How much is Obama's job plan going to cost?

Mr Neutron said:

So he is just "rolling the dice" at this point and hoping that things will change? Bernanke hasn't got a clue. Geithner has been quiet.
What was that old saying about repeating the same actions and expecting different results?

Click to expand...

The thing is, is that stimulus is what we need - he's just a a lawyer, not an economist and is looking at this through some sort of political strategy rather than looking at the economics. I agree, he is repeating the same mistakes - as he's already pushed one inadequate stimulus bill through...

Mr Neutron said:

So he is just "rolling the dice" at this point and hoping that things will change? Bernanke hasn't got a clue. Geithner has been quiet.
What was that old saying about repeating the same actions and expecting different results?

Click to expand...

isnt that filed next to
"Throwing out the baby with the bath water"?

hazyintentions said:

The difference between the two is conjecture, the only thing that matters is results, and guess what I don't see any results.

Click to expand...

We have plenty of results, congress passed a whole lot of stuff that was "record" filibustered in the Senate.

Can't have results when nothing is being done.... or at best done half ass.

mame said:

he's just a a lawyer, not an economist and is looking at this through some sort of political strategy rather than looking at the economics.

Click to expand...

So, his only interest is to get re-elected even at the cost of the economy?

Mr Neutron said:

So, his only interest is to get re-elected even at the cost of the economy?

Click to expand...

Potentially, which puts him in the same boat as the Republicans in a way. There is still a difference, because Republican policies (read: Austerity) will actually weaken the economy; Obama's 300B package will help, although like I said it is not enough - and political realities will make adequate stimulus harder to achieve because of it... which is why I think this is a mistake.

He may just be postering for the elections, knowing this package wont pass, and with a big enough victory in 2012 he could then freely pursue a real stimulus package... but unless Democrats win the house back in 2012 Obama will not have the courage to fight for a larger more comprehensive package, and it is his apparent absence of courage that really disappoints me.

mame said:

Interest rates are at historic lows and our debt to gdp ratio has been much higher before. Hell, Japan's debt to GDP has been as high as 200%! We have plenty of room to borrow now. Besides that, reaching full employment - even if it's achieved via massive short term government spending - is the absolute best move the government could be making in the short to medium term for our deficits; At full employment the White house projects that our deficit would be 600 billion, which assumes the wars are still going on and the bush tax cuts continue... what are our current deficits atm? 1.4 trillion? So we could go from 1.4 Trillion deficits per year to ~600B per year largely just by reaching full employment (also, the deficit is partially inflated by the first stimulus which is being paid off almost entirely in the last couple fiscal years).

Also, the largest holders of US public debt are US institutions (mostly the Federal reserve, big banks, etc) - not China; I'm pretty sure China is our single largest foriegn debt holder, though.

Click to expand...

You are correct, our debt to GDP is I believe at it's lowest since like 1941. But to cover the debt we need new taxpayers, AKA growth in GDP, something that as of now is not in the foreseeable future.

mame said:

Potentially, which puts him in the same boat as the Republicans in a way.

Click to expand...

How so? If the economy improves, he gets re-elected but you've already admitted that what he proposes is not going to work. So what is his motive?

mame said:

There is still a difference, because Republican policies (read: Austerity) will actually weaken the economy; Obama's 300B package will help,

Click to expand...

Purely conjecture on your part.

mame said:

He may just be postering for the elections, knowing this package wont pass, and with a big enough victory in 2012 he could then freely pursue a real stimulus package...

Click to expand...

If his plan is not approved, how is he going to have ANY victory in 2012? After he is voted out he can pursue any kind of stimulation that he desires.

mame said:

but unless Democrats win the house back in 2012 Obama will not have the courage to fight for a larger more comprehensive package, and it is his apparent absence of courage that really disappoints me.

Click to expand...

Thank you for being candid.

I tried the Home Version of the Republican economic Plan
I maxed out the credit cards
Declared a crisis and blamed our debt on my wife
Cut spending Not mine only the Wifes
Then took a much lower paying job
My bills are piling up. Why?

You forgot to put your kids to work and file for unemployement

dukeanthony said:

I tried the Home Version of the Republican economic Plan
I maxed out the credit cards
Declared a crisis and blamed our debt on my wife
Cut spending Not mine only the Wifes
Then took a much lower paying job
My bills are piling up. Why?

Click to expand...

Apparently, you didn't get the memo: Personal economics cannot be compared to national economics.

Mr Neutron said:

Apparently, you didn't get the memo: Personal economics cannot be compared to national economics.

