January 30, 2009

Rahm on the Republicans: "These guys will roll over, they're afraid of being called the party of No. Believe me, I know them. They'll be easy."

"One prominent Republican" on Obama: "The president was patient, he gave us plenty of time. But he didn't convince anyone. After he left, we looked at each other, and said, 'How can they stick him with this garbage?'"

The stimulus stimulates stimulating talk.

(Via Instapundit.)

155 comments:

Palladian said...

Boy that Rahm Emmanuel is a charmer, isn't he? When is he going to start sending dead fish to the Republicans?

rdkraus said...

This stuff is so good I could almost vote Repub.

Truly, they haven't looked this good since pre-Bush.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It'll be a cakewalk! The Republicans will greet us with flowers!

MrBuddwing said...

Obviously, I'm missing something here. If history and the angels are on the side of the Democrats when it comes to this stimulus package, then why, oh why, do they need any Republican support? Pass the damned thing! (Or are there Democrats who, deep down, have serious doubts about this package and want to be able to spread the blame if it doesn't work?)

peter hoh said...

Good to see the House Republicans finally discovering their spine. Where the hell has it been these last 8 years?

Michael H said...

Good ol' Rahm. Building bi-partisan bridges since...um...not sure.

madawaskan said...

How can they stick him with this garbage?

I've been wondering the same thing-or was for about two minutes and the answer boils down to about three things.

Perhaps...

1)Obama is inexperienced.

2)Nancy Pelosi is really in charge.

3) They know they can get away with it because the media won't report much of it, and because they have the Senate, House and Executive.

Bissage said...

Last night, for the first time in the 46 years of my young life, I heard the word "stimulative" used as an adjective.

Apparently, that's not wrong.

Still sounds weird.

Triangle Man said...

Bissage, I agree. What's wrong with stimulating?

Franco said...

“If we had gotten together in a room and tried to write a bill that put the taxpayer together with the Republican Party, we could not have come up with this thing. It is too unbelievable.”

Yep. What a bad move by Pelosi Emanuel and Obama. They are so anxious to grab power they can't see anything on the periphery.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Stick him with it, indeed. It's a classic Boondoggle Bill, masquerading as 'stimulus.'

There are *so* many things wrong with it, the worst of which is the ongoing attempt to panic people into accepting a tired wish-list of long-standing Democrat schemes.

It's obviously attempting to sneak through greater socialization of America's health system.

The requirement for US-only goods and equipment will be the modern Smoot-Hawley.

What concerns me most, as a business owner, is what will almost surely happen as a result of this bill and similar interventions -- at some point people will be unwilling (or unable) to purchase more Treasury paper.

With an excess of supply in relation to demand, the price of Treasuries will (of course) fall, driving interest rates quite a bit higher. Those high interest rates will strangle productive and profitable business such as my own, all for the sake of having kept the losers alive a little bit longer. And of course, shovelling tens of billions to favoured supporters ... to absolutely no productive end.

At that point we'll have a Depression more like 1837 than 1937.

Please ask your Senators not to provide political cover for this monstrosity ... please.

martha said...

Before voting for this pork laden Bill, every member of Congress should sign a statement under oath stating that they have read the thing----Obama should also be required to read the atrocity.

I really do not think any sane citizen could vote for it --it will not stimulate anything but Government spending and Government growth.

EDH said...

Or are there Democrats who, deep down, have serious doubts about this package and want to be able to spread the blame if it doesn't work?

Democrats: "Damn, those ungrateful Republicans hardly touched those shit sandwiches we made for them."

daredevil-66 said...

What's strange to me is the democrats can't look 2 years ahead and see this pork bill not only bankrupted this country but did absolutely nothing to employ people. No one can possibly be that stupid. So I wonder if they are pigging out one last time before the whole shooting match goes down?

AJ Lynch said...

Ahem.

With all the experience and brain power on Obama's econ team, why didn't any of them speak up to opine this stimulus plan was bad?

Or if they did speak up, why didn't Obama listen to them?

Palladian said...

"Obama should also be required to read the atrocity."

Out loud, non-stop, on national television.

Henry said...

Obama's inauguration speech:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.


Let the accounting begin.

(Obama, you can't say you didn't warn yourself.)

Michael said...

If the Republicans don't get it together they're toast.

Oh, wait...they're already toast.

My bad.

Michael said...

And the W-H-I-N-I-N-G continues.

The country is in free fall and all people here can do is bitch and whine about the Obama administration.

Does anybody here read newspapers, periodicals or books?

Is THIS SITE your sole source of information?

Duh.

Original Mike said...

I can not imagine why a single Republican would vote for this turkey.

Henry said...

We're not whining. We're mocking.

As for free fall... See this. Congress just pulled back the bowstring...

Michael said...

Original Mike - Of course not.

Just look at all of the wonderful things the Republicans have provide through their leadership, ideas and actions.

The Republicans have held the MAJORITY in Congress for 12 of the past 14 years and the power of the White House for the past 8 years.

What exactly do YOU feel they've done to warrant your support...and why wouldn't ANY real American at least want to give the new President some time to right the ship of state?

It's pure, unadulterated partisanship and the Republican Party will pay dearly for years to come.

Revenant said...

I forget where I read it, but it was pointed out to me that you don't publicly send the President in to "convince" people until the deal has already been done behind the scenes. Otherwise you risk what happened here -- the President ends up looking like an idiot who can't get things done.

I'm wondering whether (a) his team made a newbie mistake or (b) some of the Republicans had promised their votes but then reneged. So far I haven't heard any Obama insiders claiming (b), which makes me think (a) must be it.

Sofa King said...

Michael -

I don't know about you but I don't see the sole alternative to "blindly supporting Republicans" as "blindly supporting Democrats."

TosaGuy said...

House Dems should be happy, they will get 100 percent of the credit for this bill. Opps, my bad....they know their will be no credit...instead they don't want 100 percent of the blame.

Those 11 Blue Dog Dems who voted with the GOP should go find some more Dem votes and work with the GOP to pass a truly bipartisan bill that has a chance in hell of doing something positive.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Or are there Democrats who, deep down, have serious doubts about this package and want to be able to spread the blame if it doesn't work?

The bill does not enjoy the support of the majority of Americans.

That doesn't mean the majority of people are against it; in fact, somewhat more people support than oppose it. But enough people are on the fence that total support is still below 50%. Worse yet (for the Democrats), the public is equally supportive/unsupportive of the Republican "let's just cut taxes" approach. When you're about to spend a trillion bucks on "stimulus" voters don't particularly want and economists aren't convinced will work, you want political cover.

But like Obama said: he won. That means he gets to take all the credit for this nonsense. :)

Original Mike said...

...and why wouldn't ANY real American at least want to give the new President some time to right the ship of state?

Real Americans are not allowed to READ the bill and come to my own conclusions as to the outcome?

Original Mike said...

You don't right a ship by loading the deck up with piles of lead.

former law student said...

Boy that Rahm Emmanuel is a charmer

Well, he's no Karl Rove, but for a Democrat he's not too bad.

What concerns me most, as a business owner, is what will almost surely happen as a result of this bill and similar interventions -- at some point people will be unwilling (or unable) to purchase more Treasury paper.

Yep. I sounded this alarm all through the W. Presidency, as W. increased discretionary spending at twice the rate of Bill Clinton. Oh well. Obama inherited W.'s deficit, and has to do the best he can despite it.

