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
© 2010 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.
ck hall
October 20th, 2009
3:50 am
It is so easy to govern if you just spend more money..I could do that. Any long term solution needs tax cuts, and fiscal responsibility..Not pitance $250 checks! How sad the Dems don’t see their base leaving them in the mid-term elections—or maybe they do and are trying to placate voters with more of my money?
anonymous
October 20th, 2009
7:15 am
All this bickering about having a real economist in charge, This guy, that guy. Tell you what. The real people who know how to manage money are the MILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED FOR THE PAST YEAR who have struggled with almost nothing and haven’t put a bullet in their head yet. They manage to survive, although harsh, they know how to make sacrifices and deal with little or close to nothing. So it would only make sense for someone who is struggling and knows from experience what it takes to get by on nothing. I’ll bet they wouldn’t be spend spend spend.
clyde
October 20th, 2009
7:30 am
There is an economic stimulus coming called rising oil prices.There’s another coming called the falling dollar.These two combined will take care of any $250 dollar bribe given to seniors.The money that Democrats are bandying around needs to be used to pay the debt so the country doesn’t get to be owned by the Chinese.
Dear Joan,
We seniors don’t go to the mall because your ill behaved children are there.
jmh
October 20th, 2009
7:37 am
Idiot!
ken
October 20th, 2009
7:42 am
Too bad our government run schools do not teach investments. I taught myself. It worked. I do not to depend on a bunch of clowns that want to hand out money to get a my vote. ( remember that song ” ALL THE CRAP I LEARNED IN HIGH SCHOOL ” )
Dan
October 20th, 2009
7:55 am
Wow this is beyond ignorant, not only was the first a complete waste of resources, maybe 5-10% has been spent. Regardless of ones ideology there is zero logic in pushing forth another
clyde
October 20th, 2009
8:33 am
Ken,
The secret to investment is compound interest and lots of time.Seniors that learned that when they were young have lots of money today.
Kevin
October 20th, 2009
9:06 am
Why not take the stimulus money that was to be spent on projects that have nothing to do with jobs and redirect it to expanding unemployment benefits?
Thankfully, Ms. Tucker, you always provide some comments that are just too inviting to ignore:
1) Can you explain the difference between Republican hypocrisy versus Democratic hypocrisy, i.e., all health care negotiations will be shown on C-Span and all bills will be on-line for 72 hours before they are signed by the President?? Just wanting to be fair and balanced (yes, I support Fox News as opposed to Fox commentators who I may disagree with).
2) Mr. Bush did not restrain spending as he should have. But the annual deficit more than doubled once Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi assumed control of Congress so let’s not throw budgetary stones, shall we?
Barackula
October 20th, 2009
9:10 am
Thank goodness – Cynthia has given us her brilliant summation of why the government wants more money so they can exercise more control of our lives.
Get the damn government out of my life… Stay out!
No stimulus, no bailouts, no government takeover of my healthcare, no newspaper bailouts, no “Dollars for Dishwashers”, Get the govt out the auto business.
Can’t wait to see the Democrats lose their majorities in 2010. You leftist bloggers are going to spain your fingers in the next few months. LMAO !!!!
ken
October 20th, 2009
9:16 am
Barackula, I second that !!!!!!!!!
Barackula
October 20th, 2009
9:43 am
We spent $180 billion to bail out the banks… Where did that money come from?
Now we have a $247 billion measure making its way to the Senate floor, that aims to wipe out a scheduled 21 percent rate cut for doctors treating Medicare patients and replace it with a permanent, predictable system for future fee increases. Where is this money going to come from?
Get it? …. $247 billion more, as a bribe to doctors, so they’ll shut up about Obamacare.
Somebody please stop these a$$clowns before it’s too late. FIRE THE DEMS 2010 !!
BoneHead
October 20th, 2009
9:50 am
People like Mrs. Tucker are the reason we have economic issues in America today. Let’s take it one piece at a time. The reason the stock market is up is because the value of the dollar is down, so how is that good? Only a liberal could make that sound good. Well I can tell that the first stimulus package did nothing for the average American, in fact many lost their jobs because they gave the money to people who already proved they did not know how to manage it. If the dimacrats believe they are “The People’s Party” why did they give more money to rich people so they could lay off the average American so they could get a bonus? They are the people’s party, the rich people’s party. I am so glad that the dimacrats are hell bent on keeping the rich richer and the poor more dependent. How noble of them, idiots. If they really want to do a stimulus how about helping out the working poor; suspend payroll taxes for 6 months or a year. Help out the people who have been doing the right thing all along, not the idiots who keep screwing up.
