The right (and political) reasons for mini-stimulus
House Minority Leader John Boehner wasn’t that impressed when the Dow Jones Industrial Average shot past 10,000 last week, a psychological milestone in a stunning six-month comeback. “At the end of the day, the American people aren’t looking at the stock market in terms of putting food on the table,” he said.
That’s a bit surprising, since Boehner was concerned about the Dow’s poor performance a few months ago, characterizing its doldrums as a reflection on Obama. “Certainly the stock market hasn’t acted very well” since Obama’s inauguration, he said.
But let’s take Boehner at his word and ignore the evidence of yet more Republican hypocrisy. He’s right about the average worker’s disconnect from the Dow, since half of American households don’t own equities of any sort — not even investments in a 401 (k).
Those workers who do have retirement portfolios are much more worried about the here and now: will I keep my job? Can I make the car note? How will I pay escalating health insurance premiums? The stock market’s swift escalation (it’s premature to call it a “recovery”) is simply one more illustration of the gap between Wall Street and Main Street.
So given Boehner’s concerns about unemployment, he and the rest of the Republican leadership have rushed to grant relief to unemployed and under-employed Americans, right? Not so much. When the House voted last month to extend unemployment benefits, Boehner voted “no.”
Many Republicans supported the bill, but Boehner represents a Republican leadership that is belatedly concerned about deficits, stuck in an old paradigm that worships tax cuts and dedicated to foiling Obama, no matter the cost to constituents. Democrats, for their part, have worried too much about criticism coming from Boehner and his compatriots instead of keeping their focus on helping Americans weather the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
(Republicans controlled the House and Senate for six years and never worried about a balanced budget. Most of the current projected deficit can be traced to the recession and to policies implemented during the tenure of George W. Bush.)
Dems caved in to pressure from Republicans and members of their own fiscally-conservative caucus, the Blue Dogs, to keep the stimulus package at $787 billion, when it probably should have been larger. Certainly, states and cities needed more aid; their job cuts are helping inflate the unemployment rate. Most mainstream economists agree that a deep economic downturn is not the time for the federal government to worry about cost-cutting.
Recently, though, Democrats (along with a few Republicans) have seemed more inclined to enact temporary measures to stimulate the economy, despite lingering worries about the deficit and constant GOP criticism of the stimulus bill. Perhaps they’ve gotten the message from the phone calls, e-mails and letters coming from anxious constituents back home. Or perhaps Dems have begun to worry about their own employment prospects: headed into mid-term elections in November 2010, Democratic members of the House and Senate fear that rising unemployment could make them tempting targets.
They should be worried. Voters always hold a bad economy against the party in power when they go to the polls.
That’s among the reasons the White House is asking Congress to give Social Security recipients one-time checks of $250; pondering an extension of the first-time homebuyers’ tax credit; and considering an idea that’s been around a long time: Tax credits for businesses that hire new employees. According to supporters, the tax credits could boost hiring by as many as two million jobs in the first year. (And it has a political bonus: Republicans would probably support it enthusiastically.)
All sound like good temporary fixes for an economy still struggling to find its footing. Each proposal will cost money, but doing nothing to help struggling Americans will be costly, too. Voters anxious about the immediate future are unlikely to grant support to the big transformative issues on Obama’s agenda, from reforming health care to curbing carbon emissions. So it’s in the Democrats’ political interest to find a way to pass a few mini-stimulus bills.
It’s also the right thing to do.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
83 comments Add your comment
Scott
October 19th, 2009
12:13 pm
When will you realize that simply giving handouts is not going to create jobs? It has been proven over and over that to create jobs, you need to lower taxes to encourage business investment and growth. We have already tried the stimulus approach and it did not work. Yeah, the markets will recover a little bit, but face it…this is going to be a JOBLESS recovery. Businesses currently are not running at full capacity. They performed their layoffs and now they are shortshifting their employees. As soon as the manufacturing picks up, businesses will just add more hours to the current workforce. Now, let’s throw in the healthcare…..Rather than paying the increased cost of healthcare being forced upon them by the government, businesses will either go to temp services or work a little more overtime when the demand peaks. Regardless, no/minimal jobs for others.