LarsPorsena said...

Rumor has it that there is even a little something for ACORN in this
boondoggle. I guess all of BO's constituencies get to 'wet their beaks'.

Michael said...

The last 20 years - a comparison between Democrats or Republicans running the show:

% GDP Growth Per Annum
Dem - +4.1% Rep - +2.9% "W" - +2.2%

Employment GROWTH
Dem - +2.9% Rep - +1.7% "W" - +0.5%

Consumer Price Index
Dem - +4.0% Rep - +5.1% "W" - +3.0%

The Dow
Dem - +8.1% Rep - +6.5% "W" - -0.9%

The Dollar
Dem - +0.8% Rep - -3.6% "W" - -5.9%

Michael said...

Good lord...now we've got yahoos yapping about ACORN??

The dumb just keep getting dumber.

AllenS said...

Would someone please ask Emmanuel, Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the people who are for this stimulas package, where this money is coming from. Would that be too much to ask?

Revenant said...

Well, he's no Karl Rove, but for a Democrat he's not too bad.

If he was a Karl Rove, he'd have had the wits not to send Obama to "charm" a Republican minority that had absolutely zero incentive to vote for the bill. Emmanuel made his boss look impotent. That's no way to keep your job.

Too many more mistakes like that, and Rahm will be discovering a sudden desire to Spend More Time with His Family.

Oh well. Obama inherited W.'s deficit, and has to do the best he can despite it.

The best Obama can do with a deficit is to double it in size and spend all the money on pork?

Can we quote you on that later?

downtownlad said...

Let's be honest. Ann Althouse and her commenters, by supporting Bush's disastrous economic policies, have left us with a Depression.

Thanks a bunch.

Michael said...

I've never said anything associated with "blindly" supporting anything, but when not one single Republican votes yea on a bill this important it tells me they're not interested in doing a damn thing.

And, other than the usual "tax cut" bullshit, which we've seen for the past 8 years, the Republicans are offering nothing of substance to support their reluctance to negotiate a reasonable agreement.

95% of those here are just bitching and whining like they always do. It started with Hillary possibly being elected, then shifted to Obama...and now we've got a full on assault on anything Obama suggests.

Small-minded people.

AJ Lynch said...

Hey Michael:

What books, periodicals and newspapers do you recommend to us dumb folks?

downtownlad said...

The Republicans want spending cuts. In a Depression.

Morons.

Revenant said...

The Republicans want spending cuts. In a Depression.

Check it out, it's the world's first and only Keynesian "Libertarian". :)

Ann Althouse said...

I didn't support Bush's economic policies. I voted for Bush because I thought Kerry would lose the Iraq war for us. I still think that. I voted for Obama because I didn't think McCain had the capacity to handle the economic crisis.

Michael said...

AllenS said..."Would someone please ask Emmanuel, Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the people who are for this stimulas package, where this money is coming from. Would that be too much to ask?"

Borrowing and printing.

Ever take a course in government?

*Where did the massive deficit come from? Clinton left Bush about a 500 billion surplus.

Why can't damn near ANYBODY here assign one shred of blame to the administration they fully supported for 8 years?

You lack of honestly and responsibility negates any rationale behind the constant bitching and whining.

TosaGuy said...

DTL.

Bush is gone. So please defend how the stimulus package will help the economy. Please explain to us how money for everyone who doesn't create jobs or wealth will help the economy.

Your guys won. Your guys have the responsibility. I thought you libs were "progressive" and looked to the future....so quit looking at the past and focus on the present and future. No more excuses.

Michael said...

"I voted for Bush because I thought Kerry would lose the Iraq war for us. I still think that."

We've "won" the Iraq war?

I must have missed the headline.

AllenS said...

"I voted for Obama because I didn't think McCain had the capacity to handle the economic crisis."

Ok, then I'll ask you, where is this money going to come from?

Palladian said...

"Let's be honest. Ann Althouse and her commenters, by supporting Bush's disastrous economic policies, have left us with a Depression.

Thanks a bunch."

What do you care? Don't you supposedly live in Rangoon or something? I mean, think of all the breeders who are being financially destroyed by this "depression"! Doesn't that make your little tadger stiff?

"Check it out, it's the world's first and only Keynesian "Libertarian". :)"

When downtownlad calls himself a "libertarian" he's referring to the unfortunately popular understanding of the term: contrarian misanthropic asshole.

Hey! I'm a bitter, misanthropic contrarian asshole! I must be a 'libertarian'!

rdkraus said...

Michael

I blame Bush and the Congress over the last 8 years for plenty.

What has that got to do with supporting this massive borrow and spend laundry list of everything liberals wanted to do, but couldn't, for the past 8 years.

Past bad ideas do not make current bad ideas good.

Michael said...

TosaGuy - I think Obama and his representatives have provided many explanations of how the plan will lower taxes for individuals, businesses, create jobs and hopefully jump start the economy by increasing purchasing power.

There are daily press conferences, comments and statements from all kinds of people in this administration providing details and rebuttals.

To act as if you're not being informed is disingenuous at best, and your comment that nothing presented will create jobs, etc. is nothing more than the right wing talking points we get from Rush, Sean and many of the Republicans on the hill...and you know it, too.

Palladian said...

Hey look, Gene... I mean, Michael has a wet pussy since Obama got erected!

Palladian said...

"I blame Bush and the Congress over the last 8 years for plenty.

What has that got to do with supporting this massive borrow and spend laundry list of everything liberals wanted to do, but couldn't, for the past 8 years."

See, wet pussies like 'Michael' cannot comprehend anything other than binary systems. If you don't support the Porkulus bill then obviously you're a Bush toady! So what does that make the Democrats who don't support the Porkulus bill. Ahh, traitors! I forgot the way liberals operate.

Sofa King said...

Why can't damn near ANYBODY here assign one shred of blame to the administration they fully supported for 8 years?

You lack of honestly and responsibility negates any rationale behind the constant bitching and whining.


Plenty of people have expressed their disappointment with Bush's spending habits. Is anybody really denying that Bush - but not Bush alone - contributed to the problem?

The fact of the matter is Bush is gone, he can do no more. Neither can the Republicans. Your continued harping on flat-out irrelevancies is...puzzling.

Some people here don't think this legislation will help solve our problems - at least, not enough to justify the cost. That opinion has absolutely nothing to do with what Bush may or may not have done. It's not Bush's bill.

Bruce Hayden said...

Oh, it just keeps getting better and better. It appears that something else that was slipped into the bill was a repeal of the welfare caps imposed by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

TosaGuy said...

Michael.....I know that.


I am asking DTL, YOU and other libs who spent 8 years bashing others to finally defend something. Or are you a one-trick pony?

Michael said...

rdkraus - The fact that YOU personally do not like the plan doesn't make it bad, it just means you want something else in its place.
The Republicans had plenty of time to deal with many of the problems we face today...and did not.

Why not tell us about all of the terrific, new and improved plans the Republicans have to offer...other than cutting taxes...which is what they've proposed time and time agiain.

former law student said...

where is this money going to come from?

Same place that the Iraq invasion money came from.

Please explain to us how money for everyone who doesn't create jobs or wealth will help the economy.

After someone explains how the economy was helped by outsourcing jobs to Asia. Further, the wealth that models-and-bottles consuming I-bankers "created" turned out to be fairy gold.

