Obama: 'Top man on the economy'

Yeah, everybody's an economist - including labor hacks Richie Trumka and Anna Burger. Who cares that the Labor Secretary nominee has violated Obama's own ethics policy and that she is a tax cheat by signing false joint returns with her husband. Let's make sure the organized labor lobby gets a return on its investment of workers dues and political contributions. Nobody will notice. Nobody cares.

I hope plan B is ready. The house plan is a poorly targeted plan with everyting they could imagine in it. It is a hope plan.
The Senate plan is more of the same old supply side nonsense that got us in this mess. The answer to everything is lower taxes. What company is going to invest tax savings in making widjets when the already have a warehouse full of widgets that they can't sell?

Voters resoundingly rejected McCain's "tax cuts" and Reagan "trickle down" economics. The government needs to spend money to stimulate the economy, to creat jobs. Tax cuts won't do that. The shattered GOP is trying to glue itself back together with obstructionism at the expense of our economic health. Suddenly, those who ballooned the deficit over the last eight years claim to be "responsible fiscal conservatives" battling against "liberal spending." I call bu!!shi# on that! If the recession worsens and Depression looms, businesses and households won't pay taxes, and the deficit will grow anyway. We will leave a depressed economy, a huge deficit, and the national security threat it creates to our children and grandchildren. Meanwhile, the Republicans, their fat cat CEO and lobbyist friends, robber barons of the 2nd millenium, will get along just fine, as did the wealthy in the 1930s. The only jobs they care about are their own.

The most amazing thing about it to me is how economists all over the place have calculated return on investment on the various things in this stimulus package. The tax cuts in the package are 0.3, 0.4 ROI. That is, for every dollar you spend or cut in taxes, you only get 30 or 40 cent boost to the economy (one dollar times 0.3 for example).

And the state aid, the health care, the transportation is all 1.3, 1.4, even as much as 1.7 ROI.

And what do the Republicans insist upon? Tax cuts. The stuff with the lowest ROI in this situation.

Tax cuts can give you a huge ROI when the economy is strong. But right now you may as well be pushing on a string. And it is criminal malfeasance by the Republicans to be suggesting otherwise.

Look at it this way when your family is experiecing money problems do you go out and spend more money like the Democrats want to do or do you, or do you cutback on spending?

I'm not sure if it makes sense. Economies go through cycles and recession is part of the cycle. I read the history of cycles at http://www.recessioninfocenter.com

"Look at it this way when your family is experiecing money problems do you go out and spend more money like the Democrats want to do or do you, or do you cutback on spending?"

Uh, actually, that's exactly the OPPOSITE of how to look at it. I think Prez O was referring to folks like yourself with his comments. The purpose of this isn't to "save money" it's to get money moving around. And, as usual, the Repubs have it exactly wrong. Spend when we should save, save when we should spend. The Republican party: wrong as the day is long ...

the idea of comparing a family budget to the economy is just one of the biggest mistakes most people make when they think of this problem.the other is listening to any body who thinks that taxcuts are gonna solve anything right now.history is not on their side.to put it another simple way. when consumer spending stops,manufacturing stops and people lose their jobs. people losing their jobs creates a strain on "state" resources, because of a loss of taxes and the drain of unemployment benefits. you also have an eight year decrease in funds given to those said "states" .you throw in lack of available credit and defaulted loans and you have a problem.History has shown that the only way to kick start such dire conditions is for the government to spend ( because they are the only ones that can). they spend it on stuff that is already needed and stuff that will help us in the future. whether it is for infrastructure,supplies,helping states keep needed services ETC. some of this may seem like "pork" but you need to have a knowledge of how even little things can have a big effect on the country. you need to have an open mind and stop listening to narrow minded talking heads and bad actors.

"stimulus is spending"

What so Obama is mad at those of us who have educated ourselves. name ONCE in history where massive spending helped an economy. It never has. It didn't help Hoover, it didn't help FDR, it didn't help Japan.

But when JFK (a Democrat) cut taxes and lowered spending, it worked. When Reagan cut taxes and lowered spending, it worked.

It's not about political parties, or what you believe. It's about history. You can't fight history. If an idea has always failed every time it's tried, then it will continue to fail.