It is funny that in your article you say that Boehner is being a hypocrite while discussing the market trends. Right after Obama took office and the market started to tank further, he said that he doesn’t put much emphasis on the market. What did he say when it started to go back up? Exactly….hypocrisy happens on both sides of the aisle.
Last, you say that it is the Republicans that are preventing this stimulus. You have also stated in the past, the they are the ones holding up healthcare reform. Last time I looked, the Democrats have a SUPERMAJORITY. If they wanted these reforms to happen, they could push stuff through without any problems. Could it be that even the Democrats are listening to what the majority of Americans want? Most of us do want reform. We DO NOT want government control. If the Democrats think that we want it, go ahead and push this legislation through and put your positions in Congress on the line. We will let you know how we feel about the reforms made with our votes. The problem is…they won’t. They will get nothing accomplished and then look for somebody else to blame. It’s been that way for years.
Scott
October 19th, 2009
12:13 pm
Enter your comments here
mike
October 19th, 2009
12:39 pm
More partisan ranting about Republicans. Tucker loses all credibility when she tries to portray either party as different than the other.
Swami Dave
October 19th, 2009
12:41 pm
So in reading the possible actions, it sounds as if you are making the case that Republicans would support a proposal to extend tax breaks to businesses to hire new workers. On the flip side, you are contending that they would oppose schemes to increase costs (like health care reform) or taxes (”cap-and-trade”) or pour more hard-earned taxpayer dollars down the entitlement ratholes (like increased unemployment benefits or “one-time” transfer payments to Social Security recipients).
So, according to Cynthia, Republicans would support the good idea (that would work) and oppose the litany of terrible ones (that would do little besides waste more taxpayer money and continue the astronomical ballooning of our deficits).
That’s cause for optimism!
-SD
booger
October 19th, 2009
12:49 pm
A non-partisian economic study found that industrialized countries who did the least to stimulate their economies are the ones who are recovering the quickest. The two two who actually did the most to stimulate their economies, the US and Great Britain, are experiencing the slowest recovery.
Both France and Germany warned Obama against a giant stimulus program at their meeting early in his term. They are the two countries whose economies are improving the quickest. Unfortunately, our government is run by a party which thinks you can buy your way out of an economic downturn.
And while we are pondering new ways to spend taxpayers money, the feds today announced the sept. deficit was another all time record. They also report that the % of the GDP going to service debt. is at a level where we once refused furter credit to third world countries.
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
12:50 pm
How about we make decisions based on logic and not emotion. Sure, sending $250 to social security recipients feels good, but does it make any sense? SS is seriously underfunded, we need to consider CUTTING benefits, not sending out extra money. It’s almost like Cynthia wants to go out of her way to have us spend as much money as possible, till our economy is in utter ruins, and then she can pop up and say, “See, Capitalism is BAD, let’s go with Socialism” conveniently forgetting that it was her non-free market suggestions that destroyed the economy in the first place.
Get a clue! The first two stimulii did not even come close to doing what Obama (in the case of the 2nd one) promised it would do. Why do you think borrowing more money from China, and further devaluing the dollar would help anything?
Can we please get a real economist in the White House, one that realizes that Keynsian economics has failed everytime it’s been tried in such massive doses?
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
1:06 pm
BTW, once you factor in the devaluation of the dollar and the rise in gold prices, the stock market no longer looks like it’s gone up at all. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a careful valuation show that it’s still at the bottom. You can’t ignore the fact that a dollar is worth less than a year ago, and gold is worth a LOT more.
Shananeeeeeeee Fananeeeeeee
October 19th, 2009
1:08 pm
“As President I will give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired.” – Barack Obama. That broken promise would have been a good mini-stimulus. I like this broken promise to: To achieve healthcare reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies- they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.” – Barack Obama. ??????????????
