Sunday, February 08, 2009

Stimulus Question

President Obama's criticism of Republicans went something like this: Republicans got us in this financial mess. Bush never vetoed a spending bill. Now they are opposing the spending that will stimulate the economy.

OK, BO is correct that Republicans spent too much and that their current obstructionism exposes the inconsistency of Republicans on spending.

But if excessive government spending got us into this mess, why would an even greater amount of spending get us out of it?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excessive government spending did not get us into this particular mess. Because of the asset-backed securities fraud/fiascos of the last decade, and combined with the global financial fraudulent packaging of bad money, money is not available for businesses to borrow or to lend. Cash flow is an oxymoronic concept right now. This stimulus was supposed to flood the market with cash to thereby stimulating businesses to lend and borrow. But BO and his buddies are spending it on pork instead. Politics as usual.

Anonymous said...

No, the vampire state as run by the people of the financial industies have plundered the wallets of the entire world and brought the globe to the brink of financial collapse.

When will you people speak the truth on free racine?

Anonymous said...

Vampire state? Plundering wallets. Been watching Pirates of the Carribbean and Twilight, it sounds like. I recommend watching Superman or Batman next so you can instruct us next on how to save our globe from the brink.

Anonymous said...

Excess greed bundled and camaflauged high risk investment vehicles. With inadequate regulation in place these camaflauged risky investments spread through and poisoned the finacial system. The process began during the Clinton years and accelerated during the Bush terms. This has driven a massive credit crisis in the banking sector which the Bush administration attempted to hastily address with the TARP, an additional $700B on top of the huge annual deficit the Bush adminstration and Republican congress had already run up by cutting taxes while fighting a 2-front war and increasing discretionary spending. Also worrisome, the projected oncoming shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare.

Republican credibility is more than a bit shakey on budget issues just now - 6 years of borrow and spend, followed by an emergency double the deficit TARP during the Republican administration's final months.

The contents of the current "stimulus" bill deserve scrutinizing - but for those who favor doing nothing, what excatly do you believe will stop the economic spiral downwards that is currently being propelled by huge numbers of job losses?

I do not envy the Obama adminsitration. It seems to me they must try to determine the right amount and type of stimulus and push it through in hopes they have provided enough to head off continued severe recession, deflation, and a "lost decade". If they can pull that off, then they must be ready to pivot to deal with inflation and the high interest rates which are likely to follow.

So you have two fundamental choices, 1) do nothing and risk collapse of the finacial/banking system and a depression, current unemployment trends suggest it could, or 2)attempt to stimulate the economy - participate in the process, since we're signing the next couple generations up for debts to pay, let your reps know what sort of stimulus makes sense that is worth these tremendous costs.

Anonymous said...

Vampire State and Plunder - one could also say the 'casino economy'.

Do you read much? There are many economic books written on these very terms...

PLUNDER: Danny Schechter’s Investigation into Our Economic Calamity http://www.newsdissector.com/Plunder/

Vampire State, Fred L. Block, Book http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Vampire-State/Fred-L-Block/e/9781565841949

Thomas Croft: There Was a Reason They Called It the Casino Economy http://www.counterpunch.org/croft07032003.html

Urban Pioneer said...

In the first 6 years of Bush and the Republicans controlling the House, And occasional Senate Control. The Rep's spent too much, I agree, but they didn't spend at rates or Ratios like the Dem's had when they held control of the Purse strings for 40 years. And all of the deficit spending over 6 years didn't add up to as much as the 2 years the Dem's have given us, and now they are proposing nearly 2 Trillion in Deficits for just this YEAR!!
When Reagan was elected in 1980, the Whole Budget was about 600 billion dollars, by the time he left office it was just about a Trillion, for the budget not the deficit!!
So even if the R's spend too much the Dem's win the race hands down for overspending, it's embarrassing!!