Did Obama really say "stimulus is spending, that's the point". I thought stimulus was spending that stimulates. The debate is about what is effective stimulus spending. Does he really think that any kind of spending is stimulus spending....god help us.

When challenged to defend his proposals and the bill's reckless spending, Obama promptly abandoned yet a major pillar of his 2008 campaign- that he will bring "bipartisanship" to solve the myriad challenges we face,

As Obama did his best to sustain his smiling used-car-salesman shmoozing skills, the Democrats crafted a bill with almost no GOP input or debate in committee. When met with resistance, the president arrogantly reminded Republicans that "we won", and that Americans "embraced" his ideas when they elected him.

Perhaps Americans supported his promise of "bipartisanship", and even swallowed the MSM's promotion of this myth... but did voters actually embrace the Obama that was hidden and denied... the real one- with the most liberal voting record in the US Senate, and who voted a strict, far-left line in the Illinois legislature?

The hubristic victor Obama should be informed that the wave of unquestioned support that he's enjoyed to this point is rapidly coming to an end.

And maybe some of his people need to show him last week's Rassmussen Poll that showed just 42% support for the bill- with 39% in opposition.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article claiming that only 12% of the spending in the bill could even remotely be considered and economic "stimulus"... as many are rapidly becoming aware of.

And Chicken-Little panic mongering's not going to cut it-

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

"The answer to everything is lower taxes. What company is going to invest tax savings in making widjets when the already have a warehouse full of widgets that they can't sell?"

You appear to argue for lower taxes yet your example does the opposite. The key is to increase consumer demand, which requires that people have jobs and aren't afraid to spend money. Give people tax cuts and only a fraction will go out and spend it (and only part of that will be for American-made products and services). Government spending guarantees the money gets to where we need it -- in circulation.

Larry Summers entirely excuses the Democrats of any responsibility for the sub-prime mess even though they rewrote lending rules during the Clinton era. Further, he might recall that the Democrats controlled congress during 2007 and 2008, the two years in which he said the economy took a turn for the worse.

The government has already taken a huge overdraft on its account and now wants to write itself another large check to bring back "confidence" in the economy. Would you place your confidence in a runaway spender like the U.S. government?

Obama is now the top economist - yet one more postion and title he is so completely underqualified for - in addition to Commander in Chief (never shared in the sacrifice to defend this nation), top diplomat (those four years between the ages of 6 and 10 on a play ground in Indonesia not withstanding), Top Reformer of Government Ethics (we just saw in IL the product of his 'bi-partisan' ethics reform as a state legislator) - the list goes on and on - but he has the press still peddeling his brand - just take an empty vessal and they can put whatever aspirations they want into it - and now this is the leader of Free World - God Help this Nation.

Republicans remind me of the psychiatric patient a newly minted psychologist sat down with. The patient insisted that he was dead. The psychologist spent about an hour trying to convince the man that he was, in fact, not at all dead. Finally, the psychologist, exasperated, asked the patient, "do dead men bleed?" The patient thought about it for a moment, and said "No, I don't think dead people bleed". The psychologist then produced a lancet and pricked the finger of the patient. A drop of blood appeared. "Well what do you know?" the patient exclaimed, "dead men do bleed!"

You will never convince the Republicans that their philosphy is dangerously unsound and that their governance led to the abyss of a depression we are now in grave danger of falling into.

So, I recommend not trying to bring the GOP on board. The Democrats won the election in a seismic shift. Elections have consequences. I pray that the consequences of this election will be that American families and American workers will be spared the pain and suffering our parents' or grandparents' generation went through as a result of Hoover's policies, which were virtually identical to those of the GOP over the last 30 years. Clearly, Republicans are incapable of learning from the disasters they create.

I do not understand why people are having diffculty understanding. The number of unemployed people (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million. The Department of Labor reported today that nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent. Payroll employment has declined by 3.6 million since the start of the recession in December 2007, .... most of this mess happening only in past three months! And some wonder Obama is pushing so hard for a stimulus package. Is the Herbert Hoover approach, do nothing, all we need, leading us to a twelve year depression ??

HObama thinks he's a leader, economist, president, and a black man...but he isn't.

