The GOP claims to be interested in helping the small business owner, yet they seem to have forgotten one of the most important mantras of business: "You have to spend money to make money." We paid that tax money, so we should all expect to have it spent to help us. That's why it is paid (and I don't remember asking to spend it in Iraq).
I don't think the stimulus will necessarily be enough, especially after the cuts that were made, but I do think it's a necessary step. I'm a little worried about Geithner, though. I don't have a whole lot of confidence in him.
And to those who don't support a pay cut for bank executives: It's called a loan. Remember how the banks took collateral from you when they gave you a loan? Welcome to the two-way street.
Ted
· 9 months ago
The "Big Gesture" some economist are saying will jolt the economy out of recession is in the range of a cool trillion. However, the $800 billion (plus some change) will hopefully do something to change our collective fortunes.
Re the GOP: There are some in my neck of the woods who do advocate for small business owners, but at the national level it's about the big corporations, so words and deeds are often out of whack when it comes to walking the walk with small business advocacy.
steve
· 9 months ago
Small business advocacy? How about TARP - money to the big banks, but screw the small ones? Now they have to compete on an uneven playing field w/the big boys, who are on the government teet.
This whole thing is a mess of disastrous proportions. I find it funny that all these so-called "experts" seem to confidently predict what 'will happen' if we don't act. Yeah, now they're friggin' Nostradamus. Where were their amazing abilities to predict in 06 and 07? None of these douche-bags were smart enough to predict this whole mess before it happened, while all along both parties got us into it with various deregulation and forced-loans-to-the-poor programs. Now we're supposed to believe these so-called 'experts' as they tell us what will happen if we do nothing? Give me a friggin break.
And I find it ironic how the Bushies were accused - maybe rightly so - of using 'scare tactics' for 7 years after 9/11, but the Obamas seem to be doing the exact same thing to get their agenda through. Using terms like "armageddon", 'dire consequences", "economic disaster", "doom" "could get worse than the great depression" etc etc. Gimmee a fuckin break, they're using scare tactics. Obama seems to be getting a lot of advice from ole W.
As I watch Geithner on TV right now, I can't help but wonder that maybe he should be home figuring out his taxes. Poor guy, I know they're a bit complicated, but if he can't get 'em right with Turbo Tax then is there any hope for him?
Arend_Anton
· 9 months ago
It's true that scare tactics are used by both sides. Al Gore could be accused of scare tactics about Global Warming just as Bush could for terrorism and Obama for the economic crisis.
However, when your unemployment rate is rapidly increasing I'm not sure a crystal ball is needed. Forget about predicting the future, do something now to stop the bleeding. Save those jobs that have already been lost or find new ones for those people. In the case of the stimulus, the idea is to give them temporary government jobs. There's nothing wrong with that. I've done contract work myself. Once the contract ended, I was in a better position to find a full time job and my resume looked better.
Agenda or not, I do think it's a chance to impress necessary changes on industry. If we're going to bailout the auto industry, force them to abide by stricter regulations. We should apply this same principle to the banks.
PeopleWatching
· 9 months ago
Interestingly written piece. Relevant to his pragmatism...as many nationally influential voices have repeatedly noted, Obama is part of Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X. Google Generation Jones, and you'll see it’s gotten a lot of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) specifically use this term to describe Obama.
It's not the tax cuts, it's who you give them to... as in, "low income people will only waste the money they don't have to pay into taxes... on stuff they need!" as opposed to, "Who's going to re-seed my lawn this year for the eighth straight year in a row?"
autodidact
· 9 months ago
The election of Obama proves that people still want to believe in the Tooth Fairy and free lunches. Market forces are dumb. But it seems government is usually even dumber. The stimulus bill is a big fat greasy pork sandwich, and everyone knows it. $300 million for golf carts! LOL. Obama will have to eat it, but I'll bet my I-bonds against Bernanke's printing press money he'll get indigestion.
There is one Democrat plan I like: Blue Dog Democrat Representative Walt Minnick offered a $170 billion pure stimulus plan that cuts the pork, offers immediate basic infrastructure spending and help for low and middle incomes. All spending will be publicly listed on a website. The program will be terminated when the economy recovers. God bless Walt Minnick.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but Congress is controlled by Democrats. Has been since 2007. I think I read that somewhere, though the media did not seem to attach the failures of the previous Congress to the people who controlled it. Anyway, our Congress has a research arm called the Congressional Budget Office. I hear tell it is supposed to provide economic data for our honored citizen legislators. I do wish those fine ladies and gentlement would heed the CBO's advice: their call on the new stimulus bill is that it will hurt the economy more than doing nothing at all.
"CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
"CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary. "
So there you have it. CBO is one of the few voices of sanity still left in Washington. There really isn't a free lunch. Whatever Congress spends now, it will have to borrow. That borrowing reduces the pool of capital available for business, so it takes away from other parts of the economy. We will begin paying interest on the debt, and will pay forever. Interest rates will rise when inflation heats up, meaning our interest payments could increase precipitously. Our children will keep paying. Our grandchildren will keep paying, if our children can actually afford to have any children.
But John McCain said it most succinctly. The bailout bill is "generational theft." Yes, the Republicans engaged in the same generational theft of deficit spending when they were in power. Shame on them. But this Congress' attempts to double or triple the same shameful waste deserves nothing but contempt.
Is this really the change y'all wanted?
Ted
· 9 months ago
Who was talking about a "free lunch?" I don't think Obama was traipsing around since the inauguration saying "I'll fix this recession between basketball games."
And while CBO numbers are definitely more reliable than OMB numbers, you can't take 10 year projections as absolute and unchanging fact. The margin of error between T1 (the present) and T2 (the ten year mark) increases with each passing year as new variables come into play. Also, GDP projections aren't wholly set by government borrowing. There are other factors that contribute -- government is but one, not the single causal factor.
The prose of governing is, as you well know, no easy task. And it's clear that you're no fan of either party (though, you have more ideological sympathy for the Republicans). But even if a Libertarian was elected president, she or he would have to negotiate the complexities of The System and, yes, forge compromises with Congress in order to get legislation through.
steve
· 9 months ago
Autodidact makes great points. And let's not forget that any 7th grade economics student can tell you that if you print too much money, you de-value that money and get inflation. This pork sandwich turns the money presses up to "11", to use Spinal Tap terminology, and that's one of the scariest things in it to me. The sheer volume of the additional money they're putting into the market, it's spooky. No one is an expert (or they would have predicted us getting into this situation in the first place), so we'll be entering uncharted territory with this newly printed zillions, but some theorize this could collapse the dollar and lead to inflation of unprecedented levels. Yippy.
The Obama scare tactics claim of Armageddon and death to America if we don't do anything, I think doom is more likely to come about if this horrible thing gets passed. He's 3 weeks into his presidency and he may well be sealing his legacy for good right now, and it's probably not gonna be a good one unless that bill gets changed for the better at the last minute.
autodidact
· 9 months ago
I have ideological sympathy with what the Republican Party has claimed to be, but certainly not what they are. They are mostly heretical supporters of the political religion of individual rights, traditional values, and economic freedom. Heretical. They say, but not do.
What I mean by "free lunch" is that during the campaign, Obama promised many, many things, and claimed they would be paid for. Everyone with an IQ above single digits knew in their heart of hearts it could not be paid for. Hence the cognitive dissonance of believing in and voting for the promise, the hope, knowing the means to make good on that promise did not exist.
Your point about the unpredictability of the future is well-taken. However it is undeniable that a dollar I loan to the US Government to pay for these wonderful stimulus "investments" (like a $150 million face lift for the Smithsonian) is a dollar not invested in corporate bonds, not deposited in a bank to shore up their balance sheets, not spent at the local Best Buy. The amount of money the government is trying to borrow is causing a giant sucking sound. What goes one place cannot go elsewhere. And we wonder why corporations are having difficulty in borrowing at reasonable rates? And of course that which is not borrowed is printed, diminishing the value of every dollar you have in your pocket or bank account. (Plus, if you divide the cost of the bailout by the number of jobs claimed to be created, it will cost about $200,000 per job. So there is an efficiency question here as well. How much friggin' administrative cost is involved in creating these jobs?) Obama has said that long term we have to be more responsible. Good grief!!! Why not start today?
I don't want to make this too long, but can't neglect mentioning again the dirty little secret that Obama will be bailing out the big money guys far more (in dollar terms) than his plan bails out the middle and lower classes. At the same time he is bashing the management of Wall Street and bankers whose firms received public assisstance, his Treasury Secretary is working out a multi-trillion dollar rescue for those same firms which, if successful, will revive the stocks, and thus the fortunes, of those same management fatcats he is now shaming for their high bonuses. Cynical politics at its worst. Yah, read all about it:
"Essentially, the administration is offering the bankers an implicit deal. Even though senior executives from banks receiving government assistance will face limits on their salaries, the value of their personal shareholdings in their companies -- where for most executives the big money is -- could potentially be restored if bank stocks rise in response to the bailout. In many cases, those shareholdings are now all but worthless paper."
