 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
October 30, 2009
STIMULATING.... On MSNBC this morning, Joe Scarborough (conservative Republican) and Pat Buchanan (conservative Republican) were discussing the recent reports on economic growth. Scarborough conceded it may have been the result of "the federal money that's gotten in there." Buchanan was more dismissive, calling recent growth "steroids," adding, "[The president] pushed all of this money into the economy and pumped it up." In context, this seemed like criticism, though I haven't the foggiest idea why. Wasn't that the point -- to inject capital into the system before it collapsed? To fill the hole in the economy with government spending? Shouldn't Republicans want to see the economy "pumped up," too? If I didn't know better, I might think Scarborough and Buchanan were saying, "We're all Keynesians now." Scarborough added, "It's all about jobs." It looks like the White House agrees.
Jared Bernstein put together a good piece on the data, explaining, "Thanks to unprecedented real-time data collection by the independent Recovery, Accountability, and Transparency Board (RATB), you will soon (as in this afternoon) be able to visit Recovery.gov and learn about the approximately 650,000 jobs directly created by part -- and I emphasize that these 650,000 or so jobs are a subset of the more than one million -- of the Recovery Act dollars at work in our economy." The EPI's Josh Bivens noted, just on the basis of the GDP numbers, "This third quarter data will almost surely re-ignite debate as to whether or not the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) aided a recovery from the recession that began at the beginning of 2008. A serious look at the evidence argues that this debate should be closed: ARRA has played a starring role in pushing the economy into positive growth." (Bivens posted some great charts, too.) Of course, all of the concerns that have existed since January -- most notably, that the stimulus package should have been bigger, and shouldn't have been negotiated down by "centrists" -- are still entirely valid. The recovery legislation has done so far what it was expected to do, and given the economic abyss we were facing, that's obviously good news. The congressional Republicans calling for a five-year spending freeze as a response to the crisis look even more insane now than they did at the time. But the boost should have been, and could have been, far stronger. As Paul Krugman explained earlier, "[W]e've gotten the big boost, and it's clearly far short of what we really need." —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
Comments
I'm guessing the liberals that host the morning show on Fox kept it balanced by talking about how beneficial the stim was. Posted by: BGinCHI on October 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINKIn San Francisco, there is a bridge that needs repair. I wonder if "Stimulus Money" is being used? I hear that many people are taking the "Fairie" to get to work. We knew in SF, that would be the way. A good retort to the steroids comment: Yes, steroids are used wrongly by athletes for artificial performance. But they are legitimately used by Doctors to recover from injuries. And we had a severe economic injury. In 2 years, when the economy has recovered, if you want to say that spending should be pared back, and we need to focus on deficit reduction - fine. Make your argument. Until then we need to continue to give the economy a cortisone shot in the butt! Posted by: Chris on October 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINKShouldn't Republicans want to see the economy "pumped up," too? No, they want to crash everything and start all over again. I thought that was obvious by now. The super-wealthy actually look forward to such a scenario; they believe they have the savings to ride out the storm, and that they will be able to pick up valuable assets dirt-cheap when the recovery starts. The rest simply believe that a crash is inevitable no matter what anybody does to prevent it, and that we should just go ahead and get the pain out of the way now. Posted by: dr sardonicus on October 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINKWhat Dr. Sardonicus said. They're waiting for the disaster so they can start their disaster capitalism. Also, isn't that the same Pat Buchanan whose recent book presupposes that Hitler didn't really want to go to war in the first place? Posted by: chrenson on October 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINKIn context, this seemed like criticism, though I haven't the foggiest idea why. It's kinda like those episodes of MASH where Frank Burns complains that everyone thinks Hawkeye is a better doctor just because he saves more patients. Posted by: Roddy McCorley on October 30, 2009 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK**"[The president] pushed all of this money into the economy and pumped it up."** *Wasn't that the point -- to inject capital into the system before it collapsed?* My other favorite: "The stimulus bill is full of pork!" Isn't that the point? Intentional discretionary spending to inject capital into the system? Posted by: wishIwuz2 on October 30, 2009 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINKI beleieve that the concern the rich have with government stimulus really boils down to concern that sooner or later deficits do matter and the potential debasement of their dollar denominated assets. I think the verdict is in that the stimulus was too small and was not as well designed as it could have been. The place where the mmost money should have been spent was on infastructure including smart grids and new transmission lines from sources of clean energy to consumers. Absent some really big innovations we are looking aqt significant unemployment numbers for years to come and as long as unemployment hovers around double digits, consumer spending is going to be muted. Obama's stimulus package pulled us away from the brink, but it is not going to pull us back up the mountain. Somehow I do not think Apple is going to do it either and we may have to just figure out a survival strategy until the next big thing comes along. On the bright side if the current situation persists Mexico may have more to worry about in terms of immigration than we do. Posted by: Terry on October 30, 2009 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINKYou MSM liberal elites just don't get it - Obama has failed! This proves it! He failed before he was elected, he failed when he was elected and he will continue failing after he is out of office. QED. Posted by: Marc on October 31, 2009 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINKYou MSM liberal elites just don't get it - Obama has failed! This proves it! He failed before he was elected, he failed when he was elected and he will continue failing after he is out of office. QED. Way to back up your non-points and name-calling with facts and cogent arguments that persuade and enlighten. You may want to get some counseling for that hostility problem too. Posted by: In what respect, Charlie? on October 31, 2009 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINKBut the boost should have been, and could have been, far stronger. As Paul Krugman explained earlier, "[W]e've gotten the big boost, and it's clearly far short of what we really need." Far, far, far smaller than it needs to be. And continuing to say "We're out of the recession!" with so many people out of work is starting to rub the public very raw. When the economy tanks again, this is all going to start looking VERY STUPID. I know that DC Democratic party elite loves all the bucks from the fat cat banksters, but bucks don't VOTE. Posted by: Glen on October 31, 2009 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKPost a comment
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
