Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2009 > February > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThe recession and the logic of ‘found money’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Imagine that a pretty good chunk of change surprisingly landed in your lap — “found money,” as my wife likes to call it. Maybe you hit a few numbers in the lottery good for $5,000, or some old uncle remembered you in his will for a few thousand.
These days, what would you do with your windfall? Call up your travel agent and book that resort vacation to Vegas or Hawaii? Use it as a down payment on that hot new car you’ve been lusting after?
A year ago, maybe so. Today, the whole psychology is different. If it happened to me today, I know what I’d do — I might use a little to pay off some bills, but I’d put most it right in the bank under lock and key and keep it there. Millions of other Americans would no doubt do the same thing. In fact, that’s what the banks themselves are doing with their TARP billions. They’re intimidated by the economy, so for the most part they’re sitting on the cash as a cushion against bad times.
That also explains why tax cuts can’t be a more substantial part of the stimulus package. “Found money” in the form of tax cuts would be treated in the same manner as a lottery win or small inheritance; most people wouldn’t spend it, they’d use it to bolster their financial defenses. That’s true for individuals, and it’s true for businesses as well. In times like these, most companies wouldn’t use new cash to invest in a new factory or hire new workers; they’d sit on it, and nobody would blame them for doing so. What seems like the smart thing for each of us to do individually is a huge problem for the overall economy.
To stimulate the economy, you need large sums of money that will actually be spent on things, and the only entity willing to do that in these scary times is government. At a time when consumers would consume and investors won’t invest, government can buy cars and military equipment, build new buildings and roads and transit, and invest in new infrastructure, and by doing so create demand for labor and material that would not otherwise have existed.
And as that happens, confidence will slowly return and people and business will once again start to take their own money out from beneath the mattress, restoring the economy to some semblance of health.
I understand that some people have an ideological problem with government spending. I’ve argued for years that we needed to address our federal debt problems. But this is something different, and I hope Americans recognize that. President Obama warned yesterday that without quick passage of the stimulus bill, the recession could turn into a catastrophe, and whatever else you may think of him, he is not a man easily panicked.
Let’s think this through and act accordingly.
Comments
By Andy the Welcher
February 5, 2009 7:32 AM | Link to this
Winning a bet with Andy is like losing money because he’d welch. Then you wouldn’t have the “problem” of what to do with it…
On the other hand I’m totally amazed at how quickly we’ve returned to 1998, it only took less than 2 weeks and it sounds like 1998 all over again.
The problem is, and Rethuglicans are bad about not learning from past mistakes, the people aren’t as stupid as they were 10 years ago, so the party of “NO” needs to find a new shtick.
I saw someone over on Wooty’s blog lamenting that we need term limits, wasn’t that one of the tenets of the “Contract with America”? And didn’t fall by the wayside IMMEDIATELY after the 94’ elections, once it had served its purpose (generating votes)? The party of “NO” couldn’t even say “YES” to it’s own idea back then, why would anybody trust them now?
So there you have it. Andy’s a Welcher, and so are congressional Republicans… ew
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 5, 2009 7:43 AM | Link to this
THIS CHART SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR ALL AMERICANS
Read. Study. Understand.
By RW-(the original)
February 5, 2009 7:47 AM | Link to this
{{{{{Incoming Obama Admininistration chief of staff Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”}}}}}
Don’t mistake Obama trying to force feed us every liberal social program that could never get through the legislative process on it’s own with panic.
Timely, targeted, and temporary ought to mean something.
I do get quite a chuckle from liberals that tell us they railed against the federal debt for the last few years, but now things are different. The only difference is that one of them occupies the White House.
By Joey
February 5, 2009 7:58 AM | Link to this
Jay, I understand that you don’t like tax cuts, but: If your assertion that “millions would no doubt do the same thing” is correct, then, and only then, does your conclusion about tax cuts have some remote possibility of being correct.
However, let’s let reality step in: If I receive a tax cut of $5,000 over a year, that is $96 per week or for me $192 bi-weekly. I think you and I both know that all of the $96 per week windfall would be used to pay bills or buy something; that is injected into the economy.
The auto-industry is spending their Federal money. There is some that banks are spending their also, but not as intended. Is it possible that banks are taking back developments and mothballing them with the intent of having a windfall when things are better?
Further, is it possible they are using bail out money to purchase or take over other weaker banks, also to position themselves for a windfall when things are better?
