Tax Cuts Killed the Stimulus

Comments

1
Copy pasting Westneat is some of the best work youve done Charles.

Why wont Barry Soetoro challange the establishment?
Because he works for it, he's a puppet. The new boss is alot like the old boss.
2
Charles,
I disagree with Westneat. I'm no economist nor is Westneat but the simple fact is we, the USA can't produce in the conventional sense (like we did 50 years ago) anymore. Look at Detroit and Michigan for that matter. Last time I checked, their unemployment rates were 30% (a conservative estimate BTW) and 14% respectively. Those jobs lost aren't returning anytime soon.
I had read the stimulus had indeed benefited more those WITH jobs than those that are long term unemployed. The problem is job creation not necessarily retention. Many of the short term gains were for short term jobs.I doubt any stimulus could prevent jobs losses let alone create jobs.

Consider this:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201…

I believe we''re in an extended recession. It is really bleak stimulus or no stimulus.

3
@1 While I agree with the sentiment, that "Barry Soetoro" shit is boring and racist.
4
"The oil companies, the military establishment, the GOP—when will Obama recognize this pattern?" ...so you'd find it distressing to realize that Obama already "recognizes" (and conducts political maneuvers based upon) this well-established belt-way consortium which also includes the DNC?

Our government is a capitalistic corporatocracy. It always has been to one degree or other. It's true it's particularly been that way in the last 30 years. Happy 234th birthday USA! (Marx never thought it'd last this long)
5
I remember reading economists back when the stimulus first came up saying that tax cuts would only hurt the economy in the long run, even if they'd look pretty in the short term. Most economists were saying the stimulus wasn't nearly enough, it should have been more, 1/3rd of it should NOT have been comprised of tax cuts, and it should have been followed up by another aggressive stimulus spending bill.

But, some people who can't see past their own face complained too much, so we have what we've got now, which is the way they (conservatives) wanted it... well, they got it.
6
"Marx never thought it'd last this long"

I just threw up in my mouth a little
7
The only thing that will get America back to work is new business formation. The Democrats have done everything in their power to squelch that...the stimulus was enitrely directed at keeping the entrenched entities and dino companies alive for a few more years.

There has been no "change" in the way money is made available for new investment. Banks are laden with capital, but try to go there and ask for a mill to start a company from scratch.

8
I had a stimulus job. Idaho had contracted a WA based company to digitize their child support files. I was hired in Feb and laid off in May.
9
@6 - It comes as no surprise that you have a weak stomach to go along with your weak thought process.

The economy and employment rates in the United States of America will either recover or not recover based on an incredibly diverse set of factors that cannot begin to be controlled. The fact that this process can be either slowed down or sped up slightly by our Executive and Legislative branch doesn't mean that they have any real power in the process. If this country can sustain the amount of jobs it did in the mid Nineties, then it will, regardless of any Stimuli or tax cuts. If it cannot, then it never will, regardless of any Stiumuli or tax cuts.

Obama isn't primarily interested in a speedy recovery. If he was, he would have abandoned his attempt at bipartisanship long ago, and pushed for those policies. What he's interested in is what he promised many, many times during the election(Many seem to have forgotten): to bridge the divide between red and blue America. You may think this is a fool's errand, and it certainly has very little chance of success over the long term, and virtually no chance of success in the short term, but that's why he continues to make these concessions. Our economy will recover(or not) regardless of what he does, so he's working on the more pressing issue.
10
Westneat overstates the issue. Jobs matter, but what really matters is that the stimulus is efficient and has positive, long term economic effects. Many of those effects on employment are indirect.

If a govt agency buys a van, that van was probably manufactured in the US. If a road gets widened, that not only creates jobs, but also saves time and fuel for citizens and business. Many water, energy and other projects also have indirect, long-term economic benefits.

I also get kind of sick of people bemoaning the home purchase tax credit. It will not stop home prices from returning to a sustainable level. However, it did help prevent the price drop from overshooting that level. People underestimate the effect that had on preventing bankruptcies, which could have set off a cascading economic disaster far worse than what we experienced.
11
I don't remember hearing anywhere that anything more than a small part of the stimulus has been spent. And nobody can deny that we ignored our infrastructure for a dangerously long time. But, and most importantly, Obama has had only a very small amount of time to work to overcome an enormous mess made by a decade of Republican malfeasance.
12
At least Obama understands the necessity of continuing spending. Did you see that farce at the G20? He urged other world leaders to continue spending and not worry about deficits for now, and they refused.
13
The number of people who have no idea what they are talking about -- starting with Westneat and continuing through the comment thread -- is truly impressive.

