Lions Coach Up Steelers on Stimulus Package
A preliminary note: The National Football League season isn't over yet. There is still the all-star game, called the Pro Bowl, to be played this Sunday. Therefore, football references and analogies are still permitted. Thank you.
More than 100 million people watched the Pittsburgh Steelers win the Super Bowl last Sunday. The Steelers are one of the great stories, and great organizations, in sport, having won their sixth Super Bowl championship, the most of any team.
The good people of Detroit, however, got something a little extra courtesy of WDIV, Channel 4, the local affiliate of NBC, the network broadcasting the game. While former Detroit Lions player and former Lions president Matt Millen was on camera as part of the network's game commentary team, the station ran this "crawl" underneath the picture: "Matt Millen was president of the Lions for the worst eight-year run in the history of the NFL. Knowing his history with the team, is there a credibility issue as he now serves as an analyst for NBC Sports? ..."
Until he was fired last September, Millen presided over a team that went on to lose every game last season. The Lions went 0-16, setting records for futility. (Because of the length of the NFL season, that's a record, topping the Tampa Bay Bucs, who went 0-14 in 1976, the year the Florida team joined the league.) Millen's teams won only 31 games while losing 84 since he took over in 2001. Of course, the TV station got lots of cheers from the bleachers for that one from columnists and fans alike.
Imagine if Millen or the Lions thought they had something to teach the Steelers about winning. Do you think any Steeler player, employee or fan would take what seriously what the Lions had to say? Wouldn't the Steeler owners, the Rooney family, think there would be a "credibility issue?"
And so it is with the Republican senators, led by Mitch McConnell and John McCain, who show up every day on television to blather about the urgent need to have their ideas incorporated into the stimulus/investment bill now making its way through the Congress or else they won't support it. The House passed its version last week, the Senate has the bill on the floor now. The McConnell-McCain mantra is standard stuff - there has to be less spending and more tax cuts, or else the bill will fail, dragging the new Obama administration with it. Never mind the economic consequences.
Calling Matt Millen. Let's take a brief look at the Republican economic record since 2001. President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion. The deficit is on its way to $1 trillion. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Bush Administration had predicted a surplus of $710 billion by now. Does anyone think there's a similar "credibility issue" here?
It's fairly easy to track how the budget that started out with a surplus became a gaping money pit. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, here's how the increases break down. Spending increases on things we can control, called discretionary spending, accounted for six percent of the increase. Increases in entitlements, like food stamps, Medicare or Social Security, added another 12 percent. Spending for defense, aka the wasted war, made up 40 percent. And the biggest reason for the spiraling deficit, accounting for 42 percent of the change - the tax cuts enacted by the Republican Congress, pushed by the Republican Administration.
Tax cuts were an all-purpose mantra. Have a budget surplus? Cut taxes and return the money to the people. Have a deficit? Cut taxes and stimulate the economy. That the taxes were weighted toward the wealthiest tax payers and corporations didn't matter. Here's the bottom line: The Republican prescription for the economy failed. That's why we're in the mess we're in now. The war poured trillions of non-productive dollars down a rat hole. The tax cuts produced nothing for the economy but a bunch of rich people, some of whom are proceeding to continue to rip us off again.
It's not like spending a few million dollars and the end result is, say, a bridge. Building the bridge puts people to work, and then the bridge helps people and good flow throughout an area. Even fixing the National Mall (where the Washington Monument is located, not a bunch of stores), for a relatively little $20 million, would pump up businesses of sod growers and landscapers, with the end result being a little patch of Washington of which millions of visitors could be proud. The House Republicans wanted that bit taken out of the $816 billion bill, and the nice Democrats complied. Lot of good it did them.
The people responsible for this mess, the Republican leadership, are now front and center demanding that their conditions be made part of the bill. We saw this act in the House last week. The leadership and President Obama, trying to make nice, gave a little and got nothing in return.
Now, the Republican senators are producing Act II of the same silly play that would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Doesn't anyone think this team has a little "credibility issue" of its own? How can anyone take these guys seriously on economic policy? Agree or disagree on their philosophy; their record is demonstrably terrible. They are the Detroit Lions of Congress. They led their team to a totally defeated season, wrecking not the hopes of a devoted fan base, but the dreams of millions of people, tens and tens of thousands of whom are losing jobs every week. They obviously have no shame, because they keep insisting on the same old, tired policies that haven't worked and they don't want to admit it. They avert their eyes from the scoreboard, insisting their team has produced better results.