I frankly think we should stop throwing money at the econoomy via bail outs of business. We should bail out families and individuals through tax breaks and tax cuts. Much more effective since the money is actually recycled.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 5, 2009 8:04 AM | Link to this
Bud Wiser keeps on citing a figure of “30.6 million taxpayers,” i.e. the Real Americans who aren’t slopping at the Gubmint trough.
I’ve tried without success to find the source of this specific figure. If Bud’s around maybe he can supply the answer.
As for the larger issue of where the RNC gets its daily talking points to boldly go into battle against the Communist-Democrat Party’s takeover of the USofA, I seem to have located the source, here.
By Paul
February 5, 2009 8:05 AM | Link to this
This is not an either-or situation, it’s a question of how much of each. Given that Pres Obama’s original goal was to have 40 percent of the effort in the form of tax cuts, and given the Democratic House bill did not meet the President’s goal, one can make the case that Republicans,with such proposals to reduce the tax rate for America’s poorest tax-paying families, are trying, unlike their Democratic counterparts, to meet the President’s goals and more fully support his plan.
By Paul
February 5, 2009 8:09 AM | Link to this
Mrs. Godzilla
Not only required reading, but required understanding.
The payroll tax holiday, fifth most beneficial of the thirteen listed: a Senate Republican proposal, so far rejected by Democrats.
Refundable tax rebate, sixth on the list: a Republican proposal in the guise of various credits (current year rebate) for such items a buying a house or car, so far rejected by Democrats.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 5, 2009 8:17 AM | Link to this
Paul
Does that mean you also support the first 4?
By Taxpayer
February 5, 2009 8:17 AM | Link to this
Jay,
Government spending of taxpayer dollars definitely needs to target areas that help we the people. To that end, I do hope that, when the Democrats compromise and agree to an AMT extension, they cut some Pentagon spending, for example, on something such as the next generation aircraft carrier or some similar expenditure of questionable value. This same philosophy needs to be applied to other tax cuts as well. This outrageous debt that the Republican party has dumped on us needs to be addressed and we may as well get the most bang for the buck from any legislation, i.e., spend on jobs to stimulate the economy, give targeted tax cuts (in order to appease the Republican politicians in need of something to use in their next pandering campaign) to the middle and lower class voters and “pay for it” by cutting wasteful military spending, for starters. Of course, this is just for starters.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 5, 2009 8:18 AM | Link to this
{{{{Let’s think this through and act accordingly.}}}}
{{{{By Andy the Welcher February 5, 2009 7:32 AM}}}}
That^^ sums up liberals “thinking it through” in a nutshell and is the whole entire reason that I have all my money buried out back.
When the adults are back in charge then I will be buying in at the bottom.
And it will be the very bottom by then.
By Redneck Convert
February 5, 2009 8:21 AM | Link to this
Well, I say cutting out the payroll tax for a few months will do a world of good. People will pocket the money they would put into SS and start spending it. Then when the payroll tax goes back on, us Libraritarians and Republicans will get what we always wanted—a big hue and cry from alot of people to get rid of SS and Medicare. People will see how much money they are putting into that sinkhole and tell the old codgers to go find a job at WalMart as a greeter. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
So Bookman and the libruls are wrong again. Have a good day everybody.
By ByteMe
February 5, 2009 8:23 AM | Link to this
DB: Last stats I saw said there are about 125 million people in the workforce. Since this people are required to pay payroll taxes at the very least, there are 125 million taxpayers out there. Bud’s assertions aren’t any more true now than when they were first uttered by some right-wing media wh*re.
Meanwhile, Joey, you’re forgetting that the average person has some serious consumer debt out there. If they get more money, they’re currently more likely to pay down their debt or save it — essentially give it to their bank that’s not lending it — than actually spend it on new items. In the past, they would have spent it, but currently the psychology of the economy is to save and hold. Just ask any retailer.
The only stimulus that will work is spending money on specific things we need. I’m not 100% convinced that stimulus is more important than bank regulations that create transparency and trust between banks, but spending big money on projects is better right now than little tax cuts that are scattered around to people and businesses who are in save/hold mode. In another time and place, tax cuts will be a better choice, but in this time and place, if stimulus is needed at all, it should be targeted at large projects that have a definite ending date, will create jobs with a decent wage, and will leave the public with something that has important long-term uses (e.g., infrastructure, new technologies).