HDB
October 20th, 2009
10:20 am
Questions that we should be asking ourselves:
1) If tax breaks for the wealthy spur economic activity, why is the nation in recession? Answer: It doesn’t! The wealthy find ways to hide income and send their money offshore, thereby shifting the economic (i.e., TAX) burden downward! What is needed is a tax INCREASE on the wealthy back to the Clinton levels!
2) Which political party is the more fiscally conversative? Answer: Democrats! Review and compare the deficits from the Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years and see who left the least deficit AND spurred economic growth! Carter’s average deficit was $46B…in fact, government spending under Carter was FLAT! Reagan QUADRUPLED the deficit in his first year….and a recession began! Clinton left with a SURPLUS….and Dubya exploded the deficit in his first year!
3) Which political party places the country in either and economic or constitutional crisis whenever in power? Answer: Republicans!! Starting with the Civil War, to Teapot Dome…to the Great Depression…then Watergate…Iran-Iraqgate….now Iraq and Afghanistan……enough said!
That’s the first phase of questions we HONESTLY need to answer…and to assess our political philosophies….more later!!
HDB
October 20th, 2009
10:23 am
Another question: Which political party created the “Ownership Society”, TARP, and bank bailouts?? Answer: GOP!!!
HDB
October 20th, 2009
10:32 am
Hey…BoneHead….you really ARE a bonehead if you believe this statement you wrote:
“If the dimacrats believe they are “The People’s Party” why did they give more money to rich people so they could lay off the average American so they could get a bonus?”
First: TARP was created by executive order by GEORGE W. BUSH!
Second: Offshoring of American jobs began under the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION!
Third: HBR/Halliburton received NO-BID contracts from the government; who was the former CEO? Dick Cheney….Bush’s VP!!
It’s the GOP who’s after you and me!!
DemBrooks
October 20th, 2009
11:05 am
Ms. Tucker says: “the Dow Jones Industrial Average shot past 10,000 last week, a psychological milestone in a stunning six-month comeback.” Wow! I musta been asleep for the last six months. Glad to hear we’ve had a stunning comeback!
Scott
October 20th, 2009
11:09 am
Tom-
Who exactly relaxed the rules for qualifying for loans? Do some research on Barney Frank and you might understand. It’s funny that you pin all of the blame on Bush and NONE of it on the Congress that took over halfway through his 2nd term. Don’t you find it to be a coincidence that the economy started to tank as soon as Harry, Pelosi, and friends took over?
Everything they did was to, as they are saying the Reps are doing now, “see the President fail.” Those hypocrites did much more harm than anything the Reps are doing now. Republicans did screw up when they were in control of everything. The reason….they started acting like Democrats with wasteful spending and NO ACCOUNTABILITY. THAT, my friend, is the reason we are stuck with the inept administration we have now.
TN Gelding,
Giving money away and expanding government does not help. Again, I am still waiting for one person to give an example where expanding government helped their country. Please enlighten me on that one.
You say the stimulus isn’t intended to help long term…..well, it sure hasn’t helped in the short-term has it? Inventories ARE depleted and hiring has not picked up one bit. And please do not spew made up, unconfirmed and unproven numbers of “jobs saved.” Companies have put the brakes on and will simply give hours back to employees that have not been short-shifted. Again, it will be a JOBLESS recovery. The only way to get jobs back is to encourage new investments, encourage companies to invest in products that people want, encourage individuals to attempt startups again.
You say that we need to address the issues of why people are having children too early and not getting education. The answer is simple. We have a system that encourages these people to do it. They know they can have the government take care of them. They know that they can receive welfare, WIC, food stamps, tax breaks(on taxes they don’t even pay) by having these extra kids. Until we take away the freebies or at least make them start earning their freebies through community service, then we will continue to go down this path.