TosaGuy said...

I have been consistently against Bush's domestic spending and trying to placate Dems by spending money.

So how does Obama spending MORE money (and it will be more) than Bush a good thing?

Sofa King said...

Michael -

My I ask, exactly, what you are angry about? Your side can have whatever it wants, any bill, any provisions. The opinions of the people who disagree are irrelevant to any practical goals you might have.

It seems like you are angry simply at the fact that there are people out there who don't agree with you. That's fucked up.

Original Mike said...

"Let's be honest. Ann Althouse and her commenters, by supporting Bush's disastrous economic policies, have left us with a Depression."

Let's be honest by making crap up?

Bruce Hayden said...

I forget where I read it, but it was pointed out to me that you don't publicly send the President in to "convince" people until the deal has already been done behind the scenes. Otherwise you risk what happened here -- the President ends up looking like an idiot who can't get things done.

What is interesting here is that part of what killed McCain's campaign was his jumping into try to broker the bailout. Obama just sat back looking thoughtful and competent, saying almost nothing, and McCain's numbers started to free fall (and, coincidentally, so did the stock market).

I'm wondering whether (a) his team made a newbie mistake or (b) some of the Republicans had promised their votes but then reneged. So far I haven't heard any Obama insiders claiming (b), which makes me think (a) must be it.

My guess is (a) newbie mistake. I always found the argument suspect that Obama was such a whiz at this sort of thing. Rather, he just kept his mouth shut. But if you look at his background and experience, you should quickly note that he really has no experience in economics and getting things done in Congress, and not much in a legislative environment.

Michael said...

Tosa- I'm not trying to "defend" anything.

I just think we're in a position right now that demands action and some kind of leadership to calm or at least minimize the fears and reservations people have. I do some part-time consulting work with banks and if you think regular Americans are freaked out...you have no idea. (Think nationalization.)

To argue about spending this money or trying to say what will be accomplished is pure guesswork.

My guess: We'll spend 2-4 trillion by the time it's all over.

Palladian said...

"Obama just sat back looking thoughtful and competent, saying almost nothing..."

The man knows his strengths.

Michael said...

Bruce - "My guess is (a) newbie mistake."

Ridiculous.

Are you saying he should have waited?

For what??

He stayed out of the fray during the election because he knew things he couldn't discuss and also knew that unless elected, his opinions or potential actions would mean nada.

rdkraus said...

Michael

Palladian was exactly right, you are some sort of binary moron.

I've attacked most of what Bush and the Repub's did these last 8 years, everything from Iraq to new drug plans to federalizing education.

Whatever Bush did does not make this a good plan. It's a buncha crap that's not going to create jobs, but rather, will dig a deep hole much deeper. We've spent 20 years or more digging this hole by spending money we didn't have and borrowing money we could not afford to pay back. More of the same with not be helpful.

HUNDREDS of economists signed the Cato advertisement stating that this was a bad plan. It's not just me, or a couple of guys here. Most of America does not support this great plan. It's more rush, rush, rush, cram through a buncha earmark type crap that Dems would have a much harder time passing one by one.

TosaGuy said...

Thanks Michael for the reasonable response.

Much more interesting to read than "its Bush's fault".

The concept of Doing Something has oftentimes made the problem worse. If this bill went to fix some pot holes, build a bridge, or upgrade some government technology, it would have a modest degree of stimulus...however, this current package is simply political payoff and pork. It is a disingenuous bill and more and more people are figuring that out.

AJ Lynch said...

FLS:

In your logic, if war warrants deficit spending, that then warrants deficit spending of any type?

Michael said...

Palladian - A fat, broke failure...badmouthing a man who is President.

Tell us what YOU'VE ever done for the country fat-boy.

Shanna said...

I don't know about you but I don't see the sole alternative to "blindly supporting Republicans" as "blindly supporting Democrats."

Indeed. I’ve been critical of Bush and the Republicans (and so have others, witness the fact that republicans lost seats in 2006), but every time I look at the Dem’s they are WORSE on the things I’m mad at the Republicans about. This “stimulus” bill is a nice example of that.

rdkraus said...

Palladian - A fat, broke failure...badmouthing a man who is President.

Tell us what YOU'VE ever done for the country fat-boy.


Classic liberal defense of plan.

Hey, look over there !!!!

Michael said...

I'm listening to Mort Zuckerman on cable, not exactly what one would call a "liberal," saying we need MORE than is being proposed.

Mark my words: The money will hit the 2- trillion dollar level before it's all over.

Some will be wasted, it always is, hopefully most of it will stimulate the economy and help us get back on our feet.

Michael said...

rdkraus - No, it was in response to the fat idiot's dismissal of Obama.

Read first.

Then comment.

Sofa King said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Shanna - "...every time I look at the Dem’s they are WORSE on the things I’m mad at the Republicans about."

Once again:

The last 20 years - a comparison between Democrats or Republicans running the show:

% GDP Growth Per Annum
Dem - +4.1% Rep - +2.9% "W" - +2.2%

Employment GROWTH
Dem - +2.9% Rep - +1.7% "W" - +0.5%

Consumer Price Index
Dem - +4.0% Rep - +5.1% "W" - +3.0%

The Dow
Dem - +8.1% Rep - +6.5% "W" - -0.9%

The Dollar
Dem - +0.8% Rep - -3.6% "W" - -5.9%

Sofa King said...

Prediction: most of it will be wasted.

It always is.

former law student said...

In your logic, if war warrants deficit spending, that then warrants deficit spending of any type?

No. By my logic, if we are justified in running up a trillion dollar deficit to help the people of Iraq (e.g. rebuilding their infrastructure), we are at least equally justified in running up a trillion dollar deficit to help the people of America (e.g. rebuilding our infrastructure). Further, those who ignored or encouraged the running up of the first deficit have lost the moral authority to pontificate on the second.

rdkraus said...

The question is not whether it will be wasted (although much will of course), the question is how long can you spend money you don't have before everyone sees that the king has no clothes (and no money) and stops lending to you and the whole house of cards falls down?

Coming soon to a country near you.

Michael said...

rdkraus said..."The question is not whether it will be wasted (although much will of course), the question is how long can you spend money you don't have before everyone sees that the king has no clothes (and no money) and stops lending to you and the whole house of cards falls down?"

It really takes some guts, after what we've seen over the past 8 years...to say something so stupid.

Henry Buck said...

C'mon everyone, give Michael a break. Sure he's been "stimulated" over his life time, but always from women. He doesn't know how to control himself now that he's being stimulated by a man-God.

Michael said...

Sofa - Got an alternative?

downtownlad said...

I have absolutely zero problem defending this stimulus bill.

Unemployment is skyrocketing, and banks are not lending. You need to increase the velocity of money supply in order to get this economy into gear.

Tax cuts will not do that, because people will just save their tax cuts, and put it into banks that are not lending. Government spending is the smartest way to kick the economy into gear.

Other libertarians such as Megan McCardle acknowledge that the government has to do something in the current situation.

I would have VASTLY preferred if the Republicans had actually been "cooperative" in the process, and created pressure to move more of the spending into investment type infrastructure projects that will have long-term benefits over a 30 year time-frame.

Instead they advocated spending cuts. Yeah - that's exactly what we need right now - layoffs from the government sector as well. About as brilliant a strategy as letting all of the auto-companies go bust in December - with 3 million more job losses that it would bring - that the Republicans were recently advocating.