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 5, 2009 8:28 AM | Link to this
Paul, assuming that Obama really did want 40 percent of the stimulus to be tax breaks (I hadn’t heard that but I’ll take your word for it) isn’t the 33 percent offered by the House version pretty darn close to that?
By the way, you’ll love the editorial in today’s dead tree edition, wherein the “against the stimulus” guy argues we need to pump MO’ money into Defense. You have to read a bit to get to it, but it’s there, and I’ll admit I thought of you and chuckled a bit when I saw it.
By RW-(the original)
February 5, 2009 8:29 AM | Link to this
Mrs. G.,
Your chart is based solely on what dollars will be spent the quickest. If we follow the logic behind your chart as a means to economic prosperity then your chart tells us that if the government gives everyone free food and a stipend for not working then we’ll all live happily ever after.
Fairy tales for shallow thinkers might be a better title for it.
I’m off to the cold, cold forest. See y’all upstairs at happy hour.
Later!
By Denny
February 5, 2009 8:30 AM | Link to this
Just saying: Daschle came and went without a single mention of his red-framed eye glasses. A Repub-Demo double standard?????
By Taxpayer
February 5, 2009 8:33 AM | Link to this
When one prioritizes, one must then accept the items at the top of the list as having the most significance — that is what prioritization is all about. Allow me to elucidate: 1st is 1st and 6th is 6th with four other items in between with higher priority than six. 8>)
By AJC/DNC Management
February 5, 2009 8:33 AM | Link to this
{{{{Instead, “we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship,” states Robert ReiKKKh. In place of individuals who “buck the odds” with “drive and guts,” ReiKKKh argues for a world where the central planners right the wrongs, determine the production, distribute the rewards in a “fair” manner, i.e., with “only modest differences in income,” and knock the rough edges off anyone who doesn’t demonstrate sufficient obedience to the collective.-AmSpec}}}}
Guess who the “central planner” will be.
The same people that don’t pay their taxes and are under investigation for political cronyism.
It worked so well in the Soviet Union!
Thanks anyway, but I think I’ll keep my money under the mattress.
hopeandchange.duh
By Mr. Snarky
February 5, 2009 8:35 AM | Link to this
I think one way to stimulate the economy would be to let Harry Markopolos run the SEC. Then maybe they might actually investigate the criminal fat cats scamming the rest of us.
By Taxpayer
February 5, 2009 8:44 AM | Link to this
Didn’t one of the folks that was asking questions of Markopolos pretty much offer him a job. It sure sounded like it to me.
By Paul
February 5, 2009 8:46 AM | Link to this
Mrs. Godzilla
Sigh. Sighhhhhh. Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
It’s been said that when the message isn’t understood, to restate the message in a different form. How can I state differently that raising a point does not mean advocacy, that criticizing a point does not mean rejection?
A biology teacher discusses Creationism. Is the teacher a ‘believer’?
A Moslem points out doctrinal similarities between Islam and Judaism. Is the Moslem about to convert?
This gets back to the column cited the other day by Leonard Pitts about being wedded to, and maintaining identity by, Party affiliation and ideology.
Does this mean I support the first four?
Increase in food stamp benefits – probably. Depends how done. If it means increasing funding because people qualify under current guidelines, then of course. If it means changing the criteria to qualify, then it depends upon the new criteria.
Extending unemployment insurance - in the current environment, yes.
Infrastructure spending – as long as it meets the President’s criteria of timely, targeted and temporary.
Aid to States – depends on the aid. If it’s to reimburse for federal mandates, then sure. If it’s to provide items that the local citizens will benefit from or that they’ve committed to and now don’t want to pay for themselves (build a Frisbee course, a dog park, buy vehicles for the city government), then, no.
Now, are you opposed to cutting the marginal tax rate for the poorest taxpaying Americans and are you opposed to tax credits for homebuyers or suspending the payroll tax?
DB Gwinnettian
I’ll offer the differences become more profound as the total increases - while the percentage may remain the same, the total amount is significantly different. It’s like saying, “I’ll spend 15 percent of my income on food.” if a person makes 40,000 a year, that’s 6 grand a year on food. If a person makes $800,000 a year and he says “I’ll cut my food percentage to 10 percent, close to 15 percent” that’s still 80 grand.