Ted
· 9 months ago
Knowing what you know about how business gets done between Washington and Big Money, what would you do to carve out a deal between the two groups? Would ideology win over the pressures of governance -- especially when those who elected you want you to both "fix things" and "change things." Which do you tackle first? That's why I see Obama as a pragmatist and not really cynical in terms of his political actions. So far, he's been very practical about addressing our current crises (and you've got to admit that no one in recent U.S. history has had to face what he's inherited). I think most Americans are willing to give him time for things to work. They aren't expecting an overnight miracle, but from the reaction of the chattering classes, it's clear many are.
ONE FINAL NOTE:
I just wanted to say that this is my final Pop Politico column for Popdose. Thanks so much for reading this little slice of commentary for the past year. I think there has been some lively discussion in the comments section, and it's clear the readers here have a passion for politics -- and are articulate about it. I'm not leaving Popdose (I'll still be doing the weekly Mix Six and contributing to staff features) but, for me, this column has reached the end.
Thanks again for reading!
Ted
JonCummings
· 9 months ago
Say it ain't so, Ted! How come I didn't get prior approval on this move?
Ted
· 9 months ago
I just turned in my notice today. I didn't know there was a triplicate form I had to fill out.
Laluna
· 9 months ago
I think Reagan will roll in his grave with regards to that picture you posted. Scary! How you look at this Obama plan really equates to if see a glass half full, or half empty. As far as the Republicans views on anything Democratic, It will always be the view as the glass half empty. I am hoping that this will be the era of "The Great Clean Up." For so long the problems that have been festering the United States, the government has just slapped a band aide on it. Now these problems are a large crater of a sore that is eating away at the bone of our Country. As you so faithful believe Obama has removed the band aide so to speak and trying to treat the infection with the best possible "Obama made" solution. We the people will just have to sit back and hope that some type of healing will occur.
All Comments
I don't think the stimulus will necessarily be enough, especially after the cuts that were made, but I do think it's a necessary step. I'm a little worried about Geithner, though. I don't have a whole lot of confidence in him.
And to those who don't support a pay cut for bank executives: It's called a loan. Remember how the banks took collateral from you when they gave you a loan? Welcome to the two-way street.
Re the GOP: There are some in my neck of the woods who do advocate for small business owners, but at the national level it's about the big corporations, so words and deeds are often out of whack when it comes to walking the walk with small business advocacy.
This whole thing is a mess of disastrous proportions. I find it funny that all these so-called "experts" seem to confidently predict what 'will happen' if we don't act. Yeah, now they're friggin' Nostradamus. Where were their amazing abilities to predict in 06 and 07? None of these douche-bags were smart enough to predict this whole mess before it happened, while all along both parties got us into it with various deregulation and forced-loans-to-the-poor programs. Now we're supposed to believe these so-called 'experts' as they tell us what will happen if we do nothing? Give me a friggin break.
And I find it ironic how the Bushies were accused - maybe rightly so - of using 'scare tactics' for 7 years after 9/11, but the Obamas seem to be doing the exact same thing to get their agenda through. Using terms like "armageddon", 'dire consequences", "economic disaster", "doom" "could get worse than the great depression" etc etc. Gimmee a fuckin break, they're using scare tactics. Obama seems to be getting a lot of advice from ole W.
As I watch Geithner on TV right now, I can't help but wonder that maybe he should be home figuring out his taxes. Poor guy, I know they're a bit complicated, but if he can't get 'em right with Turbo Tax then is there any hope for him?
However, when your unemployment rate is rapidly increasing I'm not sure a crystal ball is needed. Forget about predicting the future, do something now to stop the bleeding. Save those jobs that have already been lost or find new ones for those people. In the case of the stimulus, the idea is to give them temporary government jobs. There's nothing wrong with that. I've done contract work myself. Once the contract ended, I was in a better position to find a full time job and my resume looked better.
Agenda or not, I do think it's a chance to impress necessary changes on industry. If we're going to bailout the auto industry, force them to abide by stricter regulations. We should apply this same principle to the banks.
Great op-ed on exactly this topic in USA TODAY last week:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/01/stuck-in...
There is one Democrat plan I like: Blue Dog Democrat Representative Walt Minnick offered a $170 billion pure stimulus plan that cuts the pork, offers immediate basic infrastructure spending and help for low and middle incomes. All spending will be publicly listed on a website. The program will be terminated when the economy recovers. God bless Walt Minnick.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but Congress is controlled by Democrats. Has been since 2007. I think I read that somewhere, though the media did not seem to attach the failures of the previous Congress to the people who controlled it. Anyway, our Congress has a research arm called the Congressional Budget Office. I hear tell it is supposed to provide economic data for our honored citizen legislators. I do wish those fine ladies and gentlement would heed the CBO's advice: their call on the new stimulus bill is that it will hurt the economy more than doing nothing at all.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04...
"CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
"CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary. "
So there you have it. CBO is one of the few voices of sanity still left in Washington. There really isn't a free lunch. Whatever Congress spends now, it will have to borrow. That borrowing reduces the pool of capital available for business, so it takes away from other parts of the economy. We will begin paying interest on the debt, and will pay forever. Interest rates will rise when inflation heats up, meaning our interest payments could increase precipitously. Our children will keep paying. Our grandchildren will keep paying, if our children can actually afford to have any children.
But John McCain said it most succinctly. The bailout bill is "generational theft." Yes, the Republicans engaged in the same generational theft of deficit spending when they were in power. Shame on them. But this Congress' attempts to double or triple the same shameful waste deserves nothing but contempt.
Is this really the change y'all wanted?
And while CBO numbers are definitely more reliable than OMB numbers, you can't take 10 year projections as absolute and unchanging fact. The margin of error between T1 (the present) and T2 (the ten year mark) increases with each passing year as new variables come into play. Also, GDP projections aren't wholly set by government borrowing. There are other factors that contribute -- government is but one, not the single causal factor.
The prose of governing is, as you well know, no easy task. And it's clear that you're no fan of either party (though, you have more ideological sympathy for the Republicans). But even if a Libertarian was elected president, she or he would have to negotiate the complexities of The System and, yes, forge compromises with Congress in order to get legislation through.
The Obama scare tactics claim of Armageddon and death to America if we don't do anything, I think doom is more likely to come about if this horrible thing gets passed. He's 3 weeks into his presidency and he may well be sealing his legacy for good right now, and it's probably not gonna be a good one unless that bill gets changed for the better at the last minute.
What I mean by "free lunch" is that during the campaign, Obama promised many, many things, and claimed they would be paid for. Everyone with an IQ above single digits knew in their heart of hearts it could not be paid for. Hence the cognitive dissonance of believing in and voting for the promise, the hope, knowing the means to make good on that promise did not exist.
Your point about the unpredictability of the future is well-taken. However it is undeniable that a dollar I loan to the US Government to pay for these wonderful stimulus "investments" (like a $150 million face lift for the Smithsonian) is a dollar not invested in corporate bonds, not deposited in a bank to shore up their balance sheets, not spent at the local Best Buy. The amount of money the government is trying to borrow is causing a giant sucking sound. What goes one place cannot go elsewhere. And we wonder why corporations are having difficulty in borrowing at reasonable rates? And of course that which is not borrowed is printed, diminishing the value of every dollar you have in your pocket or bank account. (Plus, if you divide the cost of the bailout by the number of jobs claimed to be created, it will cost about $200,000 per job. So there is an efficiency question here as well. How much friggin' administrative cost is involved in creating these jobs?) Obama has said that long term we have to be more responsible. Good grief!!! Why not start today?
I don't want to make this too long, but can't neglect mentioning again the dirty little secret that Obama will be bailing out the big money guys far more (in dollar terms) than his plan bails out the middle and lower classes. At the same time he is bashing the management of Wall Street and bankers whose firms received public assisstance, his Treasury Secretary is working out a multi-trillion dollar rescue for those same firms which, if successful, will revive the stocks, and thus the fortunes, of those same management fatcats he is now shaming for their high bonuses. Cynical politics at its worst. Yah, read all about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/smick.ba...
"Essentially, the administration is offering the bankers an implicit deal. Even though senior executives from banks receiving government assistance will face limits on their salaries, the value of their personal shareholdings in their companies -- where for most executives the big money is -- could potentially be restored if bank stocks rise in response to the bailout. In many cases, those shareholdings are now all but worthless paper."
ONE FINAL NOTE:
I just wanted to say that this is my final Pop Politico column for Popdose. Thanks so much for reading this little slice of commentary for the past year. I think there has been some lively discussion in the comments section, and it's clear the readers here have a passion for politics -- and are articulate about it. I'm not leaving Popdose (I'll still be doing the weekly Mix Six and contributing to staff features) but, for me, this column has reached the end.
Thanks again for reading!
Ted
How you look at this Obama plan really equates to if see a glass half full, or half empty. As far as the Republicans views on anything Democratic, It will always be the view as the glass half empty.
I am hoping that this will be the era of "The Great Clean Up." For so long the problems that have been festering the United States, the government has just slapped a band aide on it. Now these problems are a large crater of a sore that is eating away at the bone of our Country. As you so faithful believe Obama has removed the band aide so to speak and trying to treat the infection
with the best possible "Obama made" solution. We the people will just have to sit back and hope that some type of healing will occur.