And Ann - you never once criticized Bush's economic policies, until possibly October, so I apologize if I mistook that as support of Bush's policies. In the Spring, you were denying that we were in a recession. Fine - you're a law professor, not an economist, so you get a pass.

But it should have been pretty freaking obvious to people who know the slightest bit about economics that something was seriously wrong when only 5 million jobs were created over 7 years, compared to 22 million under Clinton's 8 years. Now because of the Depression, Bush's legacy will be about 3 million jobs over 8 years, since we've lost 2 million jobs in the last 6 months (with another 500,000 likely to be announced next week).

I criticized Bush's spending policies going back to 2003 - when it was obvious that tax cuts and spending hikes were not going to create to benefit the economy. Now the Republicans are pretending to be the party of fiscal discipline.

Show me three right-wing blogs that criticized Bush's spending patterns before 2004. How bout before 2006. I don't think you can. Andrew Sullivan criticized Bush's spending in 2004 - and the right-wing response to his critique was that he had AIDS Dementia. . .

The Democrats don't need the Republicans. They will probably be glad to ignore them. That's unfortunate for the country, because if the Republicans actually were focused on the well-being of the country rather than catering to wingnut bloggers, they could help construct a better (and more conservative) bill.

Instead they throw stink bombs. Nice.

Shanna said...

The last 20 years - a comparison between Democrats or Republicans running the show:

And why is it the last 20 years? So you can conveniently leave out Carter. You post that every time anybody says anything. Get some new schtick.

What are the dem’s doing now? Spending money. So, I should be mad that Bush spent money, but thrilled that the dem’s are doing? Not likely.

downtownlad said...

Michael - Where are you getting your numbers? The DOW dropped about 25% under Bush, which translates into a hell of alot more than negative 0.9 percent a year. You're giving Bush WAY too much credit there.

former law student said...

how long can you spend money you don't have before everyone sees that the king has no clothes (and no money) and stops lending to you and the whole house of cards falls down?

At least till January 19, 2009.

An extra trillion or two of deficit is small potatoes compared to the real peril facing our economy: the $43 trillion of credit default swaps. These were deliberately not subject to government regulation, thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, that Phil Gramm pushed through Congress as part of the omnibus spending bill, under cover of the Gore-Bush election crisis of that December.

Henry said...

Michael -- You've posted those same numbers repeatedly in this blog. Titus' loaf jokes are more fresh than that.

Here are three things for you to think about before you post them again:

a) Small sample sizes are meaningless
b) The business cycle is cyclical
c) Administrations are not the same as policies

It's obvious that you care deeply about whether a president is an (R) or a (D). In the Spy vs. Spy cartoon that is your brain, you think the only important thing is whose side you're on.

So Obama is new. Fantastic. But he's just signed onto some very old policies. The plunge into massive deficit spending is pretty much the same as Bush's policies -- except less immediate and transparent.

Like Bush's policies, Obama's stimulus will probably have some impact. And, like Bush's policies that impact will be undermined by the massive debt it creates and lead to a worse crash in the future.

To repeat something I wrote in an earlier Althouse post, this is a bungee jumping approach to economic growth. Every rebound takes a toll. Sooner or later we end up as dead weight.

Henry said...

Former Law Student -- I thought the original Paulson idea of spending a trillion dollars to buy up toxic loans was very defendable.

This "stimulus" package is not that policy.

paul a'barge said...

wow. It's on.

Good for the Republicans.

Even I hate them a little less now.


Adios Rahm.

Bruce Hayden said...

Michael - Where are you getting your numbers? The DOW dropped about 25% under Bush, which translates into a hell of alot more than negative 0.9 percent a year. You're giving Bush WAY too much credit there.

Keep in mind though that the DOW is a forward prediction market. Most of the drop occurred right after the time that everyone in D.C. panicked and they started putting together the bank bailout bill, followed by the automotive bailout bill, followed by this. It also started its plummet within a day of when Obama retook the lead over McCain.

While much of the stock market drop was during the last months of the Bush Administration, it cannot be attributed to him, since that market was predicting (and continues to predict) the status of the economy and the ability of the sampled companies to make their dividends under the incoming Obama
Administration.

If the cause had been Bush (43), then you would expect that with an expectation of a rosy economy as far as anyone could see under Obama, that the stock market would have rebounded after Bush left office. But, of course, it didn't. Rather, it continued to drop, indicating a deeper and deeper distrust of the ability of those companies to pay their dividends.

Revenant said...

When downtownlad calls himself a "libertarian" he's referring to the unfortunately popular understanding of the term: contrarian misanthropic asshole.

He's obviously attended party conventions, then. :)

AJ Lynch said...

FLS;

Come on- I suspect you did some "pontificating" on the war spending. Am I right?

So if you no ignore this deficit of Obama's, I think it is fair to say it our turn to pontificate:)

AJ Lynch said...

Bruce;

Good luck if you really believe Dtl and FLS and Michael can understand what you just wrote. Heh.

Bruce Hayden said...

Unemployment is skyrocketing, and banks are not lending. You need to increase the velocity of money supply in order to get this economy into gear.

Or, compensate for the lower velocity with a higher quantity, which is what the Fed has been doing.

Tax cuts will not do that, because people will just save their tax cuts, and put it into banks that are not lending. Government spending is the smartest way to kick the economy into gear.

Actually, what has been found is that one time tax cuts (and tax rebates) are not spent because they are one time. But semi-permanent ones tend to be, since those getting them can anticipate that they will continue, and thus that they will have that much more money on an continuing basis.

But, of course, instead of providing semi-permanent tax cuts, the "stimulus" package ignores that there the Bush tax cuts will shortly expire, resulting in a semi-permanent tax increase (just the opposite of what you want right now).

Also, keep in mind that if people don't spend their money, they mostly leave it in the banks, which allows those banks to lend it out. In the short run, the banks aren't lending because of their own liquidity problems. But the "stimulus" package doesn't address that at all. In the long run though, once the liquidity problems have worked themselves out, the banks are going to have to lend, because otherwise they won't make any money.

My view is that the push for fiscal stimulus, as being posited here by DTL, is merely a cover for making up for the Democrats not having complete control over spending over the last 14 years. It is a convenient excuse to spend on all of their pet projects, regardless of worth in combating the recession.

Revenant said...

Same place that the Iraq invasion money came from.

You know, once upon a time whining about the cost of the Iraq war was at least a little bit convincing.

It is much less so when you consider that the "stimulus" and "bailout" packages Democrats have crafted in just the last three months add up to something like four or five times what we've spent on the Iraq war in the last six years. This week's "stimulus" bill alone is half again the cost of the entire war.

Once upon a time, $100 billion a year sounded like a lot of money to the American people. But when week after week you have Pelosi and Obama bleating that they need another half-trillion dollars TODAY or we're all going to hell, $100 billion doesn't sound so impressive anymore. :)

Dudley Do-right said...

Ok, back On Topic...sorta. Apparently the House Repubs. aren't THAT afraid of being called the party of NO. So, what's next? What's gonna happen in the Senate?

1) Will the Dems try the same schtick again? And, if they do, will anyone cave? I kinda think McCain will, I think he's just waiting for a chance to cave/reach-across-the-aisle. He's probably itching to vote for this mess and prove how "above the partisan fray" he is.