Pres Obama’s original targets (near as I can tell) were - well, here’s a link:
Link: Pres Obama’s Original Targets
So even at a ‘close’ percentage match, as the total value increases, the dollar difference is immense.
I’ll read your link after I post. Kinda sounds like what Sen McCain was proposing. Seems to me it’s a perfect time for a “revenue neutral pay as you go” effort - for Defense.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 5, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this
RW
So the saucer calls the cup shallow!
You can’t even get beyond the chart itself! Your “interpretation” of said chart as “free food and a stipend for not working” rather superficial.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 5, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this
{{{{Sen. McConnell should reconsider. He knows that the Bush-GOP spending spree cost them control of Congress in 2006. Thus, “How big?” is not the question his party’s constituents (or horrified independents) want answered. This is a chance for the GOP to climb down from its big-government dunce chair. Until that reversal is achieved, there is no hope for this party.-WSJ}}}}
No truer words have been spoken.
“Bipartisanship” is nothing more than a Republican party suicide pact.
Hat’s off to McBushie for not putting lipstick on this pig.
ew
By Tom
February 5, 2009 8:49 AM | Link to this
I have an idea that should save the US money almost immediately! My idea, why don’t all the politicians in Washington DC all agree to take a 10% salary paycut? While we are at it, their staffs should agree also. I do not know exactly how many people this would involve but I know that the President, VP & Congress make up 300+ and their salaries are all $100K+ each? Imagine the money that the US could save. President Obama is wanting those companies taking buyout money to limit the salaries of their CEOs, why doesn’t he lead the cause & take a paycut himself. Then congress should follow suit. The President and most CEOs earn their money for the most part, Congress does not!
By Davo
February 5, 2009 8:54 AM | Link to this
Want to stimulate the economy? Increase spending? Heres how: repeal the income tax..forever! Go back to the gold standard, abolish the federal reserve.
Think I’m crazy? I bet Jay thinks so…he probably thinks ” how can the country function without all that cash we steal from our citizens?” How about that Iraq war, Jay? Or the other needless, mindless expenses your benevolent empire is fronting. The war on drugs which does nothing but makes prisoners out of addicts; the United Nations, which is the leader in promoting voilence and division in the world; support for Israel, who are a bunch of fascists thugs (ironic, I know).
How about the ‘get off my back’ approach? Oh ya…your not grown up enough to take care of your own. God forbid big daddy govt would leave you alone to decide for yourself how to live.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 5, 2009 9:04 AM | Link to this
Paul…
giggle, giggggggle
So the answer is yes, maybe.
Mine too.
By Taxpayer
February 5, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this
Why isn’t the government focusing more attention on this 100 billion dollar tax loss. Talk about your big-time tax cheats.
By Paul
February 5, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer,
Sounds like a good project for the Majority Party that Fights for the Little Guy and isn’t in the pockets of the Rich and Powerful Corporations.
By RB from Gwinnett
February 5, 2009 9:18 AM | Link to this
I have a serious question I’d like to see responses to without the usual left/right name calling and antics.
Of the things in this stimulus package, what actually benefits the average middle class family struggling to get by? I see things in there for green cars, infrastructure, etc, but if the average Joe has a $45k job as a customer service rep at a widget supply, what’s in it for him?
Leave the discussion about food stamps, unemployment, etc out of it. He has a job and isn’t on food stamps.
By Taxpayer
February 5, 2009 9:18 AM | Link to this
These people cannot quite get a grasp on prioritizing what they need but they are all reasonably sure that a tax cut is not at the top of their list. Now, how could anyone turn down a cut in their income tax or payroll tax. What is wrong with these bums. I think they’ve just got too much time on their hands.
By getalife
February 5, 2009 9:21 AM | Link to this
So, the first thing I read at the HP is the CEO’s already have a loop hole for the salary cap. Then looking at the economy around the world, it looks like a world wide depression. Russia and Germany are attacking the problem without a stimulus.
England is trying everything like us.
All I know is there is no good news and look forward to when we see some everyday.
I think this recession is very close to a depression and it is depressing.
By CommunistAJC
February 5, 2009 9:24 AM | Link to this
Star Wars Death Star Costs $15.6 Septillion, 1.4 Trillion Times the US Debt.
If you had $15.6 septillion and 94 cents in your account, would you save the world from the economic crisis or build a Death Star, destroy the world, and move on to invade the galaxy?