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
1:09 pm
One correction: Obviusly you CAN ignore the fact that the dollar is worth a lot less now than a year ago. In her vapid analysis, Cynthia managed to completely ignore that relevant fact, I suppose because it destroys the narrative that anything positive has happened in the economy due to Obama’s actions.
The truth? It’s been all downhill since January (not that it was going uphill before that).
Kamchak
October 19th, 2009
1:14 pm
Can we please get a real economist in the White House, one that realizes that Keynsian economics has failed everytime it’s been tried in such massive doses?
How about Bruce Bartlett–will he suffice?
Bruce was a resolute supply-sider, having drafted the Kemp-Roth tax cuts. I was a resolute Keynesian, who had helped draft the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act. His specialty was taxation, mine was monetary policy. We were both twenty-nine years old.
[...]
It would appear however that apostasy is an acquired taste. In The New American Economy Bruce ladles it out with gusto, and with a message that should cause an entire generation of the American Right true heartburn. The message? That John Maynard Keynes was really one of their own.
John Maynard Keynes? The John Maynard Keynes? How can this possibly be?
Peadawg
October 19th, 2009
1:21 pm
I would expect nothing less from Cynthia…throw more money at the problem hoping it’ll fix it.
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
1:21 pm
So you’ve pointed out yet another economist that is a fool. Put him in a barrel with Krugman, and go find me an economist whose ideas have NOT contributed to wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars on plans that aren’t working.
Bruce Bartlett can say anything he wants, but Keynes is not and will never be a standard bearer for fiscal conservatives and anyone who understands the broken window fallacy, which you obviously do not.
Kamchak
October 19th, 2009
1:31 pm
…but Keynes is not and will never be a standard bearer for fiscal conservatives and anyone who understands the broken window fallacy, which you obviously do not.
And you obviously didn’t read what the man had to say.
Why? Because Keynes understood that if capitalism were not saved, revolution would result — and because he felt that revolution would be worse.
Kevin
October 19th, 2009
2:05 pm
Cynthia, less than half of the $787 billion has been spent. The residual amount is earmarked for later years– years closer to the re-election. Maybe I’m old school, but I always thought a “stimulus” was intended to see near term reaction.
If you’re truly outraged, then you should speak out against the staggered deployment of the stimulus. But you won’t do that. Because you know that the Democrats will need their pet projects to help them get re-elected. Regardless of how many jobs those dollars could create to today.
Tell the whole story or else be branded a hypocrite.
citizen
October 19th, 2009
2:16 pm
WHY don’t more economists go into policy making fields?
Lack of the art of begging for campaign contributions, lack of needing public adoration, lack of a narcissistic ego and I could go on and on.
I love Stuart Varney’s quote “This Administration is offering a political solution to an economical problem”.
Rant
October 19th, 2009
2:33 pm
…will I keep my job? Can I make the car [Escalade] note? Can I pay on my plasma? Can I pay for my IPod and cell service? Can I pay for my son’s X-box games? Can I continue have my hair and nails done? When will I get more federal assistance to feed myself and six children (each by a different man)….yadda, yadda, yadda…
Any stimulus (mini or otherwise) continues to only reward failure and poor life and financial decisions!!!!
Jack
October 19th, 2009
2:40 pm
I thought perhaps AJC’s promise to be less politcal might temper Tucker’s liberal doggerel. I was wrong.
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
2:52 pm
Keynes himself did not believe in stimulus spending beyond a certain level of GDP, a level which we have blown past. So in that respect he differs from Obama and friends, but that has not stopped them from pointing to Keynes as the inspiration for all this spending.
Only in your fantasies can you project the sort of Keynsian economics practiced by the left-wing today as fiscally conservative.
jconservative
October 19th, 2009
3:10 pm
1. $250. to Social Security receipients bad idea. Will probably happen.