The more debt we pile on this country through this unnecessary spending, the worse we are going to be in the long-run.
TnGelding
October 20th, 2009
11:41 am
BoneHead
October 20th, 2009
9:50 am
See my 6:27pm.
TnGelding
October 20th, 2009
11:43 am
DemBrooks
October 20th, 2009
11:05 am
All the way back to where it was 10 years ago!
TnGelding
October 20th, 2009
11:56 am
Scott
October 20th, 2009
11:09 am
TARP and the stimulus were emergency measures. Take them away and it would have had to have been much worse. How much is anybody’s guess. The scenario you describe went out the door with welfare reform during the Clinton administration.
Corporate America has developed a global strategy and has abandoned us. There was absolutely no reason for profitable companies to layoff workers. All it did was prolong the recession. And most small businesses only provide income for the owners. Of course they help in keeping the capital circulating, which is critical. Something that stops when too much is hoarded by the wealthy.
Yes, there will be a price to pay down the road. But it will be mangageable with the right priorities and some much needed belt tightening. And we’ll all need to pitch in on taxes, even if just a dollar a week. No more free rides for the leisure class or the poor.
Scott
October 20th, 2009
1:19 pm
Before I go much further, I need to point out that I am not a Rep. I am a Conservative. I do not trust either party the way they are now. I think that both parties are fiscally irresponsible and have no clue how to run a country.
“TARP and the stimulus were emergency measures. Take them away and it would have had to have been much worse. How much is anybody’s guess.”
How can you prove that it would have been much worse? Think of it on a smaller scale, such as in your own family. If you see that you are financial trouble, do you take on more debt and spend more money on things that are unnecessary? No…You cut your expenses. You cut the garbage out and watch your money carefully. Can you say that government during the TARP and the stimulus did either of those things? I disagreed with both of the spending plans. They were both filled up with pork projects that did and are going to do nothing for this country but pile a lot of debt on the backs of our children.
“Corporate America has developed a global strategy and has abandoned us. There was absolutely no reason for profitable companies to layoff workers. All it did was prolong the recession. And most small businesses only provide income for the owners. Of course they help in keeping the capital circulating, which is critical. Something that stops when too much is hoarded by the wealthy.” So….keep your dead weight is the right answer? How do companies get better if they have to keep on extra personnel even though the demand is not there? When the demand is not there, it make no sense to keep people on. What did you expect companies to do exactly when the demand dropped in half? Cuts hours perhaps? Then, everybody works 20 hours a week versus keeping a majority of them working 32-40 hours a week. Regardless, when demand drops, we shouldn’t be overproducing. It would have caught up to us eventually.
“Yes, there will be a price to pay down the road. But it will be mangageable with the right priorities and some much needed belt tightening. And we’ll all need to pitch in on taxes, even if just a dollar a week. No more free rides for the leisure class or the poor.”
It sure will not be an extra dollar a week. The upper 25% will continue to pay for everybody else and just more of it now. Contrary to Obama’s position, the middle class will pay more. Will it be in the form of taxes. Nope. It will be in the form of the cost of goods going up because of harmful policies such as healthcare reform, cap and trade, etc. All of the cost increases involved with these issues will be taken on by companies who will simply pass them on down to us. We will not have as much money in our pockets and will not buy goods and services, and then the entire cycle will start over again.
TnGelding
October 20th, 2009
4:00 pm
Scott
October 20th, 2009
1:19 pm
How would you have liked to have gone to the bank or accessed your account online and found it closed? The government had to invest because nobody else would or could.
When you consider the severance packages and the cost of hiring and training new employees, what is the net gain in laying off experienced, loyal, productive workers? What if those 7 million that were let go were still employed? Would the recession have even gotten legs?
The dollar a week was just for the working poor. Those of us that aren’t paying anything now, myself included, will need to pay 10% of GROSS income. The ones paying now will have to pay a 10% surtax. That is if we want to get our fiscal house in order. In addition there will need to be massive spending cuts, done orderly over a period of 5-10 years with most of it coming from the Pentagon budget. Obama will come around. Of course a simpler tax system is badly needed, but I don’t see that happening.
Hopefully health insurance reform and cap and trade will die natural deaths, and soon.