The Democrats, the Steelers, have a demonstrably better record. The economy performs better when Democrats are in office, even if they have to sacrifice themselves for the better good. That's what happened with the 1993 tax increases needed to cure the Bush I recession, which the Republicans didn't support, but on which they ran to take away Congress from the Democrats who saved the jobs of thousands of their constituents.
By all means, let the woeful Detroit Lions call the plays for the world champion Steelers. The parade would be in Phoenix, not in the Steel City. But it is our economy, not a game, that is at stake, and those serious about fixing the economy shouldn't have to give in to a team with a failed game plan. Keith and Rachel, let's see you run a "credibility issue" crawl across the screen when the Republicans defend their tanking of the economic investment bill: "Given their economic track record, these senators have a credibility issue on this legislation." No one else would have the wherewithall to do it.
|
Senate Stimulus Bill (Full Text)
Updated on February 8 The pdf is now available. * * * * * Updated on February 8 The compromise Senate stimulus bill has been...
|
|
Obama says differences shouldn't delay stimulus
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Monday that "very modest differences" over a massive package to revive the economy should not delay its swift passage,...
|
|
Obama White House Losing Patience On Stimulus
Underscoring the reality that GOP opposition to the stimulus seems firmly entrenched, the Obama administration mounted a more aggressive stance in favor of the recovery...
|
|
STD Money, Recovery.gov, The Patriot Act: HuffPost Readers Dig Through The Stimulus
More money to battle STDs. Recovery.gov stripped out. A nod to the Patriot Act. Huffington Post readers have taken a preliminary look at the Senate...
|
|
Top Dem Senator: "Hundreds Of Billions More" Needed For Bank Bailouts
Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, warned Monday that the financial sector would need "hundreds of billions more" in federal dollars before the...
|
|
Senate Looks To Boost Mass Transit, Highway In Stimulus
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Tuesday to give a tax break to new car buyers, setting aside bipartisan concerns over the size of an economic...
|
|
Where Is The Stimulus Shock And Awe?
During a November 25 press conference, then President-elect Obama promised "a new spirit of ingenuity," declaring that the "old ways of Washington simply can't meet...
|
|
Stimulus, Yes; Bank Bailout II, No
If Obama does his job he will mobilize public opinion and isolate Republicans who would rather sink the economy than give a Democratic president legislative success.
|
|
Economic Stimulus: Investing in Vets Delivers a Huge Bang for the Buck
As the Senate begins to debate the stimulus package this week, our elected leaders must ensure that any plan fully supports the newest generation of veterans and their families.
|
|
Bipartisanship Fetishism vs. What's Best for America: Obama Needs to Choose
At tonight's press conference, CBS's Chip Reid asked President Obama about whether, given the lack of bipartisanship on the stimulus bill, the White House was "moving away" from its "emphasis on bipartisanship?" Obama replied that his "bottom line when it comes to the recovery package" is: does it create or save jobs? That's good to hear because the president's actions over the last couple of weeks have left many wondering whether bipartisanship, rather than what's best for America, has been his priority. Perhaps there will come a day when the Venn diagrams of the Republican Party and the national interest actually intersect. But, at the moment, we find ourselves with a GOP whose leaders believe, among other things, that government jobs are not real jobs, and that Obama's stimulus plan is "the socialist way." Hard for bipartisanship to flourish in this kind of atmosphere.
|
|
Billionaire For A Day: A More Entertaining Economic Stimulus Package
Let's do something to capture all Americans attention and by doing so make the economic stimulus package real to all of us: 800 Americans will each win a billion dollars.
|
|
Palin's Facebook Page: Opposes Obama's Stimulus Plan
We learn on Facebook that Palin has "serious concerns" with Obama's stimulus package. Say what?
|
|
Just imagine: What if McCain Had Won the Election and Obama had Shafted him During the Stimulus Debate?
Um, are McCain's feelings after losing an election the big question on people's minds in the nation? I think the stimulus package is the focus of the country right now, don't you?
|
|
Stimulate Me!