A guy called Ryszard Gold—who probably is an alien villain from the Outer Rim planets and got a 49-point score in our Geek Social Aptitude Test—made the calculation of the most basic Death Star’s price with current materials and space transport costs here on Earth. Here’s a quick summary:
• First, assume that 1/10 of the 17.16 quadrillion cubic meters of the Death Star is something other than empty space and 6/10 of the total volume is pressurized space. • That will require 1.71 quadrillion cubic meters of steel, about 134 quadrillion tonnes. That’s $12.95 quintillion in current 2008 prices, and that’s without counting strange alloys and elements. • Shipping that to space will cost $95 million per tonne: So add $12.79 septillion in transport. • Now you need to add air, which will require 8.23 quintillion cubic meters of Nitrogen, and 1.65 quintillion cubic meters of oxygen, for a total delivery cost of $2.81 septillions and $212.46 quintillion.
The total: $15,602,022,489,829,821,422,840,226.94.
the rest of the article can be found at:
http://i.gizmodo.com/5146010/death-star-costs-156-septillion-14-trillion-times-the-us-debt
By Davo
February 5, 2009 9:25 AM | Link to this
RB..it’s not for the ‘average american’. If it was it would be an across the board tax cut on individuals. It’s for the corporations. Look at the link from taxpayer…they are the ones who wield the power in this country, not citizens.
By Taxpayer
February 5, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this
Paul,
These big-time tax cheats sort of add a new perspective to the “w” wording by some over someone making a $900 or $1000 tax mistake. Doncha know. Not that I condoning any tax cheat, mind you. Off with all their heads.
By ByteMe
February 5, 2009 9:36 AM | Link to this
getalife: We are not anywhere close to a depression at this point. We are in a serious and what will be a longer than usual recession, but “depression” this is not.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/Depression.htm
RB: Serious answer: your example worker does not need direct stimulus, although he could be over his head in debt, in which case he might need some help. The package is not about “stimulating” people. It’s about re-inflating a balloon that is slowly losing air… the economy as a whole.
And, yes, there’s definitely political junk in the current package as constructed. And that junk might go away between now and when the bill gets to the President’s desk, so it’s hard to get worked up over the details until the details get worked out. You really don’t want to watch sausage getting made.
And as I wrote earlier: I’m not 100% positive an economic stimulus package is more important than a set of regulations that will enforce transparency (and encourage trust) on the markets and players in the market that went mostly unregulated over the past 10 years. But politicians feel more useful spending taxpayer money than creating regulations, even if the end result is less useful than it could be.
Hey, if we get some money to jump-start mass transit improvements and expansion here in Georgia, why would I argue with that outcome? You know the reps/senators down in Cairo and up in Ringgold won’t vote for it at the statehouse, so it’s going to have to be incentivized by the Feds.
By RB from Gwinnett
February 5, 2009 9:46 AM | Link to this
Byte, I’d love to see mass transit expanded in metro Atlanta too, but some poor mill worker in Boise isn’t responsible for paying for it. If the metro Atlanta counties can’t get their act together and agree to build it and pay for it, so be it.
To my earlier question, let’s suppose our Average Joe owns an HVAC company, has 3 employees, and is struggling to keep them all employed. How does any of this benefit him or his employees?
My point in my question is, outside the auto industry and construction, I don’t see this thing stimulating much of anything or anybody. If you don’t work in construction or auto, i guess you’re supposed to wait for the cash to “trickle down” from wherever it’s being spent?
By Taxpayer
February 5, 2009 9:49 AM | Link to this
One small point, Jay. There once was a time when a few companies actually hired people during economic downturns. I was hired by one of them. Of course, that was back in the days when R&D was not linked to a promise to produce a 20% return in one year. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. The bottom line now is that government spending may be the only avenue left for R&D and the hopes of rewards that it brings.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 5, 2009 10:03 AM | Link to this
{{{{President Obama, fresh off his first Washington apology tour, grew combative Wednesday, asserting that America voted for him, not the other guy, and demanding that lawmakers “put aside politics” — well, Republican lawmakers, anyway. - Washington Times}}}}
Well boo hoo hoo, little baraKKK, it sucks being the boss, don’t it?
geez, at least Bushie didn’t whine about it.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 5, 2009 10:15 AM | Link to this
Good Info
By ByteMe
February 5, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this
RB: you’re trying to take a macro-economic stimulus and apply it to micro-economics and any economist will tell you that it’s too mind-boggling to bother.
