Don't Blame the Republicans

This way they can't blame us later.
Not 1 Vote.

It says that we are trying to listen to our better angels!

Guess what? I do blame the republicans and I just sick of their cry wolf, twist and make up facts, isolate themselves from majority public opinion putting party above country shamefully. After 8 years of republican neocon sickness, do you think for a minute I'm going to believe obstructionist trash talk. The GOP is wallowing in shame. Gossip and no thought of the country.

The debt is already in the stratosphere and we remember how it got there.

I don't think the Cato Institute represents main-stream economists. But even if it did, where are the economists who told us how to prevent this? Where are the economists who know how to produce an economy without booms and busts, inflation and deflation? Since every nation in the world has been having this kind of problems for all of recorded history it seems to me the economists can only say what one should have done after the fact. Remember Greenspan?

I emailed my locals Senators here in NC and urged them to Vote NO on the Stimulus.
I jsut don't seeh why Republicans can be blamed for EVERY thing.
I thought Obama wanted to work with everyone, democrat or Republican.
Does not seem that way to me.
Spending Billions of Dollars is NOT the answer to a bad economy.
Our children and their children will be the ones left with that Debt to pay.





<font size="2">Glitter Graphics & Comments</font>

~ MOTD 1/30/09 ~

Larry, you're exactly right that every economy has peaks and valleys and that's normal. What's not normal is for government to try to fix that. For the government to bail out businesses and individuals who don't understand how not to spend more than they make. And we the people should put our feet down to letting the government spend money they don't have either.

I already sent an email to my representative who voted against this bill congratulating him and the others who stood firm against it. Perhaps more should do the same and let them know where we stand.

good points

Who else would we blame? Eight years of GOP cronyism has got us where we are today and now everything Obama wants to do is wrong? Typical GOP pity pot tactics.

It would seem to me that both sides are running this package the way they want it and no one side truly knows what the others are doing till they get caught with their own hands caufgr in the cookie till in a matter of speaking if you ask me.

Enough finger pointing, I'm not blaming anyone because in reality what good will it do anyway. The fact of the matter is people are losing their jobs by tens of thousands and something needsto be done about it. The bill passed which I feel is good and on to the next step.

I thought that the original stimulus package was altered from more money for infrastructure to more tax breaks specifically because the Republicans wanted it that way. I even read that because the Republicans didn't support the bill they had input on that Obama should go back and remove the portions he included at Republican insistence.

We can snipe back and forth about what good a stimulus package will do, but the Republicans didn't withhold their votes because they don't think a stimulus package will work, it was pure politics - to position themselves for the 2010 elections. Economy and the American people be damned. If the Republicans can regain control over the foreclosed and laidoff backs of their constituents, they will.

It is normal for government to manage the economy. The Fed does it all the time through monetary policy. The government sometimes does it as well, though not always as well as I'd like. I think government should run deficits during recessions in order to spend and give tax cuts. But there's also the other side of the coin where government should raise taxes and cut spending when the economy is overheating and fueling inflation or an unrealistic bubble.

Think of it this way. Businesses are downsizing in the face of falling consumer demand. People are being laid off and so have less income. It's a downward spiral. If we didn't have unemployment insurance, things would be a heck of a lot worse right now. But things are still getting worse and there's no sign of anything that will reverse that.

All that unemployed labor is basically lost opportunity, lost productivity. Obama's economic outlook gives us some real numbers to consider:

"We begin this year and this Administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action. Just this week, we saw more people file for unemployment than at any time in the last twenty-six years, and experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. And we could lose a generation of potential, as more young Americans are forced to forgo college dreams or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. In short, if we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse."


So this unused labor is just wasted. It is essentially lost income. Going into debt to utilize that labor is a gain, not a loss. The debt is just borrowing from an underutilized money supply to help utilize an underutilized labor force. Business needs more consumers. The consumer of last resort is the government. And a recession is the best time for government to make expensive purchases.