Experts seem relatively unified, if such a thing is possible, on the issue of direct economic stimulus to every taxpayer. They're against it.
|
|
Where's Ross Perot When You Need Him?
I'm ready for a little old fashioned Ross Perot specification of the expected outcomes of the stimulus package. This is what we call in education a "teachable moment."
|
|
Rahm Throws Pelosi Under The Bus To Save Stimulus Bill
The story of the morning seems to be that the Obama team is unhappy with Nancy Pelosi and the House committee chairs for delivering up such a liberal, pork-laden bill that they themselves really had nothing to do with.
|
|
Our Twin Crises
That we are unable to manage a functioning economy or deal with climate change because rapacious Wall Street traders have disproportionate political clout is a measure of our political dysfunction.
|
|
Creating Jobs Is Not "Wasteful"
America voted for a change of direction last November, not more of the same. Republicans should listen to the American people and work in a bi-partisan fashion to help get our country on the road to recovery.
|
|
Oh, About That "End" of the Obama Honeymoon ...
Where Obama may have made a mistake is in being too substantively accommodating with people who are basically not going to support him except in the event of an extraterrestrial invasion.
|
|
Patriotic Extortion
Imagine if the Democrats had not pre-capitulated to the Republicans on the stimulus bill. Imagine if they had forced the Republicans to actually mount a filibuster.
|
|
Steele Crazy After All This Year
We are witnessing, not so much the collapse of the Republican Party, as its slide into insanity. What was the GOP's great accomplishment last week? A show of "unity" enough to block the first stimulus package.
|
|
Command and Control?
At a time when the country is virtually pleading with him to exert command and control, he has yielded that role to congressional partisans that the public doesn't quite know and almost certainly doesn't trust.
|
|
Why the Stimulus is Needed, Part II
Given the decreases in personal consumption expenditures and gross private domestic investment, what are the chances of the consumer spending again or business investing again?
|
|
House vs. Senate Stimulus Bills
Some highlights: The House version would spend $60 billion more on education -- the Senate version adds more than $100 billion for tax cuts to individuals and families.
|
|
A Better Stimulus for the Economy
The problem with our economy is not weak spending, which is just a symptom of our predicament. The root problem is lack of confidence in the future.
|
|
The Truth About the Stimulus Package
Until other countries are willing to do their share to stimulate the global economy, the Obama administration is right to lift our boat first.
|
|
Operation Zero Cred
The GOP with Joe the Plumber on the Hill this week to discuss the economy. They should be summarily shut out of this process -- whether or not the president wants them out.
|
|
|
Stimulus Package: If You Jump Halfway Across a Chasm You Fall Into the Abyss
If we are going to spend two trillion dollars (and most likely more) trying to deal with the economic crisis, shouldn't we do it right?
|
|
Change vs. Bipartisanship: What Happens When You Throw a Bipartisan Party and Half the Guest List Stays Home?
The problem with a message of bipartisanship is that it makes it very difficult to tell the story of why things are so bad that we need dramatic change.
|
|
Delusional or Just Cynical?
A good example of the "frothing at the mouth" reaction to the stimulus plan is a blog penned by Jonathan Tobin, Executive Editor of Commentary.
|
|
|
Obama Financial Team to Taxpayers: You'll Get Nothing, and Like It
There's nothing that prevents the public from getting their fair share of any future bank profits appropriate to the high risk investment they are being forced to make.
|
|
No, Seriously: Republicans Don't Get It
Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want.
|
|
Obama's Wake-Up Call
Even as unemployment hits 7.6 percent and shows no signs of slowing any time soon, the GOP is falling over itself to protect the ostentatious privileges and prerogatives of a few financial potentates.
|
|
Selling Stimulus
What the administration needs, and what its senior advisers proved so adept at during the campaign, is a simpler, more compelling, campaign-style message for what this legislation is really about.
|
|
A New Movement
There is a movement to strip billions of dollars from the stimulus bill led by Ben Nelson of Omaha (whose Democratic status is debatable) and Susan Collins (Republican) of Maine.
|
|
Energy Self-Reliance and Our Future
You want my opinion on a stimulus plan? Follow Ohio's example and invest in American energy. All of it.