2. Doing away with Keynesian economics, will not happen. The Keynesian philosophy is to ingrained in both the Republican & Democratic parties.
Turd Ferguson
October 19th, 2009
3:18 pm
More BS from Tucker.
bob
October 19th, 2009
3:24 pm
Cynthia, why harp on repubs ? you know they have no say and dems can pass a second, third and fourth stimulis.
TnGelding
October 19th, 2009
3:25 pm
Businesses need customers, not tax cuts. The only stimulus I could support at this time is extended unemployment benefits. The trust funds will be replenished during the next boom, at no net cost to the U.S. Treasury. But something has to be done to stop the foreclosures. Why not just let the owners live in their homes until they go back to work and then renegotiate the loans?
As I stated below if they must send anything, instead of sending $250 to 40 million senior citizens, send $1,000 to the 10 million that truly need it and will spend it. The government knows who these folks are.
And the federal government could put people to work in areas that will raise revenue or cut costs; IRS auditors, border patrol agents, FBI, SEC, Medicare and Medicaid fraud investigators, etc.
The GOP has shown over the last 80 years that it knows nothing about how our economy works. Hopefully they’ve been allowed to perpetrate their last risky scheme on the American people.
DOW 10,000? Whee, we’re back where we were 10 years ago. It’s certainly better than 6,500 though. These are global giants that depend less and less on the American consumer, and have abandoned our workers for a few hundred million more on the bottom line.
TnGelding
October 19th, 2009
3:27 pm
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
2:52 pm
Obama, like Bush before him, took emergency measures. These are perilous times.
jlpete
October 19th, 2009
3:28 pm
I for one would like to see an additional $250, for little good as it do me. After cancer, radiation and chemo, and the diagnosis of debilitating degenerative disc disease, I went on “Disability” and then when prices are on the rise for basic necessities, every little bit helps. I wonder though, why is it NO one ever discusses the huge money paid to ALL present and past Congress people by way of free, permanent, for lifetime salaries, health care, etc. If we made them compete for everything like the rest of the population, then there might be some huge savings that could fund the more needy. Congress certainly does NOT go without their COLA, do they? As a side note, the $250 almost seems like an insult; Congress members give themselves, without our say, much more than that each year. I think it is merely politics,the Administration really hasn’t done much yet and probably thinks we are too stupid to know any better.
Chris Broe
October 19th, 2009
3:30 pm
The bailout money and most of the stimulus money is fueling the stock market rally, not creating jobs or the credit to fund jobs.
We’re finished. Short-Sell your homes, people.. Bail-out your brother in law. Run for your econo-geo-political and ideological lives!
I’m wired, man.
Joan
October 19th, 2009
3:40 pm
Nobody here has mentioned that while Congress decided not to give SS a cost of living adjustment, they gave themselves quite a large raise. I wonder how many seniors are actually buying “consumer goods” anyway? The ones I know, are paying property taxes, buying prescription drugs and doctor visits, and utility bills with the social security money. I don’t see mahy of them at the mall.
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
3:50 pm
TnGelding: Thos “emergency measures” do nothing but reward the people who screwed up, and screw over the people who were responsible. What’s the end result of all those emergency measures? Saving a little pain now in return for a whole lot of hell later when the chickens come home to roost. Better idea: Don’t give people free money, let some people suffer in the short term, and have a much, much brighter long term. Right now we are heading for so much pain the country won’t be able to survive. The only solution is to make some hard choices that are going to include cutting benefits and leaving some people poor and hungry. Some now, or a lot more later. To most liberals, all that matters seems to be the now, but I think long term, and Keynsian policies as well as the new entitlement mentality are not sustainable.
I'm Tommy from the T.V. show Cheaters
October 19th, 2009
3:57 pm
Obama’s a joke and as corrupt as they come. 1600 Corruption Avenue. His sheep are out of reality.