Tom Middleton
October 20th, 2009
4:24 pm
Scott: Republicans did screw up when they were in control of everything.
Congrats, Scott, on being the first Republican to take responsibility for anything. Maybe you should run for office and help transform your party in a real “loyal opposition,” a CONSTRUCTIVE opposition for a change. You know, there was a time when the Repubs were worth something, instead of all this “No, No, No” stuff we’re seeing so much of today.
Why don’t y’all get Schwarzenegger up and running, or someone like him, male or female, instead of all these extreme righters, who only know how to cut taxes, deregulate, screw the environment, and thumb their noses at middle America (not to mention the poor).
And here’s another reason y’all lost last November: A majority of America now knows this stuff doesn’t work, and as usual, your folks are the very last ones to be getting the message. Rush Limbaugh? I think so!
And I’ll admit that the Dems have been timid in the past – way too timid for my taste. They’d been out of power for so long, they’d forgotten how to act and kind of went along to get along, when they should have been fighting like rabid dogs. But that’s been a traditional Dem weakness that I believe we’ve finally moved past these days – hopefully for all time to come.
But. Scott, it’s your party that has the half-crazed, fanatical deregulators – anything and everything they can get their hands on. And it’s your party that initiated the economic policies that gave us our current economic collapse. If you’ll own up to this one, too, I’ll own up to the Dems not doing their best job as the loyal opposition and trying to block them better.
And let’s face it, Scott, since all the terrible results began happening on Dubya’s watch, and since we all know he used his “bully pulpit” to preach and promote the policies giving us those results, then I’m afraid the buck will have to stop with him. Wasn’t Harry Truman right about “the buck stops here”? I believe so!
Blame the Dems all you want, Scott, but these policies are NOT who we are, but they define your party to a “T.” We’re about regulating greed whenever necessary, not encouraging it. And if we’ve learned our lesson well, and I think we have, we’ll make absolutely certain that the American people lose their inordinate fear of having the economic rug pulled out from under them yet again – probably the biggest reason they’re not spending these days. Don’t you agree?
And as we move forward, Scott, and the Dems begin the process of re-regulation, let’s see if your party has learned its lesson as well and actually helps for a change. If you continue to be the party of “No, No, No,” in a process of re-regulating greed, then I think we’ll know for certain who’s to blame and who the American people will not let back into power until y’all start thinking of THEM first, last, and always, not your greedy investor base.
Oh, and since y’all love to chest-thump your religion so much, especially at election time, maybe y’all should re-acquaint yourselves with the teachings of Jesus – the real Christianity – not the hyper-skewed version of it you use to support your extreme materialism and devil-may-care greed!
Scott
October 20th, 2009
4:56 pm
Tom,
I hate to break it to you but the party of NO NO NO is the Democrat party. They stopped everything during the last 2 years of Bush’s presidency. They did everything they could to undermine his Presidency. It is funny that you are implying the Republicans are stopping the reforms from occurring. Last time I looked, the Dems have the numbers to do whatever they want. How come they haven’t taken advantage of it? Perhaps, many of them are scared and know that the American public do not want the product they are offering????
The reason why the Rep party lost the elections was because many wanted change. Not solely a change in the White House, but a change in EVERYTHING. Shoot, I wanted change somewhat. Not enough to vote for a Socialist, but I sure didn’t like anybody else in Congress, Rep or Dem. Most did not want/expect this much change at once though. Obama ran saying that he would make change that everybody liked. He pandered to everybody just get their votes. Now, all of those moderates and independents are having 2nd thoughts. They realized that the guy was a schmoozer and all he could do was TALK a nice talk, but DO nothing. They are leaving him and he is trying to appease them, upsetting the Far Left of the Democrat party. You wait, the Democrat party eats their own; it’s been done over and over again. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it again.
Another reason why the Reps lost. They tried acting like Democrats. They spent like Democrats. They got away from Conservative principles. Shoot, they nominated a closet Democrat in McCain and alienated its Conservative base. I know many Reps that voted for the Dem ticket simply because they wanted to teach the Reps a lesson.
I am just shocked that you are willing to accept Big Government. I am assuming that you were against the Patriot Act. This takeover the government that is going on right now makes the Patriot Act look insignificant. Again, nobody has yet to offer a single example of how expanding government helped their country. The reason…BIG GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WORK!!!!