As for debt in the future, our government's debt as a percentage of GDP went down or stayed the same under every post-war President not named Reagan or Bush. And as a percentage of GDP, it still isn't nearly as high as it was post WW2. Plus the cost of doing nothing won't mean that the government saves a bunch of money. Rather, it'll lose a lot of tax revenue and GDP growth, and affect people's budgets even more.




The CATO institute is ideological. Their answers to everything can be predicted easily beforehand. It's basically to deregulate everything and cut all spending... To use them as a source of critique on the stimulus package gives us no useful information. I like economist Robert Reich instead:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-first-choice.html



As for tax refunds for those who don't make enough to pay federal income tax, it is not welfare. These are working people who still pay other taxes. The bottom 20% of taxpayers still pay about 19% of their income in taxes to local, state, and federal governments through FICA, sales tax, property tax, and so on. Each additional higher quintile pays about 3% more than the last. That means there's only about a 10% difference between the lowest incomes and the highest incomes.

Plus, about 50% of people don't make enough to pay federal income tax. If 50% isn't the middle class, what is? And out of all tax cut options, these people give the most bang to the economy for the buck.


I read that half of the spending occurs within 2 years, and the other half over the next 8 years. So this is heavily front loaded. The longer projects line on roads and bridges obviously take longer, but we don't have to pay up-front now either.


I think this bill already is already a compromise. Obama's plans during the campaign was to let the tax cuts for people making over $250K expire. He's now extending these cuts indefinitely. And $200 billion in tax cuts is quite generous.

I just saw a Republican congressman from NY this morning saying he wanted money for NY's medicare because he didn't consider it to be spending. His reasoning was that NY medicare is paid through property taxes, and this would allow tax relief to property owners. Likewise, it wouldn't surprise me if much more of the spending were similar "transfers" that act as tax cuts.

Marilyn, if the Republicans would just take responsibility for their actions, there would be no need for anyone to "blame" them. We could accept their apology, vow to help them fix the mess they've made, and move on.

Sandy, the Republicans cannot be blamed for the economy. I've been following this for years.

Tim, is't not a good thing that only 1/4 of the stimulus is being used now. If that's the case, there was no rush at all for the other money/funding, was there? And that's part of the Republican point. Why rush when some of the money is not to be spent for years to come? Why? Because they have to push the liberal agenda.

It is all the old people who have money that are to blame, both parties.

What I mean by old people is the ones who been in the seats forever.

It should not be normal for the government to manipulate the economy...according to the economists. If they would let it do what it is destined to do - giving us good times and bad - we'd all be better off.

What lessons do any of us learn, as individuals, or as businesses, if the government continues to bail us out? We don't.

thank you for sharing

"Tim, is't not a good thing that only 1/4 of the stimulus is being used now. If that's the case, there was no rush at all for the other money/funding, was there?"

1/4? You mean 1/2? And these are jobs and more business. Most of these jobs and business are for 2 years. A few are longer term, but comparatively lower cost per year, we're just figuring now is a good time to start. We'd be doing them anyway even if the economy wasn't in the tank.

And by other money/funding being rushed, you mean the financial bailouts? Those actually were needed quickly to prevent an unnecessary financial collapse. Note that it is an investment, not money that is given away. So the government is likely to get a positive net return on that eventually.


"It should not be normal for the government to manipulate the economy...according to the economists. "

Which economists? CATO, sure. But not the majority. And laissez faire economics has been shown to not work so well already. The fact that recessions have been less severe and more infrequent in modern history is because government has generally provided counter-cyclical influences. Social Security and unemployment insurance are two big ones that work to counter recessions without the need for specific action. And less cyclical booms and busts means steady, more robust growth, and less pain for the individuals hurt the most in recession.

As for lessons, we failed to closely watch the financial industry to see what they were trading. We would normally tell them to devalue their books to match the real value of what they had, or force better transparency of these assets, etc. But someone missed it. I'm not sure what other lessons would be learned if we just did nothing now. I just see it causing additional pain, not teaching lessons.