Scott
October 19th, 2009
4:13 pm
TnGelding
“Businesses need customers, not tax cuts. The only stimulus I could support at this time is extended unemployment benefits. ” So the businesses get one-time customers??? That helps them go nowhere. Businesses need a long run of customers….customer that they can depend on. Without the dependable customers, business will just forecast low and jump through hoops to meet a spike in demand. They will not hire anybody and we will be stuck in the same position. Businesses need tax cuts that will allow them to make CAPEX investments and grow their businesses further so that they can hire more workers.
“As I stated below if they must send anything, instead of sending $250 to 40 million senior citizens, send $1,000 to the 10 million that truly need it and will spend it. The government knows who these folks are.” Really? You trust the government THAT much? How is Social Security? How is Medicare? How is the USPS? How is AMTRAK? Government Motors? They are always looking for money because they cannot be run efficiently. Why give the government more power?
“The GOP has shown over the last 80 years that it knows nothing about how our economy works. Hopefully they’ve been allowed to perpetrate their last risky scheme on the American people.” Right…..and increasing government intervention in our economy will do what exactly???? I am still waiting to hear of one instant where increased government invention has helped ANY economy in the longterm. There are numerous examples of where capitalism has helped grow economies though.
Spartann
October 19th, 2009
4:37 pm
Tucker the last thing you…and I do mean YOU….should ever suggest is HOW to right this economy…Its CLEAR you don’t know anything about finance other than what your team spews, after which you swallow and then ape…… Hell, everyone in Buckhead knows you couldn’t get a Hot’lanta cake walk figured out if you had to…. Admit it Miss Thing…. ain’t no shame …
Kamchak
October 19th, 2009
4:39 pm
Only in your fantasies can you project the sort of Keynsian economics practiced by the left-wing today as fiscally conservative.
Geez sport, Bruce Bartlett is not left-wing.
It’s painfully obvious that he is left of you, but that doesn’t make him a liberal–and at 57years old it’s not like he’s a dewy-eyed ideologue. Since you refuse to actually read the article that I linked, I’ll copy and paste more relevant parts:
Bruce’s dark secret, here exposed, is that he is primarily a historian. He has a keen interest in the musty words of thinkers from a past day, and he actually goes off to read them. A good part of The New American Economy concerns itself with the old American economy–the economy that collapsed in the Depression and that was revived-or, more accurately, rebuilt-in the New Deal
Though English, Keynes was central to the ferment of New Deal ideas. Bruce here admirably introduces him as, among other things, the greatest enemy communism had in those years. Why? Because Keynes understood that if capitalism were not saved, revolution would result — and because he felt that revolution would be worse. Drastic measures were therefore justified, whatever the business leaders of the day thought.
So then as now, drastic measures are needed to save capitalism.
But this was your original question–Can we please get a real economist in the White House, one that realizes that Keynsian economics has failed everytime it’s been tried in such massive doses?
It seems as if real economists are weighing in on this matter.
Tom Middleton
October 19th, 2009
4:44 pm
I’m with you, Cynthia. If American consumers aren’t spending to get our economic engine running full-throttle again, then how will we do it if not through government? (And why would they pick now to start saving like banshees for the first time in decades?)
Like you said, it wasn’t our current government that caused this crisis, but the polices of Dubya and his congressional supporters like Boehner. And now that we finally have a president who actually “gets it,” here come the goofs from the right to say it’s all his fault.
It’s amazing what’s happened to the South since Roosevelt. He used to be considered a god for the way he put southerners back to work through government spending (and yes, it took some time). And now they think that government spending is a bad, bad thing indeed, so what happened?
Was it the fluoride in the water (you know, that so-called “communist plot”) that turned so many smart white southerners into complete idiots, or did they do it to themselves? I think most everyone else knows the answer, and may God help us all should they ever get another one in the Oval Office they like. Dubya was the absolute worst president this nation has ever seen!