2) Will the Dems try to buy a few votes by naming some Repubs to cabinet posts? That seems to be what's going on at Commerce. How many more votes will that get them? Any chance a Repub that's named will turn the post down?

3) Will we have a replay of the TARP second-goround? Will they rewrite the thing to add MORE pork earmarked for the Repubs. and go after the (R) votes that way? If so, how many do you think they'll get.

Like was said above, if the Dems are sincere in believing that this will work, what do they want with (R) votes? They've got the votes to put this through and, if it works, they'll get all the credit and to hell with the Republicans.

The fact that they feel they need the Republicans onboard is a tacit admission that they don't think it will work (i.e. it's got nothing to do with recovery only with payoff/payback) and want enough Repubs available to give people the impression that the "whole government is to blame".

The game in the Senate will prove interesting. My money's on 3) and they'll get plenty of (R) votes. Hope I'm wrong.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

What are the dem’s doing now? Spending money. So, I should be mad that Bush spent money, but thrilled that the dem’s are doing? Not likely.

Kind of makes you question the sincerity of the lefties who have, (and continue) to bash Bush on spending while at the same time being downright gleeful over the idea of doubling the deficit in Obama's first month in office.

They attempt to justify this by pointing to the current economic conditions. In their world, out of control spending put the economy in its current state so the only logical solution is to exponentially increase spending to "fix" it.


Deep in their hearts, they don't care about the spending. It is just another stick to beat Bush with.

Dan said...

"Tell us what YOU'VE ever done for the country fat-boy."

Ah. The Left hasn't altered their style of debate after their election victory. I had wondered about that.

Bruce Hayden said...

No. By my logic, if we are justified in running up a trillion dollar deficit to help the people of Iraq (e.g. rebuilding their infrastructure), we are at least equally justified in running up a trillion dollar deficit to help the people of America (e.g. rebuilding our infrastructure). Further, those who ignored or encouraged the running up of the first deficit have lost the moral authority to pontificate on the second.

Notice how he jumps around here, confusing things, either intentionally or accidentally.

The problem with the above is the assumption first there is very much infrastructure spending in the "stimulus" bill, and secondly that infrastructure spending would help the economy get through the recession. The problem there is that infrastructure spending has an extremely long expenditure timeline, with the spending of that money being spread out over the next decade (and into the next recession).

At least DTL is trying to make an argument that any short term spending is good (regardless of merit) for the recovery due to the liquidity problems the banks, etc. are having. His argument has other problems, but it at least makes some superficial sense. Yours doesn't, given the contents of the bill.

Revenant said...

And why is it the last 20 years? So you can conveniently leave out Carter

And Reagan, of course. But the really funny part is that he acts like America is a monarchy or something. The country wasn't "under Republicans" from 1989-1992 and 2007-2008, nor was it "under Democrats" from 1994-2000. Only rarely does one party control the entire government.

Revenant said...

Bruce,

Nice summary of the issues surrounding liquidity and taxation.

downtownlad said...

Go ahead and run the economic numbers going back more than 20 years. Why don't we go back to 1920 - you can even have the boom Republican years of that decade.

The Democratic years totally outshine the Republican years in terms of economic output. Growth, unemployment, the DOW, etc.

Carter's economy outperformed W's as well. Do the math. That's how horrendous Bush was.

downtownlad said...

Bruce Hayden thinks the stock market only tanked because Obama started doing well in the polls.

Sorry - but he has zero credibility after that statement.

By the way - the market tanked when Republicans voted down TARP. That completely destroyed consumer confidence and probably pushed us from a recession to a depression.

TARP has been a brilliant success by the way - just check the TED spreads since it passed.

But that's republicans for you. Getting their advice from Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh - and fu$ck the rest of the country.

Gahrie said...

The ultimate underlying cause of our current economic crisis was the policy of banks making unsound loans to people who had no way of paying for them to buy overpriced houses or to refinance said houses to buy toys.

Pres. Bush and his administration pointed this out and tried to fix this problem several times.

Their efforts were blocked by prominent democratic Congressmen, many of whom are corrupt and were on the take.

Don't lay this problem on Pres. Bush. Rep. Frank, Sen. Dodd and the Congressional Black Caucus all had way more to do with it.

madawaskan said...

DTL-


Riiiiiight like people deciding to to get out of the market didn't consider that earnings would go down with a Democrat legislature, and Executive in power.


Regulation, litigation,taxation, and unionization.

Those always aid profit margins...right?

The steel industry, textile industry have collapsed-next up auto.

Why?

Answer that, then solve it.

Henry said...

DTL wrote: TARP has been a brilliant success by the way - just check the TED spreads since it passed.

Please let Former Law Student know this fact (see his 2:11).

As for the idiotic Republican vs. Democrat economic numbers, you're smart enough to know better, even if Michael isn't. To repeat myself:

a) Small samples sizes are statistically meaningless (we're talking 11 data points)
b) The business cycle is cyclical and asynchronous with presidential elections. Longer presidential runs (Harding-Hoover: 12 years; FDR-Truman: 20 years; Reagan-Bush: 12 years) tend to capture two or more business cycles and average out. Shorter runs are pretty much luck.
c) Party is not the same as policy. FDR was no Keynesian. Nixon was.

Furthermore, even you hold a Wicker Man conception of the presidency, the calculations Michael throws out depend entirely on when you decide a president has actually had time to "impact" the economy. One year? Two years?

Hell, I give credit to Carter for appointing Paul Volcker and giving him the brief to stop inflation, but the impact of that decision lasted well in Reagan's first term. Meanwhile I don't see how you give Clinton credit for the Nasdaq bubble and not assign him the crash as well. How's that pets.com stock doing?

Revenant said...

Why don't we go back to 1920 - you can even have the boom Republican years of that decade.

If a person is advocating the Reaganite policies of low taxes and reduced government meddling, pointing to pre-Reagan Presidencies isn't terribly useful. Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Hoover were all enthusiastic supporters of big government and heavily meddling in the economy. For example, Hoover's reaction to the stock market crash was... massive deficit spending for "stimulus" combined with trade protectionism

I.e., what Democrats are proposing we do now. :)

Shanna said...

And Reagan, of course.

Aw, hell! I’m older than I thought. No wonder his numbers look like shit.

Only rarely does one party control the entire government.

Also valid. I didn't want to get into the whole recession started under Clinton and all the other stuff but basically Michaels numbers = Garbage.

Bruce Hayden said...

Getting back to the original discussion, this is from the Wikipedia entry for Rahm:

Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 mid-term elections and remained a top strategist for House Democrats during the 2008 cycle. After Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, Emanuel was elected chairman of the Democratic Caucus. This made him the fourth-ranking House Democrat, behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn.[2] Two days after Obama's election victory, he was announced as Barack Obama's designate for White House Chief of Staff.[3] Emanuel resigned from the House on January 2, 2009[4] and began his current job on January 20, 2009, the day of Obama's inauguration.[3]

Emanuel is an influential member of the New Democrat Coalition, and a prominent proponent of economic liberalization. He is noted for his combative style and his political fundraising abilities


Is it surprising to anyone that the guy who was one of the ones most responsible for the Democrats retaking the House in 2004 is not that good at getting along with Republicans? And, being #4 behind Pelosi, et al. in the House was probably not something that endeared him to the Republicans there. Also, given his former #4 position in the House, is it any surprise that he trusts Pelosi, et al.?