Randall W. Capps
October 20th, 2009
5:31 pm
Earlier it was those on S.S. that were the greedy people. I guess those on S.S. don’t have car notes, or house notes or escalating health insurance premiums?
What does this woman do to earn her job? Republican leadership? Lady, the Dem are in power. If you haven’t figured that out yet, I have a bridge you might like to buy in Brooklyn.
TnGelding
October 20th, 2009
7:53 pm
Randall W. Capps
October 20th, 2009
5:31 pm
They shouldn’t have house notes or car notes. They should have learned by now that if you can’t pay cash you can’t afford it. They do have escalating health insurance premiums if they chose to purchase additional insurance to supplement Medicare, or rising health care costs if they didn’t. Insurance is our number one expense. I’m about ready to unload anything that needs insuring.
Tom Middleton
October 20th, 2009
8:59 pm
Same ol’, same ol’, Scott. You’ve either memorized the Repub talking points from the last six months, or you’re getting a fresh copy e-mailed in everyday. Either way, you’re only representing about 1 in 5 (20 percent) of voters these days by continuing to spout that self-serving stuff. Add to this that your base is almost getting smaller by the day, and Houston, you have a problem.
Doesn’t this tell you something, Scott? You and yours are losing the argument, and yet you’re holding firm to what four of five voters now recognize as K-R-A-P. (That’s unless you can find an Independent or three who might agree with you. Check with Dobbs.)
Scott, you folks are going down, and you’re sitting there being true to your absolute nothing with a wink and a smile – pure Sarah Palin. Conservative Repub philosophy only works for a short time, if it works at all, and it only benefits a handful when it does.
You lost in November because a majority of the voters figured you out – that you’re the party of financial greed. And like any giant pyramid scheme that wants grass roots support, only the people at the top will ever get the benefits you have to promise everyone. So we’re on to you, Scott. My question to you is this: Why can’t you see it?
You said John McCain lost because he didn’t appeal to your narrow base, a base NOT a majority of the American voters. So, Scott, when you think about it, that meant Mr. McCain, a very good man indeed, needed to reach out to attract more voters to win, and guess what? You and yours couldn’t follow, and you lost the election. What else could have happened with your defeatist recalcitrance, Scott? You lost, Scott, you lost, and for your party’s very personal reasons!
And you’re going to keep losing if you can’t do any better than your party of “No, No, No” has been able to do in these first few critical months of Mr. Obama’s presidency. (And please don’t forget that he inherited all the failures and mis-directions of Dubya, something I’m never going to let you do.)
And why are you calling President Obama a “socialist” for asking all Americans to do what’s right for their country first, not just for themselves? MMMMMMMM… Could it be that your party only believes in doing what’s right for yourselves and not for OUR country.
Like I said, Scott: Keep on with your tried-and-failed talking points and your party will be going buh-bye for good. Then all of you left (in a far-right sort of way) can gather on some rich man’s golf course every year to celebrate Rush’s birthday, and won’t that be fun?
Please sink one long and deep, Scott, and please do it for all of those who were promised $millions by your Republican Party for their votes but actually lost money instead. That’s the vast majority of us these days, Scott, and please take notice.
And please, please make sure that Rush gives you a really big smile and wink when you do. I’m going to miss having the Repubs around for sure, but knowing Rush will smile that big after you sink a long one will make all the difference in our brand-new and very democratic world. Scott, you betcha, and talk to you later, I’m sure!
Cynthia gives us some really interesting subjects to talk about, doesn’t she? Yea, Cynthia!!!