We can't lose sight of the fact that we are about to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars. That is well over $3,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. The money fair does not supply this money. We will have to pay it back at some point, along with the other $30,000 we already owe.
So it is critical that we scrutinize what we spend this money on and not just blow it out of the window. I think it would be smart to basically accelerate spending on infrastructure type projects that employ people. For example, fix the pot holes, repair bridges, replace damaged military equipment. Things we are going to have to do anyway. If we don't, if we spend a trillion on this pet project or that, we are going to find that when we have to fix the roads or close them, we will be fully out of funds. We can't expect the world to endlessly buy t-bills no matter how much debt we rack up. At some point Moodys will degrage U.S. debt and the fallout will be far far worse than the current crisis.

We've been doing the Repuglican trickledown tax cuts for the rich dance for years now and it has failed in a spectacular manner, mostly because the Repugs are only interested in giving tax cuts to the rich, i.e. trickledown.

"Tax cuts", it's a great sound bite and it gets the really stupid part of the Repug party (Inky) standing up and clapping on command because they're too stupid to realize that they're being used as a ruse to make the rich richer.

We have a political party (Republican) that operates with focus group tested talking points and slogans with no regards to accomplishing anything other than coming back into power or staying in power by any means necessary and you have a corporate media that has willingly kissed their butts for the better part of 30 years now.

Read up on Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi's and you'll find a lot of similarities with the modern day Repuglican Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

Poster "John" at 2:46 PM is spot on: It's not a debate about spending versus not spending. The Repubs are A-OK with spending money to help get us out of this mess. Rather it's a debate about just what is the *correct* spending that would actually have a positive effect. The stuff currently proposed is ludicrous.
What happened to Obama's pledges of bi-partisinship and for being 'our president, too'? Now he just wants the other side to rubber stamp whatever he wants?

To: stimulus is spending, You're forgetting that Obama is a celebrity, not an experienced politician. He could probably win on "American Idiot", oops, sorry I mean "American Idol" though:( Popularity trumps sensibility in the good ol' USA.

We can't lose sight of the fact that we are about to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars. That is well over $3,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. The money fair does not supply this money. We will have to pay it back at some point, along with the other $30,000 we already owe.
So it is critical that we scrutinize what we spend this money on and not just blow it out of the window. I think it would be smart to basically accelerate spending on infrastructure type projects that employ people. For example, fix the pot holes, repair bridges, replace damaged military equipment. Things we are going to have to do anyway. If we don't, if we spend a trillion on this pet project or that, we are going to find that when we have to fix the roads or close them, we will be fully out of funds. We can't expect the world to endlessly buy t-bills no matter how much debt we rack up. At some point Moodys will degrage U.S. debt and the fallout will be far far worse than the current crisis.

I'd like to agree with Obama on his comment about "everyone's an economist", however, when Geithner can't process his taxes properly, along with Rangel, Daschle, etc., I'm beginning to wonder how many of these people know anything. BO is looking very weak right now. This week he will be doing the "sell" junket. It appears as though he's being led around by those advising him, like he isn't capable of thinking for himself. I think it's a case of "this job is harder than it looks".

When did Obama become an "economist"? Spend, spend, spend our way out, not going to happen. Then who are the democraps going to blame?

so, someone above offers evidence that you get a multiplier effect in having the government spend money that isn't present when an individual keeps the money. That's a new one I haven't heard even the most diehard liberal offer. as to hoover, he increased spending as did roosevelt. didn't help.

An 8th grader could do the math better.

I just wish he wouldn't listen to Karl Marx as much

An 8th grader could do the math better.

I just wish he wouldn't listen to Karl Marx as much

We can't lose sight of the fact that we are about to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars. That is well over $3,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. The money fair does not supply this money. We will have to pay it back at some point, along with the other $30,000 we already owe.
So it is critical that we scrutinize what we spend this money on and not just blow it out of the window. I think it would be smart to basically accelerate spending on infrastructure type projects that employ people. For example, fix the pot holes, repair bridges, replace damaged military equipment. Things we are going to have to do anyway. If we don't, if we spend a trillion on this pet project or that, we are going to find that when we have to fix the roads or close them, we will be fully out of funds. We can't expect the world to endlessly buy t-bills no matter how much debt we rack up. At some point Moodys will degrage U.S. debt and the fallout will be far far worse than the current crisis.