|
|
Stimulating
As muddled as this economic stage may be -- and all major measures taken in crisis usually are -- it is born of the drive to reconstruct and not profiteer, and that alone is progress to applaud.
|
|
Bipartisanship (is) for Dummies
The idea that we can turn this economy around by caving to the feckless demands of those who screwed it up in the first place is utterly bankrupt.
|
|
Obama: Use This And the Jobs Bill Will Pass With a 100 Vote Margin
Our best salesman is Obama. There is no house or senate member who this president cannot roll over.
|
|
|
Obama to Speak Monday Night on Stimulus While Rep. Pete Sessions Says Republicans Are the New Taliban
If the media hadn't acted so irresponsibly the past two weeks and President Obama hadn't tried to be so bipartisan, he might not have had to take to the airwaves, but that's not the case anymore.
|
|
Pulling the Wool Over Our Eyes
The American people elected President Obama in record numbers to lead our country in a new direction, if the Republicans aren't willing to join him, the least they can do is get out of his way.
|
|
Our Phone Calls Are Working, Don't Let Up!
If representatives know that's what their constituents want, they will be both more inclined to keep that critical public investment from the House bill, and act with the speed.
|
|
|
Obama Undermines Jobs Mandate For the Sake of Bipartisanship
Roosevelt had the New Deal, Kennedy had the New Frontier, Johnson had the Great Society, and Obama has...the stimulus plan. An abstract goal with fungible components that valued process above all else.
|
|
Republicans Say They'd Support the "Right" Stimulus Bill, But Stimulus for Them Is Only More Tax Cuts
If you look closely at what the Republicans are saying, this isn't a debate on the merits of this stimulus legislation, but rather another round of policy battles fought during last year's campaign.
|
|
|
Democrats in Congress Need to Learn How to Lead
I am losing patience with congressional Democrats' innate instinct to capitulate, something that has been evident since the November 2006 mid-term elections.
|
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Art,
Here the Democrats and the so-called liberal press and Axelrod, failed Obama, by assuming that this same public who came out to elect Obama could keep their minds' focused on the reason the republicans were rejected. Unfortunately, the republicans continue to prove their resilency by showing that the viewing public has a short memory, and they need to be reminded over and over again about why they decided to hire Obama. The republicans also understand how the media works, the media is now in the entertainment business and they want both Democrats and republicans to watch their product; in spite of the voices they have host their programs; they want all to watch.
The republicans were able to come on and talk about their objections and this media was anxious to import them in all forms to hammer against the popularity of Obama, like some 7th grade science project to see just how strong his numbers would hold up. The republicans knew the media wasn't going to make them prove their objections or even remind them of their failed and incompetent policies, they were going to welcome them and let them throw 'bricks'.
Hopefully, now Obama and his team understands that fighting against the false rhetoric of the republicans is their job, not the job of the irresponsible media which has no illusions about informing the public about the facts or connectin the dots to provide an understanding of the issues.
Why did you have to drag Lions fans into this? Enough already.
1) you have President Obama
2) you have a vast majority in the House
3) you have a decent majority in the Senate
Do it! Like the Nike ad says, "just do it". You said it, cutting taxes has always hurt the economy. The dems don't need one Repub to vote on this stimulus bill. Be the heroes and pass it and lets see what happens.
Clinton raised taxes and look what happened. The increase in taxes everybody paid created the dot.com boom and the economy flourished. Let's see some more of that magic.
It's a little ironic that Detroit is used in this article. Aren't they a microcosm of America the way the dems want it? The unions have healthcare cradle to grave, they get paid in full even when unemployed, all the family leave act and vacation anyone could ever wish for, and over-compensated. It's unfortunate they have to ask the rest of the U S for money to stay afloat and keep their ideas alive.
At least Matt Millan had a respectable, if not pristeen, carreer in pro fotball. Continuing with the football analogies, electing Obama President is like hiring a Pop-Warner coach to run the Detroit Lions.
On the claim that the economy does better with Dems, I agree with those who say that is too symplistic. As others have said, it depends on what the makeup of congress is. Clinton was successful largely because Republicans curbed his spending inclinations. Tragically, they lost their way during the Bush administration. The necessary increase in military spending needed to be but wasn't accompanied by a reduction in domestic spending. This led to the faltering economy which exposed the mortgage fiasco that precipitated our current crisis.