He may be good at getting things done, but I do not see much in his background that would indicate that he is going to be any good getting along with Republicans.

bagoh20 said...

Ann Althouse said...

I didn't support Bush's economic policies. I voted for Bush because I thought Kerry would lose the Iraq war for us. I still think that. I voted for Obama because I didn't think McCain had the capacity to handle the economic crisis.
1:27 PM


1 for 2 Ann, because although the POTUS can win a war, He has that power, he does not have the power to "handle" the global economy. Like a wild fire, one man can help make it worse, but not "handle" it. Make no mistake this is global. It will right itself. It always does, what are humans going to do? Just give up. If it fails, do we find a new messiah? No, we will just wait for it to heal through our natural motive to produce. This lesson has sometimes been cloaked by events in the past, but it's there over and over.

PatCA said...

I was heartened to see O's emergence as a politician rather than a celebrity god. Then I saw the latest cover of some mag in line at the market.

Please, stop using your kids, sir. Politics (or celebrity) ain't beanbag for kids.

Revenant said...

Like a wild fire, one man can help make it worse, but not "handle" it.

So rephrase it: she thought Obama was less likely to do something monumentally stupid that might screw up the economy.

Now, I personally disagree there. But given McCain's cluelessness about economic issues and his knee-jerk "the government should solve all our problems" instincts? I can't say she's definitely wrong about it.

Bruce Hayden said...

Bruce Hayden thinks the stock market only tanked because Obama started doing well in the polls.

Sorry - but he has zero credibility after that statement.

By the way - the market tanked when Republicans voted down TARP. That completely destroyed consumer confidence and probably pushed us from a recession to a depression.


Sorry, I think that your interpretation is as silly as you seem to think mine is.

Besides, I am not quite sure if I catch what you are asserting. Are you asserting that the fact that TARP passed without all the Republicans on-board was the reason for the collapse in consumer confidence?

I would suggest that both of our suggestions are similar in that they both started within days of each other. So, if you were to graph them on a time line, they would both look plausible.

BUT, the Republican vote was a single instance, soon in the past. The Obama Presidency was, and continues to be, in the future. And that is why I don't find your suggestion plausible, since the stock market is forward, not reverse, looking. As it is fighting to stay above 8,000 points today, I think it probable that the likelihood of the "stimulus" package becoming law has to be having an effect on it. Also, remember the market on the day of the Inauguration and the day after? Sure, it could be coincidence. Maybe. But then again, maybe there are stockholders and potential stockholders who aren't viewing the "stimulus" package as benignly as you are (and may also be expecting their capital gains and dividend tax rates to go up to pay for it).

Michael said...

Good God!!!

The RNC has a black dude leading the way.

A can hear sphincters slamming shut from the Rockies to the plains.

*Any news relating to a "magic negro" CD coming out soon?

Michael said...

Shanna - "Also valid. I didn't want to get into the whole recession started under Clinton and all the other stuff but basically Michaels numbers = Garbage."

If that's what you believe (and it has to be based in complete ignorance), provide contrary statistics to shore up your inane argument.

Numbers don't lie.

Michael said...

Henry - Post contrary statistics to validate your argument.

rcocean said...

"I voted for Obama because I didn't think McCain had the capacity to handle the economic crisis."

Ye of little faith. Any man who makes Phil Gramm his senior economic advisor, obviously knows economics. Some people don't like Phi or course, but they're just whiners who don't believe in the "free market". BTW, Phil did a bang up job at UBS - just look at the stock price.

AJ Lynch said...

Let's go Henry. When Michael says jump, you better jump :)

Bruce Hayden said...

The RNC has a black dude leading the way.

A can hear sphincters slamming shut from the Rockies to the plains.

*Any news relating to a "magic negro" CD coming out soon?


Interesting from someone whose presumed party fought against Black equality for 2/3 of its 200 year history. The party that was founded by slave owners, tried to leave the Union in order to maintain slavery, implemented Jim Crow throughout the South after that slavery was abolished, resegregated the White House after Lincoln had desegregated it, provided all except for one of the votes in the Senate against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including Al Gore Sr.), and has a former Klan officer as its President Pro Tem of the Senate.

Revenant said...

Also, remember the market on the day of the Inauguration and the day after? Sure, it could be coincidence.

Doesn't the idea of the market dropping in response to the inauguration conflict with the idea that the market is forward-looking? We've known for months what the exact moment -- to within a few minutes -- would be that Obama would assume the Presidency.

Ok, I guess there was a *slight* risk of him dying before taking office. But I don't see the stock market having some reaction along the lines of "damnit, we were really hoping the Klan would come through for us this time" and dropping a hundred points just because Obama actually lived to take office.

Michael said...

Shanna / Henry -

Follow-up examinations were published for each of the five vital economic signs during the week to September 26th. These additional studies disaggregate the information to each of the nine presidencies since 1961 and can be visiting the links below:

Stock Market Performances Under Different Presidencies

Consumer Price Inflation During The Last Nine Presidencies

U.S. Employment Growth During Different Presidencies

Dollar Performance During Different Presidencies

U.S. Real Economic Growth Under Different Presidencies

Michael said...

Bruce - Yeah, the Republicans are notorious for their massive support for those of color.

That probably explains why they garner such a huge percentage of their votes.

*And I just love it when Republicans have to revisit Abe, etc. to shore up their arguments relating to the "big tent" they constantly advertise.

Michael said...

AJ - Anybody can blather on, you're proof of that, but backing your argument with statistical facts is another thing.

Can YOU provide contrary numbers to what I've posted?

If not...move on.

AJ Lynch said...

You got it Sir Boss Michael.

I will try to blather somewhere else. But I have to admit blathering is what I do best.

Sofa King said...

Doesn't the idea of the market dropping in response to the inauguration conflict with the idea that the market is forward-looking?

Not necessarily. Investors may have been holding on to the probability that he would use the inaugural address as an opportunity to take a strong stance against policies they think would be costly. His failure to do so would foreclose that possibility and change the probability of future events.

Stephen Snell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

Stephen:

I agree with what you wrote.

I add this.

If Obama was so grand, his plan would be bold and new. So far it is old and tired.

I think that newsflash has scared his supporters who are beginning to fear their Idol ain't all that!

former law student said...

If the cause had been Bush (43), then you would expect that with an expectation of a rosy economy as far as anyone could see under Obama, that the stock market would have rebounded after Bush left office

You mischaracterize the situation. Bush (43) fell asleep with a cigarette in his hand. The house is now fully engulfed in flames. But, in the distance, the fire engine driven by Obama is heard.

By your analysis, Bush's negligence did not cause the fire, because Obama has yet to put it out and rebuild the house.

former law student said...

As it is fighting to stay above 8,000 points today, I think it probable that the likelihood of the "stimulus" package becoming law has to be having an effect on it.

Don't neglect the effect on the Dow caused by monolithic Republican opposition, and by the widespread belief that the stimulus package is too little, too late.

Revenant said...

Investors may have been holding on to the probability that he would use the inaugural address as an opportunity to take a strong stance against policies they think would be costly.

I guess, maybe. But the market started dropping before he gave his speech, so that doesn't really work. Besides, were there really any people out there expecting a more market-friendly speech than the one he gave?

Revenant said...

Don't neglect the effect on the Dow caused by monolithic Republican opposition

That would make sense if the stimulus bill needed Republican votes to pass into law. It doesn't. You control Congress and the Presidency.