I am not an economist. In fact I may actually know something. Which of course proves that I am not an Economist.
What do I know? I know that bailing out the Supply Side in this economy will help, Not Very Much. In fact prolly not at all. Creating more capacity when people are not buyiing is pretty stupid.

I can't figure out WHY all have not come to the conclusion that is the truth NEITHER party has it right. Have ANY of you actually read any part of the bill? I read quite a bit there is NOTHING in there that will create any jobs in the near future but a lot of GRANTS (free money) for those who make good money to keep theirs. How many have lost their jobs? How will a tax cut help? Last time they gave tax cuts my employer didn't give ANYONE a raise for 3 years. American's SPENDING will only create jobs for CHINA and the like..since we only assemble here.. THEREFORE, the only logical way to put AMERICAN'S back to work is to create jobs by MAKING something which means we HAVE to open our MANUFACTURING BASE back up immediately this could create jobs in 3-6 months and tell those that oppose it to SHUT UP redo NAFTA and CAFTA.. and not 1 of the so called economists have even addressed that idea. The claim we have become a economy of service, HOW IS THAT WORKING FOR US? What are we going to make a living selling each other Hamburgers? All the stuff in the bill that doesn't CREATE jobs immediately using AMERICAN made goods or put money directly into ALL Americans pockets who have lost their jobs are things that belong in another bill.. You can stimulate the economy by spending what you CAN'T do is convince someone who is out of work or scared of losing their jobs to spend to continue to stimulate.. Look back in History we did the best in this country when we had a manufacturing base in this country..

I am not an economist, Mr. President, you are correct. But, I do know that to spend money you don't have - as our government is doing to solve this crisis - only creates a much bigger problem somewhere down the road. It doesn't take an economist to know that...just common sense. In the words of Shakespeare said, "Ay, there's the rub."

Looking at the comments, I am astounded by the level of polarization. Fact is, the economy has contracted severely and the only source of significant spending is from the government. People can't and won't make up the difference, until we turn the corner. Best thing you can do to help is spend whatever you can RESPONSIBLY spend. It will make a difference.

Obama isn't an economist but he plays one on TV.

I am a member of the GOP, but after reading this acticle by Mr. Jim Jubak, I am shifting my position on the package. If we follow his 5-points, then I say it will work out very well, we cannot follow the mistakes from Japan during the '90's. Hope, this link works, it is very good reading for whatever side you are on. It is found on Msn.com http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/your-5-point-economic-rescue-guide.aspx

Summers is also trying to shift blame directly onto Obama should the printing press legislation fail.

He learned that bureaucratic two step working for Clinton.

Less creative is ttj who's still stuck on the calumny (or is it blood libel) that it was Clinton Frank Raines ACORN Fannie Freddie that brought down Wall St.

Conveniently forgetting that Congress was controlled by Repugs for 14 years and Bush was in power until last month. Hint: whose mantra was "the ownership society"? Presumably that included homeownership.

Wall St. brought itself down.

Poor baby Barack, lamenting that "everybody thinks they're economists." I know I'm not and economist, but I did take Econ. 1 & 2 - and I've got the A's to prove it. I figger if you can't explain your scheme to people with my level of education in the subject, it's too convoluted and there's probably something wrong with it. I think the main priority should be to end long-term unemployment, by offering irresistible incentives to employers to hire Americans who have run out of unemployment compensation. When everyone in the workforce can afford to breathe again, we can talk about more efforts.

The time to jump ship is coming real soon if somebody figure something out real soon.

"Look at it this way when your family is experiencing money problems do you go out and spend more money like the Democrats want to do or do you, or do you cutback on spending?"
You are correct. The innate response to a financial crisis is to save money. The natural response to a burning building is to run out of it. What happens when everyone runs to the exit at the same time? The danger of a recession is everyone follows their natural tendency. Entrepreneurs stop investing; banks stop lending and families stops spending. These responses are no less natural than a river flowing downstream. Some believe it is best to allow nature to take its course. During a flooding rain, your opinion may be swayed by your position along the river. Most Americans live closer to the basin than the source and may be alarmed by the approaching water. FDR said there is nothing to fear but fear itself” but Douglas Adams said it best,” Don’t Panic!” As Hammondites gather together to lay down sand bags to meet the flooding water, Obama is asking us to use spending to counter our instinct to horde. By investing in community services and projects and domestically made products, we can keep our neighbors working and prevent the money problems that prevent families from going out and spending money on things they can cut back on like house payments, heating and food.