So Coach Art. Why don't your stellar Dems play without the Republicans? Why don't they go ahead and pass the porkulus bill as is. Answer: With Bush gone, they'll need to blame the impending disaster on someone else.
What I see is thinking that's static, doesn't get reevaluated.
If someone is rah rah free market, boo government regulation, for example, the Wall Street meltdown ought to challenge the basics of one's thinking. Doesn't seem to happen much.
Alan Greenspan said "I was wrong." Yes, he was, but hearing someone in Washington say that was so refreshing.
Greetings Art....
Be careful you may offend all of the people of Detroit-they may take offense. You do know that nearly every citizen within the city limits of that great city voted for Obama the current head coach of the Dems. Since you prefer sports analogies lets talk about how the new ball coach is doing inside the Beltway.
The Reinvestment Act's play book had three downs to score with the American people. Now it’s time for the new team to punt and play defense. There are many a wise Democrats who realize that HR 1 and the Senate’s version of HR 1 just may be too risky to elicit the support-they are not comfortable with deepening our debt that could result in hyper inflation with a stagnating economy.
Now let’s talk about the other three fumbles and muffed ball the team had on the field because of poor play calling by the head ball coach-Timothy Geitner, Bill Richardson Nancy Killefer and Tom Daschle. We are in day 15 of an administration, scheduled to last 1460 days. If you equate the time the Obama team has in office to a footballl game they have had 3 turn-overs 1 muffed ball and a turn-over on downs in the first 36 seconds of a regulation game-I think in spite of their record everyone would agree that the Detroit Lions were better than that last season.
Warm regards,
Michael Winters
A Vigilant Patriot
Mike, Ya got it right.
Baloney. For a more accurate football analogy, it's the NFL draft and a couple of players who were on the draft roster are off for personal reasons. Obama has already undone plenty of Miserable Failure executive orders. On that front, the Obama ground game is moving along well, thanks.
Steelers, as in Pittsburgh Steelers, ALWAYS has an S at the end.
Pittsburgher
This is a very poor analogy because it is so simplistic. You liberals like to hang the credit or balme for stuff on whoever was the president at the time. This is kidergarten level analysis. What about the Congress? What about the courts? What about the bureaucrats? It is not just the presdent that has power over what happens. Even the president has to answer to all these other forces of decisionmaking in government.
You guys love to bash say Regan about lowering taxes. But his actual plan was to have also lowered spending. The dem controlled congress at the time blocked that from happening. It always takes two to tango in government.
We're in the financial mess we're in because the Republican-led Congress rubber stamped every proposal Bush asked them to, especially his tax cuts for corporations and fat cats and his exorbitant defense spending. That's not simplistic--it's just the simple truth.
And what about the courts? Last time I checked, the judicial branch had no say in deciding economic policy.
As for Reagan, it wasn't the Democrats who revealed that his supply-side economic theory was a sham, it was his own budget director, David Stockman.
"As for Reagan, it wasn't the Democrats who revealed that his supply-side economic theory was a sham, it was his own budget director, David Stockman."
Whatever...that does not dismiss the fact that the dem controlled congress failed to reduce any spending on anything.....ergo the deficit increased. That is not soley Regan's fault...the DEM congress was culpable too.
The courts can have some influence. For example the Supreme Court declared the Line Item Veto unconstitutional.
Stockman is an enigma. Supply-side economics turned Carter's misery indices around overnight in the 80's. As Bladernr1001 said, the Democratic-controlled congress could not limit spending. Reagan had to go along to get the defense money which ended the cold war. Ironically, Bush followed Reagan's lead in that his tax cuts also stimulated a slumping economy. Ironically, the excess (not all defense) spending created the massive deficits that tainted his legacy as well. Only this time it was a Republican-controlled congress that did him in. And the fact that he didn't do Veto.
W answered to no one other than Cheney. If he didn't like the law, he created signing statements to circumvent the law. His administration's abuse of the Constitution should be prosecuted. The Rethug cabal in Congress were their enablers. They are the party of obstructionism. And you come here to slander liberals? Please........