Click to expand...

In this case it can
When you cut cut cut Revenue
You get a
Broke broke broke Goverment

It's not me that suggested that. It was your komrade keynesians.

I dont like household analogies either but it doesnt change the facts; fiscal expansion is expansionary and fiscal contraction is indeed contractionary.

CNNMoney seems to be thinking along the same lines, the stimulus will indeed be far too small, for political reasons:

"The kick to growth is going to be pretty small. It will add substantially less than 1% to GDP growth in 2012," said Nigel Gault, the chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight.

Click to expand...

...

The simulative potential of the plan is hindered by another factor: A majority of the plan's spending is needed just to continue current law -- something that will provide no boost.

According to a draft proposal of the plan, $120 billionwould be spent to extend the payroll tax cut that has boosted the size of workers' paychecks this year. And $50 billion would be spent on unemployment insurance.

The expiration of those programs could slow the economy. But at the same time, their extension will not provide any additional stimulus.
"You don't get any extra kick from those things. It just means you avoid the drag of their expiration," Gault said. "That's not going to jumpstart anything."

That leaves only $130 billion in new spending left on the table for roads, infrastructure and aid to states.

Why so little? Politics.

"My suspicion is that economists within the administration are saying the same things about the size of the package. The president's judgment is probably guided by political factors," said Burtless.

Click to expand...

I feel dirty for saying this

But there needs to be an end to unemployment insurance.I have had 5 jobs in the last 18 months. First job I took paid 5 bucks an hour less than what I made before. In other words 80 bucks more a week than unemployment would pay me. I collected 3 weeks unemployment total. There are way too many people sitting on their ass becuase they wont take a job that pays the same of slightly less than unemployment (or slightly more)

yet I went to an interview and was told the most impressive thing on my resume was I didnt have a 2 year hole in it like the other applicants. I got the job

Saw an interesting stat recently that surprised me. Maybe you know of it already. Turns out that halfway through Reagan's first term we had the highest unemployment rate ever -- 10.8 percent. I am sure it wasn't Reagan's fault then and it isn't Obama's fault now.

There is plenty of debate to be had on what to do to fix things (a futile endeavor imo), but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how we got here. Huge tax cuts, two wars not paid for, more tax cuts in spite of said wars, out of control spending including (or especially) entitlements, financial crisis precipitated in large part to unscrupulous lenders, outright lies to investors...there's plenty more.

Point is, there is plenty of blame to go around for where we are. Most of it was inevitable by the time Obama took office. The way I see it, his opposition have basically two major beefs: stimulus and health care.

As for the stimulus, I remember those days well. Everybody was worried what would happen. It is obvious that it was not as successful as we all hoped, but I personally believe that our condition would have been much worse without it. You can also argue about the specifics of all the money that was spent, and I would be right there with you. Bailouts used for acquisitions and bonuses, etc. They had to do something though. And the fact is, Congress went along with it.

The country is pretty evenly split on health care, as it is on almost everything. We are so evenly split on everything that I truly believe there will be no end to the partisanship and animosity. What you see is what you get for the forseeale future. Anyway, back to health care. I happen to agree with what was done, and in fact would back even more like a single payer system. But I can see why many would not favor it. Again, Congress voted for it. Another congress will likely butcher it (not to mention court challenges). Then we'll be back to out of control health care costs because the uninsured to to ERs for toothaches.

It just isn't fixable any more.

One claim I've seen by the right that I've never seen them prove (because they cant) is that the stimulus prolonged and/or worsened the recession... That is just simply not true, as the stimulus did save/create ~3 million jobs - so there was a net positive effect.

I challenge anyone willing to present empirical evidence that the stimulus made us WORSE off... is there such evidence?

mame said:

One claim I've seen by the right that I've never seen them prove (because they cant) is that the stimulus prolonged and/or worsened the recession... That is just simply not true, as the stimulus did save/create ~3 million jobs - so there was a net positive effect.

I challenge anyone willing to present empirical evidence that the stimulus made us WORSE off... is there such evidence?

Click to expand...

We may never know for sure. Certainly stimulus was and continues to be mishandled, and in some cases perhaps misdirected. Still, I presonally believe that had we stalled and done nothing (we being the U.S. govt at the time), the global economic crisis would be worse, then and now.

WWW.RECOVERY.GOV

Stop Guessing and go see for yourself
-What was spent so far
-What was paid back
-How much of it was tax breaks
-Where it is being spent in your area