Barack Obama is no economist. And the head of the treasury is a tax cheat. I find this ridiculous.

I agree with c.perry. Supply-side economics work when there's plenty of demand, but the bottleneck is in the supply side. NOW we'have the opposite problem. Would you treat cancer with antibiotics just because that drug worked so well on an entirely different illness?

So, if the Republicans don't matter much in a Dumocrat Washington then why hasn't "God" Obama's bill been passed yet? I'll tell you why, the Dumocrats kept on and on about how they would have the Stimulus Bill on President Obama's desk ready to be signed on his first day, but here we are almost 30 days into "God" Obama's Change the World administration and yet the bill isn't sitting on his desk awaiting his mighty pen. The Dumocrats thought because of "God" Obama" wave that the Republicans would bend down and kiss his feet and give him any and everything he wanted without question, but it didn't happen that way. Instead of kissing Obama's a--, they fought back. They know who they work for and it is not "God" Obama and they know that if "God" Obama's bill fails, they will have alot of explaining to do to the very people they work for who are asking them WHY? . Now if this "welfare" bailout fails instead of having the Republicans to point their fingers at the Dumcrats will own the failure. Obama and the Dumocrats don't need the Republican's votes, and if this "welfare" bailout is so great then why hasn't "God" Obama used his almighty pen? If they have such a great bill and they don't need the Repubicans, why aren't they doing what they claim is the best thing for the American people.

Oh and I love the new Dumocrat Motto of "We Won". Doesn't that make you understand that the Dumcrats don't care about the American people? They won so they are going to do whatever they want. They've won, they no longer need your vote.

The moron Larry Summers should be the last person to seek economic advice from...he was the author of the infamous Community Re-investment Act that thought it was a good idea to give home loans to people that didn't have sufficient funds or even jobs to pay off a bicycle let alone a house.
He also said women didn't have enough grey matter for mathematics,but they did have enough to kick his sorry ass out of Harvard

he was the author of the infamous Community Re-investment Act that thought it was a good idea to give home loans to people that didn't have sufficient funds or even jobs to pay off a bicycle let alone a house.
Posted by: Don B. | February 9, 2009 12:42 AM

Ah...Don B....still looking for minorities to blame it on. Problem is...the CRA...never allowed that. Do a little investigating and you will see that the bill itself states that does not override the banks job of good and sound business practices.

Almost all of the commentary on the right these days draws from a single source, The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes. You can think of Shlaes as the Coulter of conservative economics. Her book is peppered with the horrors experienced by the nation under FDR. (Did you know that somebody in Brooklyn got so depressed that they committed suicide while Roosevelt was president? It's true!) Shlaes, whose academic background is untarnished by any actual study of economics, is the perfect packager of the Republican myth, and her book carefully avoids all those nasty facts that tend to get in the way of the plot.In it, Shlaes... completely leaves out any specific data on gross domestic product, incomes, consumer spending, production, investment or jobs even for the New Deal period she presumes to explain. Indeed, her pitch is based entirely on emotional misrepresentation.Income, production, jobs... what do those things have to do with the Great Depression? Not much, if you're Republican. If anyone on the right had bothered to check any of these numbers, what would they find?
Where was the stimulus? From the moment FDR began to enact the programs of the New Deal, the economy began its recovery. After four years of steady declines, Roosevelt's programs brought on an immediate improvement in the national fortune. Within three years, the national GDP exceeded the level in 1929. By the time the bombs fell at Pearl Harbor, the GDP had been up every year but one since 1933, and that one downward tick in 1937 marks the exact point at which budget hawks forced cuts in the New Deal programs.
That's the story the numbers tell. The New Deal worked, worked well, and worked quickly. These days, we define recessions as two consecutive quarters of declining gross domestic product. By that measure, when did the Great Depression end? One quarter after Roosevelt took office, that's when. Yes, it took years to repair the damage of the anything goes marketeers, but the recovery started the moment the New Deal started.

Don B, Was Summers around in the Carter Administration when the CRA (which did NOT cause the economic crisis) was passed? I don't think so.