Scott
October 21st, 2009
8:24 am
Tom, Wait until the next years elections. I don’t know why you insist on inserting my name every 5 seconds. It’s kind of annoying, Tom. Tom, I called Obama a Socialist because he himself believes in Socialist policies, both in thought and by his actions. Tom, when the government takes control of banks and automotive sectors, and threatens to increase its role in healthcare, THAT is socialism. I AM looking out for both myself and my country, Tom. Tom, You still have not provided any evidence of how big government has helped any country. Tom, even China figured that one out as they have moved much more towards capitalism. Tom, what happened with Russia and the eerily similar policies that they had before their downfall? Tom, we already bail out Social Security, USPS, Medicare, AMTRAK, Government Motors, and big government states like NY and CA with taxpayer money on a regular basis; why would you think that letting the government increase its stake in healthcare would have different results? Tom, all we are going to do by continuing to increase the debt on this country using fiscally irresponsible policies (Healthcare reform, stimulus bill laden in pork that produce NO JOBS, cap and trade, soon coming immigration reform) that the Democrats are proposing, is bury the country further into debt. Tom, I hated it when the Republicans spent like Democrats too and disagreed with how fiscally irresponsible they were. Tom, just watch next year’s elections. Tom, I guarantee that a country looking at 10% unemployment, a decreased dollar value, and increased taxes will not make the same mistake they made last year. Tom, look at every poll out there; they are waking up Tom. Tom, they are waking up. Tom, Tom, Tom, Maybe you should wake up too.
Scott
October 21st, 2009
4:53 pm
AND YOU WANT A SECOND STIMULUS?? HOW HAS THE FIRST ONE FARED? READ BELOW. TOM, THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING YOU SHOULD READ SO THAT HOPEFULLY YOU WILL GET A CLUE.
The [data] compares the White House’s February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs.
Tom Middleton
October 21st, 2009
5:28 pm
Sorry about the name-thing, Scott, but let’s move on. I just assumed you were OK with the sound of your name.
Anyway, if you remember from your schooling, “socialism” is the PERMANENT takeover of major industries, not the temporary one President Obama is enacting. And he’s really not even doing that. All he’s doing is shoring up key industries through temporary financial backing, to prevent a massive job loss and subsequent loss of those industries to foreign competitors. And this is wrong? Sheeesh! Where’s your patriotism, dude?
You call it socialism, but I call it smart as heck. Why are you and yours so chomping at the bit to reduce our beloved America to a second-class economic status, when with a little temporary help in the right places, we can keep our great nation economically strong and moving forward? It makes no sense to do otherwise.
Crying “socialism” is OK for political campaigns, I guess, but it has nothing to do with what our president is doing to get us out of the deep, deep hole your Dubya put us in. I say this now, knowing you won’t accept a word of it, and why? It’s not a Republican talking point in an overall effort to win in 2010 and 2112.
But like I said, the American voters are seeing through your party’s permanent campaign to get back into power and complete the terrible things you did to us under ex-president Bush. Dubya loves to talk about how he “stuck to principles,” but it’s those principles that got us into this mess, and it’s those principles that CANNOT get us out.
But by saying “No, No, No” to everything that comes out of the White House, you hope President Obama will fail in his presidency like Dubya did, so you can re-ascend to your CONservative throne once again, and start giving us more and more of what got us into this mess. “I want him to fail,” Rush said months ago, and this has become the Republican mantra ever since – your mantra as well, Scott.
Oh, and as for evidence that big government works, I only offer one piece of conclusive evidence – Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He saved our American economic system from certain greed-and-deregulation demise, put people back to work, and was popular enough with everything he did to get elected president four times. It worked, Scott, IT WORKED!
And even though history books speak of him heroically, and he was certainly a hero at the time, even here in the South, people like you pretend like he never happened. He doesn’t fit your far-right mentality of me, me, me, so why should you ever say he existed at all. But this is kind of like Iran’s Ackmadenijad, who likes to say 6 million Jews weren’t slaughtered by the Nazis, when we all know they were. Denial, denial, denial, and it doesn’t work, Scott.
And we all know President Roosevelt, who was instrumental in beating the Nazis, happened as well, and what a true hero he was to the American way of life. He saved it, Scott, and for that reason alone, he’s lovingly living deep in the American political psyche and probably always will be.
And if you can remember, he was called “socialist” as well, even “communist,” and who do you think were his primary political opponents throughout his entire, very long, and very successful presidency? Any guesses? That’s right, it was your party of “No, No, No” that tried to stop him in everything he did, like creating our beloved Social Security. But they couldn’t, Scott, because the American voters then were much smarter than the dummies in your party, and they won, and we won, and we’re all a great nation today because of it.