Char Pierce
October 19th, 2009
4:53 pm
Heard you on NPR this afternoon…you are so right! Giving us $250 is a crazy idea (my husband and I are both in our 70’s, doing okay…)…the cost of sending checks is outrageous…
Our health care is great, through medicare advantage program…
Keep on writing and talking against this stupid idea…
Thanks
Scott
October 19th, 2009
4:58 pm
Tom, It’s funny. It wasn’t Bush that relaxed the rules so that idiots could buy houses regardless of whether or not they could afford them. That was your own Dem team of politicians. Did you also notice that the whole collapse of everything occurred when the Democrats regained control of Congress? Hmmmm….. Do you think maybe, just maybe Reid, Pelosi and friends had ANYTHING to do with that? I will admit Bush wasn’t the greatest President in history, but he is a whole lot better than our current one. Bush kept us saHe is weak on foreign policy, an ignoramus on the economy, and will send this country down the tubes if his government takeover doesn’t go unchecked.
Kamchak
October 19th, 2009
4:58 pm
And now they think that government spending is a bad, bad thing indeed, so what happened?
Thirty years of talk-radio programming has interfered with rational thinking.
Kamchak
October 19th, 2009
5:08 pm
But the causes of the subprime mortgage crisis and its magnitude were more complicated than mortgage interest rate resets, declining underwriting standards, or declining home values. The crisis had been building for years before showing any signs. It was feeding off the lending, securitization, leveraging, and housing booms.
TnGelding
October 19th, 2009
6:27 pm
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
1:06 pm
You’re confusing inflation with the international exchange rate, and what the hell does gold have to do with anything? But even if you’re right, the markets are up 50% and the dollar is down fractionally. You can actully buy a little more with that dollar now than you could a year ago, hence no COLA for Social Security.
From Inflationdata dot com:
“With all the recent talk about the “falling dollar” will that affect the inflation rate?”
“Let’s start with the basics.”
1) Price inflation is primarily caused by monetary inflation. In other words as the money supply increases things cost more. See What is Inflation? for a full explanation.
2) The government controls the money supply to a certain extent through tightening or loosening credit.
3) The economy is extremely complex and many other factors come into play. Such as international exchange and the supply and demand for goods and services.
Tom Middleton
October 19th, 2009
6:55 pm
Try again, Scott. You mean you don’t remember Bush’s proposed “Ownership Society”? And you don’t remember the Republicans rushing to change the rules for their investment base? And you don’t remember the collapse beginning in Bush’s last quarter, probably the biggest reason we have the current president we do?
And thank God we do, for he’s mitigated that collapse well enough to keep us from going to the absolute bottom. Bush would have cut taxes for the wealthiest among us and all the other goofy things you and your party love to do so much, and we would have gone straight to the bottom for sure and probably stayed there.
Too bad those things don’t work, Scott, never have, and never will, and like I said, Dubya was the worst president this nation has ever seen!
I don’t know what it is about the Republican Party these days, but its lost almost any ability to deal with economic reality at all. Maybe Republicans are spending way too much time watching Fox News like our president says, and once again, I think he’s absolutely right!
TnGelding
October 19th, 2009
7:04 pm
Scott
October 19th, 2009
4:13 pm
Too many small businesses, like too many consumers, were overextended. Who would have thought so many of them needed to borrow to meet payroll? Why would you want to expand when you don’t have customers for your goods or services now? Unemployment compensation keeps the capital flowing for however long it is extended. I remember during the Clinton administration they stopped collecting the small tax that businesses pay because the trust funds were so flush.
70% of the small “businesses” don’t even have any emloyees, and that’s just the one’s that pay income taxes. There are thousands more that don’t.
Social Security and Medicare have been funding Lockheed and Halliburton for 26 years. Not a bad record. The problem is with the people (us)committing the waste, fraud and abuse, not the government programs.