Let me see if I can summarize:
On a macro level, deflation occurs in an environment of asset deflation. Think houses or stocks. Serious asset deflation going on. Lots of invested money tied up in a deflating asset means people won’t have extra money to spend, because they need to sock more away to cover their asset losses (same as the banks are doing).
On a micro-level, by people (and banks) not spending their money, those poor HVAC employees are going to go out of business if the company didn’t sock away enough money before the deflation to cover for the period when no one was buying HVACs.
So, if you reflate asset values (or at least stabilize them) at a macro level, eventually you will feel it at a micro level in increased demand as people don’t worry as much about saving money and start spending again and banks don’t need to worry about covering their asset value losses and start lending again.
By RealityKing
February 5, 2009 10:27 AM | Link to this
“and whatever else you may think of him, he is not a man easily panicked..”
How do we know Jay? This is what, Obama’s second week in office?? No, the fact is that we really don’t know anything about our new president. Obama was, and still is, a progressive’s straw man. Someone progressives have puppy dog eyes for, someone they see fulfilling all their fantasies(agenda). And we all know how faults become endearing when you fall in love with someone. Obama smokes; he drinks, and admittedly did drugs, lots of different drugs. These are scientifically known symptoms from people who easily panic under pressure. Sorry, but no puppy dog eyes here. What we are really talking about is mortgaging our children’s livelihoods. That’s what this is all about. No “found money” here..
So at what point do American’s realize that the more we spend now, the harder the fall will be on our children tomorrow? Do you know anyone that has spent their way out of debt?? Japan is at 190% debt to GDP, France at 125%. These are the examples I hear from the “new” Harvard economists to justify this kind of deficit spending. Is that what we are to become? And have no doubt, this bill will pass in the 111th free spending liberal congress. Plus! the one next year too. You know, the 2 T package that will be needed after the effects of this 1.5 T package wears off. Which will also put America at 100% debt to GDP. Another historical first for Obama. And a 25% increase in the national debt since 2006, when tax payer’s gave democrats control of purse. In 4 years!! Progressive style change you can believe in.
Sounding good yet? Everyone inspired now?? Got your six months of pay saved up for the impending raining days??? Or as Obama said, it’s time to expect more from ones self. The new way of doin binness.. Progressive speaking of course.
By getalife
February 5, 2009 10:31 AM | Link to this
“Frustrated by a lack of bipartisan outreach from House Democratic leaders, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said House Republicans — who voted unanimously last week against the economic plan pushed by President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — will pitch a “positive, loyal opposition” to the proposal. The group, he added, should also “understand insurgency” in implementing efforts to offer alternatives.
“Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,” Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. “And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. And these Taliban — I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying. I’m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.”
The gop are America’s taliban.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 5, 2009 10:32 AM | Link to this
Paul, thanks for the link @ 8.46.
Just to nitpick a bit, after skimming the NYTimes story it was based on, it would seem that it’s not so much that the Obama team wished to hold tight to devoting 40% of the package to tax cuts, but rather that they envisioned ~300 billion to go to those tax cuts, and that the package as being discussed in early January was around 750 billion total. We could argue whether growing the house bill growing another 150 billion was a good or bad thing, but… let’s not and say we did.
By ByteMe
February 5, 2009 10:33 AM | Link to this
RealityKing makes stuff up: These are scientifically known symptoms from people who easily panic under pressure
And you have scientific references for this to cite about this?
And where were you when tax cuts without spending cuts were being rammed through by an overeager Republican-dominated government? Buying into the voodoo water about trickle-down theory?
By AJC/DNC Management
February 5, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this
{{{{WASHINGTON – President BaracKKK Obama warned on Thursday that failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible, a fresh call to a recalcitrant Congress to move quickly.-AP}}}}
Not bailing out ACORN will cause a “irreversible, long lasting recession?”
Bwahahahahahahahahha, ow!
Stop it!!!
By Jethro Bodine
February 5, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this
We’re in a serious economic mess, the president is trying to do something bold and decisive, and Republicans are sitting around like the bunch of bushwhackers and snipers that they are, and are trying to shoot down every proposal that they can. I suppose they will finally be happy when the USA is finally a 3rd rate country, which it would already be if they had their way.