Our President Obama has said repeatedly that he has no interest in running our automobile or any industry, and the sooner we can get out of them with healthy ones left in our wake, the better. And, my friend, that’s not socialism. That kind of attitude and temporary-but-necessary fix was not socialism when President Roosevelt did it, and it’s not socialism now. So BIG GOVERNMENT DEFINITELY HAS ITS PLACE!
And what our president is trying to do with health care isn’t socialism either, even with a poll-approved public option. When you stop and think that all of those Repubs in Congress are getting their very excellent health care straight from the government, and that it’s far superior to anything us underlings out here get from the greedy health care industry, then I don’t think there’s a problem, even in their minds.
If it’s not “socialism” when they get it – and it’s not – then it’s OK for the rest of us to have an alternative to the profit-motivated health care industry that loves to deny people basic coverage for pre-existing conditions, that kicks very sick people off the rolls to their certain deaths, and which jacks up already-high premiums annually to make their big bottom lines even bigger.
But you’re still calling it “socialism,” Scott, and I think I finally have a taste of what our great President Roosevelt went through when he heroically saved us, and why. Today’s Republican Party is the same one that fought him tooth-and-nail decades ago and lost for the very same reasons it’s losing now. So it’s One in Five, Scott, and that’s way down from what it was even a short time ago. Like I said, my friend, your party is in trouble. Buh-bye!
Tom Middleton
October 21st, 2009
5:41 pm
Scott, the stimulus wasn’t meant to be a panacea. It was only meant to prime the economic pump, and in that regard, it’s had a positive effect.
Many economists both here and abroad thought it should have been much larger, but President Obama chose the smaller, more conservative approach, knowing that a second stimulus might be necessary. I sure hope that learns him once and for all, goshdarnit!
Scott
October 22nd, 2009
8:47 am
You say that it is temporary huh? I will believe it when I see it. You know that it will NOT be temporary. Social Security was supposed to ALWAYS be there for us, correct? That was how it was written. What happened to it? BANKRUPT. It’s so exciting knowing that I get to contribute so much of my money every paycheck to something that I will NEVER get to enjoy because the well dried up. What happened to it? Where did all of this money go? Forgive me for sounding pessimistic when you say that these stimuluses, laden with pork that have not kept the economy going, have not created jobs, and were only added in there so that the Dems could satisfy their voters’ interests. Didn’t Obama say he was going to go line-by-line through the bill and remove the pork, remove the parts that do not produce jobs? Didn’t he? What happened to it TOM? What happened? And you want more money to be printed to further devalue the dollar? Before we think about giving out another stimulus, why don’t we release the funds scheduled to go out next year which conveniently scheduled during an election year? And you say that I and Republicans are only thinking about myself. How do explain that TOM?
Seriously, stop drinking the Obama Kool Aid. His economic policies do not and will not work. Please tell the whole story about Limbaugh BTW. When he said that he wanted him to fail, he said that if he is going to move forward with Socialist policies, then he wanted them to fail. Why? Because, he, like, everybody else who has a clue, understands that his Socialist plans, are going to put this country in danger. Obama is nothing more than a puppet of George Soros. Soros loves it because he making money off of this Presidency and enjoys seeing this country become more like Europe.
If you think that this country will sit back and cast a vote for a Democrat next year when:
-unemployment is still at 10%
-when the dollar value is lower than a peso
-when we are still engaged in wars that Obama said we would be out of
-when the American public are pissed off because their Congressman voted for a wreckless healthcare bill without reading it
-when their Congressman voted for a cap and trade bill without reading it
-when everybody starts realizing that they do not have as much money because of tax hikes and the results of cap and trade and healthcare become more prevalent in their minds,YOU ARE NUTS!!!
Last year was an anomaly People wanted change. They turned to Obama because he pandered to so many different people for votes. One person may have voted for him because they just wanted to believe we would be out of Iraq. Another one might have voted because they believed that he would actually follow through on his promise to bring everybody together, televised by CSPAN, to reform our healthcare system. Those same people, after seeing that he has done NOTHING, won’t make the same mistake again. But, hey keep believing. Even though his poll number are mirroring Carter and Congress’ approval ratings are the lowest ever, keep believing that Americans will vote for these clowns again.