Grow some balls and start acting like it.

Stephen Snell said...

Indifference trumps malfeasance (with the "stimulus" as well). The Great Society / War on Poverty may have had great intentions, but have they worked out for black people as a whole? Esp. when you consider Sowell's persuasive argument that black economic progress from 45-67 was remarkable and seemed poised to continue, the LBJ boondoggles, perhaps partly in response to the mid/late 60s riots, were a huge negative despite making some people feel all swell about themselves.

According to our "female blow jobs ONLY) troll's logic, the DEMS are the war mongering, bloodthristy cretins -- WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam (look who was president!)-- all far more lethal than the Bush wars in total. If his logic on economics is sound, than it applies to wars as well.

If Obama is so grand, he will submit a new proposal, smaller, targeted, no dem pork (or gop pork), with explanations as to how each dollar spent or tax reduced will have an immediate impact on the faltering economy. And it will be shorter than a Dostoyevsky novel. Maybe 100 pages. Given his indisputable genius, it shouldn't be too daunting.

If the bill remains unchanged, the GOP would be smart to let the dems have the pork pie all to themselves. (Funny if the genius Obama, in his first month, gives the GOP what it lacked on Jan. 20--relevance).

BBL Jr said...

Is Obama showing his true colors? I hope not.
I have been giving the President the traditional honeymoon because I legitamately wish him well. I would wish any new President well but Obama bears the extra weight of being the first black president and it is important he succeeds.
This past week has raised my hackles. The administration repeatedly spews protectionist rhetoric. The democratic party is sponsoring a dangerously irresponsible bill taking the secret ballot away from labor elections depriving all workers of any privacy in expressing his or her views. The only reason to disallow secret ballot is to be able to exert pressure on those who do not support leadership. As a thought experiment imagine the democrats reaction had President Bush advocated doing away with the secret ballot in presidential elections. This bill is a travesty, if union members support this they are cutting their own throats.
The stimulus was going to be about infrastructure and tax reduction because they were badly needed in the first case and have a quick effect in the second. Instead Pelosi gives us a relatively small infrastructure plan and a potpourri of political pork. Money for the endowment for the arts is popular in San Francisco, no doubt, but it stimulates nothing but the evening gown and cocktail wiener industries. The bill is an orgy of traditional vote buying, not a job creation plan.
Obama should encourage his own party to kill the bill and demand Pelosi step down in favor of someone competent. In fact someone just not up to the job would be an improvement.
I hope all these stumbles are just part of finding his footing as a new president. if not Mr. Obama will have revealed himself as Jimmy Carter and we will all have learned at very great cost that community activist is not sufficient executive experience for the most important job in the world.
http://derivativemusings.blogspot.com/

bagoh20 said...

The arguments about big vs small government seem kinda clear to me: Extremes of either are likely disastrous. Big centralized regimes have failed repeatedly, and treated their people poorly. I can't think of a truly laissez faire government except maybe pre 1820 U.S., but that was a short experiment. Inside the extremes it seems bigger government can in the short run better provide minimum requirements, but at the expense of vitality, and growth and eventually stagnation. More hands-off government allows more vitality and growth and innovation, at the expense of having a much more porous safety net. It's a choice, that people can see differently. I have my clear preference, but it's not an easy choice for a diverse people. For me freedom is paramount over even life itself so I fear big government. It has a self perpetuating nature that is insatiable. But, I can see the allure my liberal friends are seduced by. I just think their wrong.

Orion said...

According to CBO nly about 5% of this "stimulus" bill actually goes toward stimulus so we can dispense with that nonsense now. The economic downturn is directly attributable to the collapse of the home buying industry, which President Bush tried several times to reform but was rebuffed by Democrats in Congress. The Friday before Freddie Mac collapsed Rep Barney Frank was STILL saying that the lender was "sound" and no major reforms were needed. Again, let's dispense with the "It's Bush's fault!" mantra.

In fact this is one of those rare instances where the current economic woes cannot be blamed on the prior Administration. Last summer Pelosi and Reid announced they were not forwarding a FY 2009 budget to the White House that fall: they were going to pass continuing resolutions through the election of a new President before dealing with the budget. President Bush was allowed absolutely NO INPUT on the 2009 budget, just at the point when the economy was beginning its slide.

Defending Obama by attacking the Republicans for spending like drunken sailors when the One has proposed TRILLION dollar deficits through the end of his first term, is ludicrous.

Finally, in every instance I'm aware of, every country that has tried to throw large sums of paper money at an economic downturn to cure it has caused hyperinflation. At the very least. No reputable modern economist recommends printing money as a solution to a recession. I'm surprised this isn't getting more coverage in the media.

Orion said...

Don't neglect the effect on the Dow caused by monolithic Republican opposition,

That would account for the massive sell off the day Obama was elected and again the day he was sworn in, I suppose /s.

Any other fairy tales you'd care to share with us?

Michael said...

Orion said..."According to CBO nly about 5% of this "stimulus" bill actually goes toward stimulus so we can dispense with that nonsense now.

Politico:

CBO sees stimulus impact, with caveats

The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that a Democratic-backed stimulus bill will have a “noticeable impact” on growth and unemployment in the next few years but could prove less than the quick jolt that President Obama is seeking.

With the House slated to vote on the $825 billion package Wednesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi welcomed the CBO’s findings as confirmation that the plan should be approved. But the 23-page report will surely fuel Republican demands for some fine tuning in the Senate, either by scaling scale back the spending or expanding investment tax cuts.

By CBO’s count, only two-thirds or about $525.7 billion of the package will make itself felt in the economy over the first 18-19 months, considerably less than the 75% rate promised by the Obama administration. Moreover, CBO suggests that the sudden flood of new appropriations could prove counter-productive, overwhelming agencies, state and local governments and leading to more delays.

“Frequently in the past, in all types of federal programs, a noticeable lag has occurred between sharp increases in budget authority and the resulting increases in outlays,” CBO says. “Based on such experiences, CBO expects that federal agencies, along with states and other recipients of that funding, would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs.”

former law student said...

The economic downturn is directly attributable to the collapse of the home buying industry, which President Bush tried several times to reform but was rebuffed by Democrats in Congress.

To coin a phrase:

That would make sense if the home buying reform bill had needed Democratic votes to pass into law. It didn't. You controlled Congress and the Presidency

Michael said...

AJ Lynch said..."If Obama was so grand, his plan would be bold and new. So far it is old and tired."

Opposed to the plan we witnessed over the past 8 years?

Or the one being proposed by Republicans right now.

Quit bitching about Obama and provide a suggestion of your own.

Michael said...

Sounds like this guy agrees with me:

WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did not mince words on the outlook for the GOP during his address to the Republican National Committee's annual meeting on Thursday.

The "path forward" for the Republican Party is rocky.

"We're all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us.

And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one," McConnell told the gathering.

former law student said...

That would account for the massive sell off the day Obama was elected and again the day he was sworn in, I suppose

"Massive"? Exaggerate much?

Biggest dip in the Dow in the past three months was November 20. Half again as many shares traded hands. What happened then?

And fewer shares changed hands on Inauguration Day than did the day before, which ended on an uptick. Further, the magnitude of yesterday's "buy-in" was greater than Obama's Inauguration sell-off. Let's sing Oh Happy Day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD2D6eter7M

Michael said...