We’ve already gutted much of our social help network in this country. Mentally ill people are running around unhelped or housed in the DOC. Think of what it could be like if Andy had an opportunity for real institutionalized care where he could bang his head away on a padded wall without hurting himself or anyone else.
By GodHatesTrash
February 5, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this
Poor Repugs. Their McMansion they bought for $500K is worth $300K now (if they can find a buyer, which they can’t), and they still owe $495K on it.
Fools. Did you think the Mexicans you were stiffing on your yardwork were going to buy it off you someday? Or the Chinamen you bought all your gadgets from would someday fly across the ocean and want to live in your suburban hellhole?
Ronald Reagan reversed mortgaged this country back in 1980 so we could buy cheap crap from Japan, and then China. Thirty years later, all the equity has been returned to us, and there is nothing to show for it but millions of acres of shoddily constructed McMansions in the middle of nowhere, empty condo developments and strip malls, and big screen TVs. Roads and bridges are falling apart, the only factories we have make peanut butter with roaches and ratsh$t in it, or cut up chickens.
Trickle down, down, down, down.
Thanks RightWingnuts, for all you’ve done to utterly destroy faith and credit in the US dollar.
By RB from Gwinnett
February 5, 2009 10:56 AM | Link to this
Byte, thanks for the lesson in finances, but I don’t need the lesson. I already know how all of that works.
I’m simply pointing out the “trickle down” nature of what appears to be going on here. We’re spending massive amounts of money on pet projects/industry hoping it will have an effect on the average citizen when the reality is that “trickle down” cycle will take years to occur and in reality will have no affect on our average Joe any time soon.
While I understand the debt laden average person may pay off debt with a tax cut, I think it’s unwise to paint the entire population with the “debt laden” brush. Even if he does pay off debt, isn’t he moving cash into the lenders who will free up credit and accomplish the same thing much sooner? Right now those lenders see his balance as potential bad debt, right?
The truth of this is, the banks are never going to open up credit to people who couldn’t afford loans in the same manner they were. They’d be stupid to repeat the mistake that got them into this mess in the first place.
I don’t see this package as anything more than a massive grab at stuff Washington wants and couldn’t get any other time. And by Washington, I mean R’s and D’s. Eventually, we’ll realize they are the problem and not the solution to the problem.
By Taxpayer
February 5, 2009 10:56 AM | Link to this
A group of Republican politicians, a near extinct species, were spotted recently shouting one of their well-known chants, “We are relevant, we are relevant, we are relevant…” By-standers were overheard commenting, “Well, that’s just crazy talk.”
By mm
February 5, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this
Jay,
Some day you should post a column about the sky being blue. It would be fun to read the stupid dissenting comments from the wingnuts. I can see it now:
“It’s not blue when it’s cloudy.”
“It’s not blue when it’s dark.”
“It’s not blue if I close my eyes.”
Entertainment for all.
By ByteMe
February 5, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this
Analchord: You really should stop signing your entries with your real name “moron”. Better for everyone here to stay incogneto.
By RealityKing
February 5, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this
My point was that, contrary to Jay insistence, we really don’t know how Obama will react to anything, outside of campaigning for an election.
We are not seriously going to argue about the long term effects of drug and alcohol abuse now are we? To close to home ByteMe?? It is amusing how these symtoms link well with progressives in general
Aggressiveness and irritability Forgetfulness Disappearance of money or valuables Feeling rundown, hopeless, depressed, or even suicidal Sounding selfish and not caring about others Getting drunk on a regular basis Lying Believing that in order to have fun you need to drink Taking risks Having “blackouts”-forgetting what he did Getting in trouble with the law
By Bud Wiser
February 5, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this
DB, I cannot relocate the chart specific to what I cited before. After looking through IRS cites though, I can only assume my statistics were in error. However, what I did find does not do a breakdown of how many of those who file returns ( which are substantially more than I stated) actually pay taxes, are refunded money, or given credits,or are on some sort of relief. I retract my computations on the figures, but still assert that there would be a decent amount of money if the stimulus were sent to taxpayers alone.
Mea culpa.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
February 5, 2009 11:02 AM | Link to this
I think we are in for a 5-10 year rough ride no matter what they do. We’ve relied far too much on a credit/consumer economy. Too many people, (prime example: Wall Street), have tried to get rich quick by pushing paper and not actually producing anything. They were aided in this by deregulation and no oversight. Even if you re-inflate the balloon, the balloon will pop again in the future.