Tom Middleton
October 22nd, 2009
6:52 pm
Oh, yeah, Scott, so you’re suggesting that the American voters are going back to the policies, values, and major misdirections of Dubya next election? I mean, do you really believe that’s going to happen?
Your opinion of us voters out here is yet another reason why your party is growing weaker. We’re not the dummies you seem to be praying to God we become by 2010 or beyond. (You do believe in God, don’t you?)
Your party grew weaker and lost the political war during President Roosevelt’s administration, because the voters didn’t become the dummies it wanted them to become. And, Scott, we won’t do it now either. And why didn’t you mention his administration in your last diatribe against all things good??
It’s like I said, President Roosevelt doesn’t exist in your political mentality, because he was extremely successful doing all the great things he did, based upon all the true American values your party spends every single day fighting to the death.
“Me, me, me” is not going to be the operating philosophy anymore, Scott. The American people know that the only way our incredibly wonderful country can be what our Founders intended, is together.
They’re tired of all the divisiveness in Washington – why they elected President Obama in the first place. But the fact that your party won’t go along with anything that doesn’t resemble your tried-and-failed policies of old, is NOT his fault. Scott, it’s yours.
We’re not the big dummies your party thinks we are, or like you, Rush, and all the little Rushers want us to become. We want success for our country, Scott, not failure, and your party of “NO, NO, NO” has proven decisively that it’s far, far better at creating massive problems than solving them. And your suggesting that we voters out here are going to suddenly decide that Dubya was right after all? Really? Scott, you’re the nutty one!
If you think we’re going to return to the insanity of the last eight years because you don’t like President Obama, then good luck, dude. You’re living in the same unreality that Dubya did when he was president, but like you said, we’ll see.
I personally want to see this president succeed, not fail like you and Rush want. And the fact that Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with the policies and massive failure of Dubya’s administration is a really GOOD thing, Scott, in spite of what you think. (Do you want the Bush stats? I’m trying to be kind here.)
“No, No, No” simply isn’t going to cut it anymore. We Americans resolutely rejected these kinds of Washington antics last November, but apparently you and yours didn’t get the memo. (Hint: Your leadership hasn’t put it in a talking point yet.) And we also know that President Obama was handed a boat load of trouble from your failed Republican presidency, and that he won’t be able to overcome it in a wish and a day.
It took eight years to create these massive results of failure, and as smart as he is, President Obama and Congress could not have possibly overcome them in nine months or less. It took President Roosevelt some time, and it will take us some time as well.
But we’ll get there, Scott. And when we do, we’ll be the democratic, egalitarian America that the world loves and wants to do business with once again. And once again, we’ll be that “greatest nation in the history of the world” that takes care of it’s own, not just the wealthiest among us, and which cares enough about our founding constitutional principles to actually live them for a change.
You know, your Dubya tried to undermine them in the name of party greed and that “permanent conservative majority” he, Rove, and Cheney wanted to subordinate us all to forever. But Scott, America was born in opposition to such shenanigans, and we’re not going to return to them in 2010, 2012, or 20ever, except in your dreams.
But dream away, dude. Under president Obama, this is still America, and we’re still about freedom, and you can still try to be anything you want. But you might want to think about one thing before going forward: Your dreams are most people’s nightmares, and when and if you ever realize this, there will be room in the Democratic Party for you and anyone else in your party of “NO, NO, NO, even Rush.
But with Rush’s $400 million contract to spew his venom and malcontent, I’m pretty sure we won’t be seeing him anytime soon. Getting that much money to be that stupid, guarantees he won’t be getting smarter very quickly at all – if ever.
But you, Scott, I think you know better than most of what you’re saying. Oh, and the stimulus has produced jobs and more are on the way. And if you could have kept Dubya out of the Social Security Trust Fund, everything there would be fine. See? You’re learning already!
But you can keep listening to Rush in hopes of getting him to share some of his massive wealth with you, or you can get busy helping us make America great again. By this time next year, I believe even you will be thinking more democratic. And if you are, then other Republicans will be as well.
And if they are, then you know what the polls will be saying about the next month’s elections. Trust me, Scott: WE ARE MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and you can join with us now or join with us later, but I promise you (and I hope you will remember this conversation), you will join us. We’re the winners, Scott, not your weakening party of “NO, NO, NO”!