If anything lands us in a Depression, it'll be ignorance like this.
14
@9: THANK YOU. There's a reason that even economists with ten years of college under their belts can't predict much. The USA is an incredibly complex system, and claiming that there's one quick fix for any problem is simplistic and shortsighted.
15
Whole lotta Obamapoligists throwing in their two cents. Let's start with basics:

1. college econ tells us govt. demand stimulates economy, plus how do you think we got out of Depression ? Smaller govt. and no borrowing? No, it was a JOBS PROGRAM called WORLD WAR TWO in which EVERY BODY GOT A JOB.

2. Obama was told he was compromising too much.

3. He's only had a short time/be patient -- WTF?? FDR had the whole WPA thing up and running in six months.

The problem is Obama and his need for GOP approval and his choice to empower them through calls for bipartisan ship instead of fucking kicking them in the balls and using his mandate for change like he said he would. The only ass he's ever kicked is Hillary's .....that, he "got it." He truly doesn't realize we need some old time class warfare and asskicking now and he's got to stop this pandering to the corporations, GOP and BP. It'd help if the remaining obamatrons would stop the knee jerk excuse mongering and tell the truth. "The USA is an incredibly comlex system" blah blah blah bullshit! We need some fucking jobs and we have great history telling us how to get 'em and in fact almost all credible economists DID agree the stimulus was too little and too tax cut oriented.
16
when the bush tax cuts expire at new years, that deficit won't look so scary anymore and the GOP can STFU. they dug this hole on purpose.
17
Arianna:
"Any time the funding of jobs programs or unemployment benefits is raised, our leaders immediately go into sticker shock. But they don't bat an eye when it's time to sign the next check for our wars of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq (2010 price tag: $161 billion). We are letting the American Dream die here at home"

Clift: "Waiting for Barack
By not clearly articulating a simple, bumper-sticker-friendly economic policy, Obama is risking the rest of his presidency. It’s obvious that the November election will turn on the economy, and with unemployment hovering near 10 percent, the party in power is looking at significant losses in the House and Senate. And yet, who can sum up President Obama’s economic policy in words that voters can take to the polls? The absence of a compelling economic policy articulated by the president in bumper-sticker language will doom Democrats this fall."

"BP oil spill is an analogy for what is happening in politics: a growing anxiety turned into anger that is spilling over in ways that political leaders can’t channel or control."
"Penn said Obama has to persuade voters that he deserves more time for his policies to work. And Democrats have got to frame the election contest as a choice between Obama’s policies and those of the failed Bush era, as opposed to a referendum on the president."

Um, sorry folks, we don't get to run against Bush anymore and the election is a referendum on Obama. Unless he gets his act together with a 25 word narrative about everything that's fucked up today, and unless he repeats it 1000000000000000000 times and doesn't get distracted, we're in deep shit.
I would most humbly suggest the narrative have something to do with the fact that the rich and the GOP and the corporations are fucking ripping us all off, methinks, perchance? Maybe we can convene a panel of experts to figure out whose posterior requires stimulating with repetetive motions of one of our extremities ? Oh wait, did we Bluebook that?
18
@9 Ouch! Ad hominem attack.

I am not so naive as to think the economy rest in the hands of the president. My point was that like those who came before him he is just another whore selling the country short in the name of corporate profits. All Obama has done is throw billions of dollars at a problem and achieved little to no result save to pad the pockets of wall street execs. I am just a little pissed because that's my money, and yours and every other citizens. Anyone thinking he going to bring "change" or work for the people of this nation has their head up their ass.

Oh and Happy Fourth of July, Jefferson is currently turning in his grave.

19
The fallacy known as Ad Hominem is not a synonym for insult. As you did not have a coherent point to your ramblings (typical of many of your posts that I've seen), I did not choose to attack you in place of addressing your arguments. I only said that you were stupid, and moved on to addressing other people's remarks. I'm sorry you were too stupid to realize this.

The problem with your "Everything has always sucked and still sucks" argument is that you're presuming far too much. The fact that the majority of power in this country lies primarily in the hands of the rich and the corporations does not indicate that things are not slowly improving, or that Obama is "just another whore selling the country short in the name of corporate profits." If you are unable to distinguish one whore from another, that's fine by me; feel free to waste your vote on Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche or whomever you feel will step into the presidency and immediately close down all the corporations and restore this land to the agricultural powerhouse that Thomas Jefferson intended it to be. As for me, I'll continue to engage politics realistically and not like some solipsistic shithead.

That is an ad hominem.