By the way, this site provides spell check....ya might want to take advantage of that feature.
Hey... How are you! You still pitching the GOP is evil and W trashed the constitution stuff? Come on, I thouhgt (purposely misspelled) I set you straight on all of this :-)
Well thats funny because if you want to talk about trashing the constituion the dems are the run away champions.
The entire welfare state created over the last 50 years is NOT constituional. SS NOT constitutional....Medcare, also NOT constitutional. subsidies to private business...NOT constituional.
The constitution is a limiting document...meaning if it ain't in there the federal government cannot perform the function. There is nothing in there granting the federal government to perform the above functions. And don't give me that stupid preamble arguement.....remember...it is a limiting document. Providing "for the general welfare" did not allow us to get around this.
And, thankfully, Clinton was around to stop the Republican congress from cutting taxes for 8 years. Instead, they were increased, resulting in 22 million jobs and 8 straight years of positive budget balancing to the point that Alan Greenspan was afraid that we would disrupt global economies by paying off our debt too quickly! And, sadly, along came Bush to cut taxes and double our national debt. Surpluses and deficits are year to year budget accounting. Debt is money that is owed and interest is paid on. Deficits add to the debt. Surpluses reduce the debt. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
Sorry, not letting you get away with this one...
Clinton enjoyed the fruits of Regan's tax cuts and cut taxes too... but really he benefited from the internet... it was the dot-com boom (probably the greatest period of private investment into the market in history... it wasn't Clinton, just "bubba got lucky"!
And the republicans made sure that dems did not overpsend.
I have noticed that when the white house and the congress are held by opposing parties we tend ot do the best.
Bladernr1001.
So then why do we have elections? In 2000 and 2004, Republicans run on tax cut, most of it going to the rich. Bush inherited a surplus, low unemployment and within eight years look at the mess we are in? What is it about Republicans that they cannot take responsibility for their failures. By the way Reagan both lowered and raised taxes. No. The analogy was right on the mark. Republicans have no credibility. McCain should shut his mouth because the voters told him what they think of his failed ideas when they elected Obama. It is Obama's turn let us what his program can do for us. Just as you used to say elections must have consequences, time for the Republicans to step aside and let mature people run the government in the interest of the people.
Bush actually inherited a recession. And I do not consider Bush a true conservative. He expanded government just like any good ole liberal dem. So it is the expansion of government model that deos not work. Obama is doomed to failure if he follows this path.
The Repugs controlled Congress from the first midterm elections of Clinton's terms to the last midterm elections of Bush43's terms for a total of 12 years. The Dems only reclaimed Congress in the last two years but have been unable to fix the Repug mess....Now that they have both houses of Congress AND the WH, I say kiss off to the Repugs and let the Dems fix this mess!
For those that still kneel at the Reagan shrine - the best thing he did that had a GOOD long term affect was RAISE taxes on Social Security! All the Republicans ever want are tax cuts. How many corporations don't pay any taxes? If all we've gotten from the Republicans since 2000 were tax cuts and they supposedly work - why the heck are we in the mess that we are currently in? During the election all you heard was Ireland, Ireland Ireland. How about checking out their recent financial troubles. I'm just sick of Republican 'wants' and stupid talking points.
I believe Mr. Brodsky may be a little young to remember that although there was a surplus of $128 billion in 2001, there still was a deficit of $4 trillion or so. Also, let us not forget the 8 greatest years of econmoic expansion in our history which occurred under Ronald Reagan. Taxes were slashed across the board which resulted in 21 million new jobs during his term. Does that sound like Lions to you??
One only has to look at Ireland to see what can happen when you lower taxes AND government spending. Ireland was troubled by poverty and emigration until the early 1990s. These problems disappeared over the course of that decade, which saw the beginning of unprecedented economic growth, in a phenomenon known as the "Celtic Tiger". Over the past two decades, the Irish government has implemented a series of national economic programs designed to curb inflation, ease tax burdens, and reduce government spending.
If this 'stimulus' bill passes in its current form, this will lead to rampant inflation. The money supply grew by $691 billion in '08 and the Dems want to increase it again?
In the short term, this increase in the money supply won't cause inflation, but only counteracts the deflationary effect of all the money that vanished in the meltdown, or went into hiding since. But when confidence returns and that cash comes back into circulation, there'll be too much money chasing too few goods and services - a prescription for rampant inflation.