The stimulus isn’t intended to help in the long term. It’s for the short term until inventories are depleted and companies have to start hiring again. The question now is will they be hiring here or continuing their outsourcing folly? The government needs to give them an incentive to make it here. Eliminating all federal taxes would be a good start. The payroll tax could be shifted to the employee over 7 years and they’d barely notice it.
Jimmy62
October 19th, 2009
3:50 pm
There’s over $50 trillion in household wealth in this country. We’re just going to have to start paying for the government we have or demand that it be downsized. That money the poor receive spends just like the money Lockheed receives for unneeded weapons. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it didn’t eventually end up in your pocket. That said, we need to seriously address why so many remain in poverty. Is it as simple as being alcohol and nicotine addicts? Certainly we know that having children too early and a lack of education are big contributors. Why aren’t we doing more to address that?
Woodrow
October 19th, 2009
7:04 pm
Cynthia says –”Republicans controlled the House and Senate for six years and never worried about a balanced budget. Most of the current projected deficit can be traced to the recession and to policies implemented during the tenure of George W. Bush”
Alright, true, to a point. Bush was an economic idiot who believed in big government. That’s not a valid excuse for Barry-O exacerbating the problem. To use that as a logical premise for continued furtherance of economic problems and refuse to let prince Obama shoulder any burden himself is simply delusional. “Journalists”, and I use the term VERY loosely, who truly believe this claptrap should be taken out back and given an economics lesson. With a 2×4.
TnGelding
October 19th, 2009
7:07 pm
Tom Middleton
October 19th, 2009
6:55 pm
Thanks for saving me the time and trouble. Why can’t they admit the obvious? If Obama doesn’t go on an austerity program for FY2011, I’ll admit I was wrong.
TnGelding
October 19th, 2009
7:10 pm
Woodrow
October 19th, 2009
7:04 pm
The economy is in the same good hands that it was under Clinton. It takes time to right a listing ship.
TnGelding
October 19th, 2009
7:13 pm
Joan
October 19th, 2009
3:40 pm
Well, you need to be on an exotic island or cruise ship to see many of them shopping. Not to mention a gambling junket. How many more have to die in that particular pursuit before they realize that’s not the best way to be spending your time….and money.
Just because
October 19th, 2009
7:26 pm
A rose is a rose is a rose. . .politics is politics is politics (oh I mean votes!)
rick@jerseyshore
October 19th, 2009
9:00 pm
Help. Help. and Help. can I go live at one of my Senators homes. Because thanks to their no action, I’ll be homeless soon. can I borrower my other Senators car to go look for a job, because mine is going back to the bank.
All the way
October 19th, 2009
9:09 pm
Cyn, the democrats control congress and have for years. They also control the Presidency.
If they want to borrow money from our grandchildren to pass out to buy votes, we can’t stop them.
But we can hold them accountable.
RGB
October 19th, 2009
10:48 pm
Rather than engaging in victimhood again, I wish you’d take an Economics course.
Since you’re handout-driven, I’ll pay for it.
Grumpy
October 19th, 2009
10:50 pm
If I’m a business owner, why would I hire someone (let’s say for $30,000 a year) to get a $3,000 credit if I don’t need another worker? Makes no sense.
Businesses hire people when they have work to be done. They don’t hire people because of government welfare. Anyone who says this will magically create 2 million jobs is selling you some B.S.
MAC
October 19th, 2009
11:11 pm
Journalism and political science majors too often think they are economic experts. Another diatribe that is long on politics and short on rational economic thought.
A quite juvenile and simplistic column adding nothing to the real macro economic debate.
Tax payer funded Public Option, NEVER!
October 19th, 2009
11:37 pm
When the Dow was up when W was in office, all I heard from Dems was what about “Main Street”, and now? You can’t have it both ways, either.
Also, enough with the “senior vote buying” scam. Just because you’re not getting a non-inflation increase, does NOT mean your benefits are being CUT, like so many want you to belive. They aren’t getting LESS, they are getting the same amount for another year. STOP the LYING and MISLEADING.