Your new leader:

1. Steele compared stem cell research to Nazi experiments during the Holocaust.

2. Steele once described that “R” next to his name as a “scarlet letter,” complaining that being a Republican was hurting his electoral chances.

3. Steele was endorsed by Mike Tyson during his run for Senate. When Tyson, who used to be married to Steele’s half sister.

4. Steele defended former Gov. Bob Ehrlich’s decision to hold a $100,000 fundraiser at a country club that did not allow non-white members, saying that the club’s membership’s policies were “not an issue” because “I don’t play golf.”

Cedarford said...

Orion - The economic downturn is directly attributable to the collapse of the home buying industry, which President Bush tried several times to reform but was rebuffed by Democrats in Congress.

1. Bush was in it up to his neck promoting his "Ownership Society" after the 2004 election. Houses for hard-working poor folks with no credit as away to promote "free market wealth-building".
2. Blaming it on the Democrats when the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency together for most of the last 8 years is a bit mendacious..
3.Nor is the economic collapse attributable to just the "downturn" in housing - It is attributable to unethical, powerful people in a poorly regulated free market that overleveraged and set up the system so that the more risk and bad paper and leverage was used - the more the greed of those on Wall Street and in the banking system would be rewarded....assuming everything went perfectly.. Conservatism and prudent money management was punished.
4. Bush was obsessed with "evildoers" after 9/11 and largely negligent on domestic affairs. The Reublican Congress was thick as thieves with the big bucks donors of Wall Street and the banks and gave them what they wanted and called it "Saint Reagan's wishes". Yes, Democrat whores like Rangle, Dodd, Barney Frank, Schumer share the blame and in a better world would be stood up against a wall along with the likes of Madoff, Dick Armey, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Billy Tausin, Denny Hastert, Chris Cox, and about 500 key players at the Fed, on Wall Street, the bond rating services, and in the private sector.

Oh, to be able to turn America over to a resurrected Joe Stalin for just a year to ensure the culprits were properly liquidated instead of bailed out by the workers.
It would be so - salutory.

Revenant said...

I can't think of a truly laissez faire government except maybe pre 1820 U.S., but that was a short experiment.

Hong Kong and Singapore. More recently, Ireland. All of which went from poverty to wealth in around a generation or so.

blake said...

FLS says Don't neglect the effect on the Dow caused by monolithic Republican opposition, and by the widespread belief that the stimulus package is too little, too late.

If there were any truth to this, why pass it at all? We know it will do harm (all government spending has negative unintended consequences) so if it's too little too late, why not just gird our loins and ride it out?

Revenant said...

If there were any truth to this, why pass it at all?

I think he was referring to a widespread BELIEF that the package is "too little, too late" and not claiming that it actually IS too little, too late.

Of course, since he invented this "widespread belief" and it doesn't actually exist in reality, that's pretty much a moot point. :)

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

Short Man Syndrome. Rahm Emanuel is a classic case.

Henry said...

Michael. You're working from a faulty premise. If I posted statistics using very small sample sizes my numbers would be just as stupid as yours. It doesn't matter how atomized the numbers are if the premise is wrong.

And yes, its been done. Just add the concept that a president's policy's have a two year lag time to take effect. Add 1981 and 1982 to Carter. Add 2001 and 2002 to Clinton. Whoop de damn doo. That's bullshit too.

You ever see the movie The Wicker Man? The premise there is that nature must be placated. When you have a drought you burn a Wicker Man full of animal sacrifices. If it continues you burn a Wicker Man with human sacrifices.

If you have a drought at election time you burn your priest king.

That's your premise. It sounds like math because numbers are involved. But it's not science. It's superstition.

raf said...

Not that anyone is still reading here, but I want to apply Michael's logic to his comments. After all the "enthusiastic" criticism of Dems during Bush's administration, I don't think he can legitimatly object to Reps criticizing Obama.

blake said...

A lot of us monitor these threads eternally.

"Michael" is not really interested in logic or legitimacy.

Orion said...

1. Bush was in it up to his neck promoting his "Ownership Society" after the 2004 election. Houses for hard-working poor folks with no credit as away to promote "free market wealth-building".

Nope. The mortgage crisis was directly attributable to Democrats stonewalling reform from 2002 on. You conveniently forget that they used the filibuster in the Senate to block GOP bills. And of course once they regained control they refused ANY proposals to fix the system before it crashed. Again, "It's Bush's fault!" just don't fly, as hard as you throw it up in the air.

downtownlad said...

Revenant - Hong Kong and Singapore are Laissez Faire? You obviously know nothing about those countries.

Hong Kong has a low income tax - yes, but that's because it has a high land tax.

This puts into perspective the frequent claim that Hong Kong is a low tax regime. It is not in fact so low compare with other Asian countries, merely that taxes are paid on land rather than on profits or earnings.

http://www.hkdf.org/pr.asp?func=show&pr=24

Over 40% of Hong Kong lives in subsidized housing. Hardly what I would call Laissez-Faire.

It is astounding that in a supposedly free market economy, more than 40% of the population live in public housing - all owned by a single landlord.

Singapore is the same.

Since most Singaporeans reside in public housing, public housing in Singapore is not generally considered as a sign of poverty or lower standards of living as compared to public housing in other countries where land constraint is less of an issue and property pricing may be significantly cheaper. Property prices for the smallest public housing can often be higher than privately owned and developed standalone properties such as townhouses and apartments in other countries after currency correlation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing

Please stop talking out of your ass when you don't know what you're talking about.

Revenant said...

Revenant - Hong Kong and Singapore are Laissez Faire? You obviously know nothing about those countries.

The notion that the existence of taxation and government housing has something to do with whether or not the government practices laissez-faire economics is, to say the least, extremely funny to those of us who actually know what the term means.

But by all means, feel free to keep talking. We can use the entertainment. :)

downtownlad said...

I live in Asia you moron. You've never left the fucking country.

Please shut up.

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
downtownlad said...

Hong Kong has a stimulus plan:

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200812/08/P200812080139.htm

Singapore has a stimulus plan:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E5D9133FF930A25753C1A9679C8B63

Both countries also have universal health care.

That's not Laissez Faire.

I will add that both countries are extremely well run, they rely on the private sector for most business activities (although not necessarilly housing) and even though they have an active government presence, in no way can they be considered Socialist. Although most wingnutters would call it Socialist if we implemented the same policies in the U.S.

I would love it if the US tried to emulate Hong Kong or Singapore, and the government got actively involved with infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail, by using eminant domain, etc. If the government took an active role in guiding city planning, etc. You know - exactly the kind of thing that you expect government to do. Because there is nobody else to play that role. But the Republican Party would have a cow.

Revenant said...

I live in Asia you moron.

And the humor keeps coming. :)

I'm not laughing at you because I think your claims about Hong Kong and Singapore's government programs are wrong, Townie. I'm laughing at you because you don't know what the term "laissez-faire" means.

Laissez-faire (n): An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

And yes, I'm aware that Hong Kong has moved away from that a bit since China took it over.

So you see, there's nothing that stops a laissez-faire government from having lots of government aid programs. You're confused laissez-faire economies with small government. Again. :)

Both countries also have universal health care. That's not Laissez Faire.

Hee hee. You're a funny guy, Townie.

Unknown said...

replica hermes birkin for sale.
hermes birkin bags for sale.