By leaving the interest rates so low they are preventing inflation - the increase in the money supply counter acts the loss of cash abroad. The stimulus package will not lead to inflation if it's spent properly - on infrastructure. That is what historically boosts economies.
And, so you have your history correct, it was Reaganomics that led directly to the H.W. Bush recession. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not stimulate an economy. It may raise GDP in the short term, but it widens the gap between rich and poor, which is exactly what happened in the '80s and the 2000's. Under Clinton, the taxation was spread much more fair, growing the middle class, pulling people out of poverty and yet the rich still got richer. Everyone did.
As for your theory on the return of confidence, this is why bad debts need to be wiped out first. Don't give the money directly to the banks, help homeowners refinance, clear their personal bad debt. The money gets to the banks anyway. Now the bad debt is gone and the banks have the liquidity to loan more money, increasing production simultaneously with the rise in confidence and consumer spending.
Let's get this straight, using tax-payer backed government jobs does not boost the economy and here's why:
If the government is creating jobs, then who is paying the worker? You and I, that's who. If the government creates the jobs, they're going to need to raise taxes to pay for them. If you raise taxes, that means less money. There should be tax cuts to businesses so businesses can create the jobs.
As for the Bush I recession, that wasn't the fault of Reagan, it was the fault of Bush I who was a socialist (like his son) when it came to economic policy. It was also the fault of the Democratically controlled Congress.
As for the money supply, no one is spending money right now because the consumer confidence level sucks. So, if you add to the money supply (as Congress and the last 2 Presidents have/want) the Govt has been doing (like drunken sailors) without increasing the GDP, you have inflation. The question remains how much?
Actually, by cutting the interest rate, they are trying to get people to either spend money or invest it in the stock market. For too long in this country we have been promoting that it is okay to spend more than you have (remember the Steve Martin famous SNL commercial?). Much like promoting conservation of energy, the government needs to be promoting saving money. Then, the banks will have more money for lending purposes.
I don't understand how you can claim Bush inherited a surplus of $128 billion and a 4 trillion dollar deficit at the same time. And for that wonderful economic expansion under Reagan? Don't forget, he tried to have ketchup classified as a vegetable so it would be cheaper for the schools to feed poor children. He also fired all the air traffic controllers and slashed funding for mental health, which resulted in tens of thousands of mentally ill people turned out of hospitals to become homeless.
But by all means, let Republicans keep beating that same tired old drum.
The $128 billion dollar surplus was for 2001. The $4 trillion refers to the overall deficit at the time. I had to cut some words out due to HP's comment limit.
He fails to understand the difference between the 'national debt' and the 'budget deficit.'
Because Bush did inherit a budget surplus and Bush did inherit a national debt of roughly 4 Trillion dollars; one was operating capital and the other one was total long term debt. Meaning, a family can have at the end of the year a surplus of money after paying their current debts, but still have an outstanding mortgage and other long term obligations which contribute to them being in debt. It does not mean that they don't have assets to liquidate to cover the long term debt, it just means that they have to better plan to keep expenses and spending down to pay off their obligations.
The US under Bush took the opposite approach, and Bush not only squandered the budget surplus he inherited, he increased long term debt by borrowing from overseas to fund much of his spending; calling it prudent when it only kept him from having to have the US taxpayer bankroll his idiotic policies, but in the end having the same effect by pushing the deficit to double of which he began.
Art is square on with his assessment here.
Reagan cut taxes across the board in 1983, yes. He spent the rest of his presidency slowly raising them again, because the government did not have enough money to pay for his expansion of defense spending. The national debt AND the 'budget deficit' (which are two different things, as I will explain below) ballooned to then-record heights under Ronald Reagan's 'conservative' administration.
When you claim there was a 'deficit' in 2001, this is in error. There was a national debt of four trillion dollars when President Bush took office, yes, but there was no deficit. A budget surplus and a budget deficit cannot co-exist. A 'budget deficit' is when the government pays out, in one year, more money than it collects in taxes and bond sales. A 'budget surplus' is when a government collects more money than it pays out. President Clinton's federal budgets, during his second term, were balanced and the national debt did not grow. The budget surplus could have been used to reduce the national debt. Instead, it was spent. Then President Bush's budget deficits increased exponentially every year of his administration's two terms and the records have exploded the ones set by Ronald Reagan.
