I also see that much of Ikes success was attributed to the New and Fair Deals that were of the Dem doing anyways.

I never said that the public works project would last a lifetime. Hell, the fricken markets can be swayed by rumors in minutes! I can only imagine what would happen if they had some solid good numbers for a change. I think the public works would only be needed for 2 years or so. Most planned schools, bridges, and hydro plants would be finished by then anyways. Maybe they could cycle in some more projects later with planning right now, but that would be a tight schedule.

Like I’ve been saying, you just wait for the 4th quarter numbers to come in. You will see what a mess your party has made. Although not reported, I think this last drop just broke the record for percentage of market drop in a downcycle, even making it worse than the great depression, and we have not bottomed out yet.

I also do not think I can pallet anymore pugs that are not taking credit for their votes. To claim that Bush is not a “true” conservative, and that he is the outsider of the party……look around you! YOU are the outsider in a party of big spending, fear mongering, smooth talking, big government promoters!! The best thing for the pugs to do is to light a match to their big tent that is laying on the ground right now. So John, and the other pugs that say Bush is not a pug, please just make up a new party (if libs or constis don’t fit you) and start promoting that, put don’t sit here and try to pull up logic for pugism. It is impossible to prove it works.

Posted by: Xcellentform | November 24, 2008 2:01 AM
.
No, as a matter of fact I am not having an off day. Furthermore, I am being truthful. It is you who aren't willing to be honest with yourself or to look the raw data in the face and come up with the truth.
.
For instance, you still insist the "last Dem president balanced his budget 8 years ago…" I provided facts from the Treasury Department that prove this assertion false. A budget is not "balanced" if it results in an addition to the debt. That's because an addition to the debt only occurs when the government borrows money to make up a shortfall between revenue and expenditures. The data show that the government added to the debt every year Bill Clinton was President. Thus, despite the official and media announcements that budgets were balanced some years, those budgets could not have been balanced. If they said they were balanced when, in fact, they were not, then someone was lying to us. Is this really so hard to grasp?
.
Second of all, you specifically wrote that it would be hard to find a Republican President who balanced a budged more recently than 100 years ago. The fact that Eisenhower balanced two in 1956 and 1957 proved you wrong. Yet, again, you don't care to admit your error. You glossed over it - even though you claim to be able to admit and correct your own mistakes rather than go "trudging down a road just to save face."
.
And what does it mean that Eisenhower was the last President to balance a budget? (Mind you, I again reject the idea that Bill Clinton balanced any of his budgets because the facts prove otherwise.) It means that the government is generally bad at fiscal responsibility regardless of which Party is in power. It means that Democrats and Republicans alike haven't been able to make the government live within its means. That's what it means.
.
For the record, I never said governments can't create jobs. The government can always hire more people, thereby creating new jobs. What I said is that the government does not create private sector jobs. That means the government does not make the decision for privately run businesses to expend the money and resources necessary to employ more people. That is a business decision made by the owners and/or operators of companies, in accordance with their own business model, and based on factors particular to each business. There are thousands of intangible factors which go into the decision to hire new personnel, such that the government's creation of a better economic environment does not uniformly or inexorably result in new hiring; and sometimes not at all.
.
In fact, I do not believe in socialism as a viable social or governmental method of order. And, contrary to what you suggest, I can believe that socialism exists and is practiced somewhere in the world and still believe what I just wrote about the fact the government does not create private sector jobs. There is no inconsistency here, and your contrary argument has no reasoning behind it. Moreover, you aren't going to win the argument simply by replication of your contrariness or by pointing out that I am the only Republican arguing the point. There very well be no one else interested in the argument, and/or those who take interest in it think I'm doing fine without any help. I don't need anyone else to argue along side of me. I am not a pack animal, I don't need any validation from others, and I can think for myself. You are the one who is still struggling with the Treasury Department data.
.
Next, you insist that, once "the 4th quarter numbers to come in" we "will see what a mess" the Republican Party has made. As Ronald Reagan said during the debates with Jimmy Carter, "There you go again." I dispute the basic premise that the government has sufficient power over the economy to make a mess out of it, or that it has taken sufficient steps to do so. The government doesn't have those levers of power. To the contrary, the economy is going south because the financial sector, with much encouragement from the Federal Reserve Bank, has made a mess out of the housing and credit markets. The Federal Reserve Bank is not a government agency, the President doesn't have any control over it and neither does Congress. If we want to prevent future meltdowns like the one we are seeing, we need to do something to rein in the irresponsibility of the FRB.
.
I also stand by my guns when I say that George W. Bush is an outsider and not an orthodox conservative. Look at his approval rating. At the beginning of November of 2008, it had dipped to 20%. That means that substantially more than half of all Republicans disapprove of him. And if you think his behavior has been particularly "conservative," you have no idea what conservatism is. You, too, have inductively assumed that what people labeled Republicans do somehow hews the line at acceptable conservative behavior - instead of questioning whether their conduct might not be abberant. In fact, conservatives shudder at the manner in which Bush has grown the federal government, signed off on reckless spending, used police-state tactics, and tried to federalize his social agendum. To a conservative, the social agendum is for the State level, and spending and government are supposed to be no more than necessary to accomplish the government's legitimate goals. I've already discussed his departure from traditional Republican foreign policy. If one lays his policies side by side with traditional conservative ideals, he is almost anti-conservative on every score.
.
Finally: A word about inflation. Inflation means having a money supply larger than needed to account for the total value of all goods and services in a given economy. Thus, a deflationary cycle does not signal the absence of inflation. It only signals that inflation is not expanding. It could very well take time for any deflationary cycle to bring the money supply and the economy into equilibrium. On the other hand, the government's behavior in monetizing the debt and printing money out of thin air to accommodate the bailouts is very inflationary; and so is the FRB's practice of making more money available cheaper. The deflation cycle you mentioned could well be caused by the fact that a lot of money has gotten tied up in assets that have become illiquid. That will change once the assets are eventually re-constructed and liquidated. But, not to worry, the government is busy inflating our money to compensate for the loss from illiquidity.

ANOTHER “stimulus” plan…?! How very predictable. I see that he is already practicing his assigned role as “savior”. Toss a few small crumbs to the multitudes, in their time of desperation, in order to stave off a revolution. How very revolting.