We need to get back to producing and exporting things. As an earlier poster mentioned this requires R&D. Management today is so concerned with short term numbers that they don’t see the big picture. Of course most don’t care because they know in a couple years or so they’ll be gone off to some other company to do it all again.
I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have all the answers but I do know to cure a serious disease it usually has to hurt.
By RealityKing
February 5, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this
What Are the Long-Term Effects of Methamphetamine Abuse?
By ByteMe
February 5, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this
RB: if you read my earlier comments in this thread, I have already expressed that I think that “stimulus” is not necessarily the right answer, so — oddly enough — we agree on this. However, it seems that “stimulus” is what we are going to get right now, so… might as well make sure it gets directed at projects that have lasting value to our country, like mass transit, support for new technologies to get us off carbon-based fuels, etc.
As for the lesson in economics, glad you don’t need it! Many people do, it seems, based on some of the odder comments on this blog. But you asked the question, so I answered as best I could. Maybe someone else will find it useful to think about. Then again, maybe not.
By RealityKing
February 5, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this
What Are the Long-Term Effects of Cocaine Use?
Wow! No worries hey Jay!!??
Use of cocaine in a binge, during which the drug is taken repeatedly and at increasingly high doses, leads to a state of increasing irritability, restlessness, and paranoia. This may result in a full-blown paranoid psychosis, in which the individual loses touch with reality and experiences auditory hallucinations.
->Not to mention that hallucinations of the audacity of hope..
By ByteMe
February 5, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this
RealityKing: You’re spending way too much time trying to link casual use of alcohol or smoking and recreational drug use as a student with full-blown addiction. Or did you forget the difference?
Bud: Serious applause for your latest posting.
By mm
February 5, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this
“Aggressiveness and irritability Forgetfulness Disappearance of money or valuables Feeling rundown, hopeless, depressed, or even suicidal Sounding selfish and not caring about others Getting drunk on a regular basis Lying Believing that in order to have fun you need to drink Taking risks Having “blackouts”-forgetting what he did Getting in trouble with the law”
Wow, great description of the Bush administration.
By AmVet
February 5, 2009 11:18 AM | Link to this
Whats this? A new chapter in Ronnie and Eddie’s War on Everything???
That was a real winner…
By RealityKing
February 5, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this
No.., I’m not worried about the long term effects of Obama’s past drug use. At least not as much as I’m worried about the long term effects of mortgaging our livelihoods through progressive style deficit spending.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 5, 2009 11:32 AM | Link to this
Bud 2 11.01, thanks.
Maybe it’s just the way I was raised, but I tend to take overall government expenditures and apply them per capita. To me, 1 billion = ~ 3 bucks per person. I find it’s a bit more of a real-life, honest look at the shared burden, whether born directly through income taxes, or spread out through other hidden costs to a citizen.
and viewed that way, providing (off the top ‘o me head here) ~$2700 per man/woman/child directly might have the desired effect, but it probably wouldn’t…
By ByteMe
February 5, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this
RealityKing: as opposed to Republican-styled deficit spending, huh? Where you been??
By jewcowboy
February 5, 2009 11:34 AM | Link to this
Tom @ 8:49,
Since Congress’s salary and office expenses came to just about $2 billion in ‘08, a 10% reduction would be quite sizable. They were even slated to get a 2.8% pay increase in January, unless they voted to rescind it.
By GodHatesTrash
February 5, 2009 12:11 PM | Link to this
The demise of our great democracy did not happen because a few illegals have voted over the years.
No, it is our own homegrown ignoranuses that have killed it.
By Bud Wiser
February 5, 2009 12:23 PM | Link to this
GHT, I actually looked at your link.
Judging from the book cover, I also assumed it to be your self written biography.
By Copyleft
February 5, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this
I know the small-government conservatives are angry right now, but face it: Nobody’s listening to you. The Republican Party has zero interest in cutting spending, and the Democrats never even promised anything in that direction.
Your choices are these: Democratic spending with tax hikes to pay as we go… or Republican spending with an ever-mounting deficit your kids will have to pay for, along with recessions and depressions due to the lack of regulatory oversight.
Either way, spending’s going up. We can do it intelligently (Democratic) or stupidly (Republican). America made the call back in November. Deal with it.