Please check your facts and terminology when making statements of this sort. Incorrect terminology and sloppy arithmetic are part of the problem of the past Republican administration and the current Republican opposition.
I want to correct an accounting/economic error in your post, as someone else has already addressed the more political errors.
A 'budget surplus' and a 'budget deficit' are incompatible. A budget deficit occurs when one spends more money than one has available, in a given period of time. A budget surplus occurs when one has more money available than one spends. The two cannot exist simultaneously, a surplus requires there to be no deficit and a deficit renders a surplus impossible.
There was a national debt of 4 trillion dollars in 2001, yes. It is considerably larger now. President Bush and his fellow neoconservatives, in the wake of September 11, used national tragedy to end the congressional debate on whether to use the surplus for debt reduction, new spending, or some of both in favor of aggressive spending both on military action and on a host of domestic programs to which there was unified opposition from liberal Democrats and some conservative Republicans before the attacks.
The national debt is now over $11 trillion!
Lee--
There you go again re-writing history. You forgot to mention that Reagan also gave us the biggest budget deficit in history- a deficit which was larger than all the combined deficits accumulated by all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter. Most of the jobs created were low paying service jobs whereas the manufacturing jobs, except for the Military Industrial complex, declined drastically, especially in the industrial cities in the North East and North central. The money supply did not grow. Rather, the United States became debtor nation borrowing from Asia and the Middle East. So, please stop making things up.
Democrats are genius in economy. Genius like Barney Frank, for example
To continue the Football analogy...
You read a statement by another author that a team has had great success over a number of years and you reply with, "I think one of their corner backs is not a great player."
One counter example of your opinion of one individual does not invalidate the statement about the team.
The media is a tool for selling ad time. It serves corporate interests. Why on Earth would MSNBC or CNN let progressives on the air to tell the truth when Republicans delivering their pre-processed talking points and obfuscation works much better to whip up partisan zealotry and keep people stupid and easily led?
We have entirely too many analysts writing about personalities and labeling parties and not nearly enough discussing the ideas.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if the best solution comes from the Green party. Let's just hear the ideas out and evaluate THOSE.
"That's what happened with the 1993 tax increases needed to cure the Bush I recession"
I am curious what the logic behind that statement is. That balancing the budget brought interest rates down? Seems like a stretch to me. And I don't think the timing works. In the long run the increases made the tax burden a bit more progressive, which is good for long term growth, but I don't see how they cured the existing recession. I thought we were all Keynesians again? I guess we are when it suits us. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but if anything I would say Clinton's balanced budget policies are part of the cause of the last recession (not the current one). Where does this debt phobia come from? The national debt is only around 40% of GDP. That is pretty low. At the end of WWII it was well over 100% of GDP and we had no credit issues. There is tons of room to run the deficits we need to fix the current recession.
I can clearly understand the reference to the Detroit Lions to the Republican Party. Yet I'd equate the Democratic Party to this year's Kansas City Chiefs or St. Louis Rams at 2-14.
Hell, Obama only beat McCain by a touchdown.
Let's face it- the Democratic Party is currently run by idiots. My proof? Pick yesterday's paper, today's paper, or tomorrow's- doesn't really matter. They've spent so many years complaining they have no idea how to actual do anything.
The stimulus package? Total BS that you'll be paying for well through this administration and half a dozen more I suspect.
Thanks for clearly demonstrating that you did not read the column you are commenting on.
Obama only beat McCain by a touchdown...LOL at you!! Obama flipped VA (!), NC (!), IN (!!), OH, FL *and* NV from red to blue! Obama blew out McCain AND covered the "over"! I like football analogies, and try this one on for size O water boy: the election was over by the 3rd quarter!
And as another poster noted, you do not appear to have bothered reading the above article.
"Hell, Obama only beat McCain by a touchdown."
That and the extra point is 7 more points than Bush won by - and George stood up and called it a mandate - that he could do anything he pleased because the people have spoken. That scale makes Obama the supreme ruler of the universe.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
