Senate passes stimulus package...

[SteveInBrooklyn]

if you wish to site the increased spending of WWII as the sole answer to the problem, then your going to have to recreate the same other factors that went into it.


Defict spending is not very powerful when your money is going to other countries.

As already stated, Japan has been throwing money at their economy for several years now to no effect.

Here is an interesting article on Japan (not an opinion piece):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html?scp=2&sq=japan&st=cse

In a nutshell, Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attaché in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.

Moreover, it matters what gets built: Japan spent too much on increasingly wasteful roads and bridges, and not enough in areas like education and social services, which studies show deliver more bang for the buck than infrastructure spending.

Seems there are two sides to this issue as well.

As for WWII, the other factors were constraints on economic growth. Why would we recreate those?

 

[Chicago526]

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Throwing money at it from the government side will not fix it. As we saw in the 30's and just last year as well.

In '32 there was 25% unemployment, in 1940 there was 15%. Sure, 15% isn't great but it's better than 25%. GDP went up every year (except 1937, when Roosevelt listend to the Reps and the deficit hawks and cut spending, then it went down again, go figure) between '32 and '40 as well, and of course shot off like a rocket when the war started.

You can certainly argue that the New Deal didn't 100% fix the economy, but I don't think there is much of an arguement that it made a dire situation into just a really bad one. Had WWII not happened, the US would have eventually pulled out of it, it just would have taken longer.

 

[eliza61]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Are you forgetting the TARP legislation? Further, you seem to rule out the possibility that there is no middle ground here. You have bought into the Obama argument that that we must take the plan as is and should not complain about unnecessary spending attached to the bill. What about a much smaller plan consisting of significant tax cuts (yes tax cuts have been working so well to generate jobs) and direct spending on infrastrusture projects?

No complain away (it's what we do best). I never once said this bill was perfect but doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the definition of insanity. continuing the same failed policies of the last 3 administrations is the poster child for insanity. Actually I haven't brought into any thing. All I had to do was suffer through the last 12 years.

 

[Geoff_M]

Speaking of Tim "The Financial Wizard" Geithner, well the Obama Administration put the 2nd part of the TARP plan on hold until the Obama "stimulus" bill was squared away, and so today Geithner come forth with this utterances reaction was swift... Ouch!

Stocks plunge as government unveils bailout plan
Feb 10 04:41 PM US/Eastern
By TIM PARADIS
AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Investors are frustrated with the government's latest bank bailout plan—and showing it by unloading stocks. The major stock indexes fell more than 4 percent Tuesday, including the Dow Jones industrial average, which tumbled 382 points. Financial stocks led the market lower, a sign of how concerned Wall Street is about the government's ability to restore the health of the banking industry.

Traders and investors said the lack of specifics from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on how the government will direct more than $1 trillion in public and private support was troubling.

The plan is aimed at restoring proper functioning to credit markets, which seized up over worries about bad debt after the September bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The latest plan calls for a government-private sector partnership to help remove banks' soured assets from their books. It would also boost an effort to unclog the credit markets that govern loans to consumers and businesses.

"The good news is they are going to spend a trillion dollars, the bad news is they don't know how," said James Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group.

"They built this up as being a panacea," he said. "There was so much hope pinned on them to do a good job. The expectations have been so high. It's hard to live up to."

Investors also questioned whether this plan, which followed previous efforts in the final months of 2008, would work. Some selling was to be expected, however, as stocks rose sharply last week ahead of the announcement.

Geithner's speech "basically puts a spotlight on the fact that the government has no idea how to fix the problem," said Jeff Buetow, senior portfolio manager at Portfolio Management Consultants. "People bought on rumor and hope, and now they're selling on reality."

The ironic thing that the CBO identified the stabilization of the financial and banking systems as a significant cornerstone in the recovery of the economy. Instead the Obama Administration seems to have put all of their attention into the "stimulus" bill that's filled to the brim with Democratic pet projects masquerading as "stimulus". We can "stimulate" all we want until the cows come home, but if the banking and other financial markets are still a mess, we're not getting out of this financial mess any time soon. But hey, we'll at least have a national medical records database!!!! Wee-hooo!!!

 

[Master Mason]

In '32 there was 25% unemployment, in 1940 there was 15%. Sure, 15% isn't great but it's better than 25%. GDP went up every year (except 1937, when Roosevelt listend to the Reps and the deficit hawks and cut spending, then it went down again, go figure) between '32 and '40 as well, and of course shot off like a rocket when the war started.

You can certainly argue that the New Deal didn't 100% fix the economy, but I don't think there is much of an arguement that it made a dire situation into just a really bad one. Had WWII not happened, the US would have eventually pulled out of it, it just would have taken longer.

The Hoover administration, from 1929 to 1933, must be analyzed differently because of the onset of the Great Depression, but compared with his immediate predecessors, it is much easier to make the case that Hoover was an active supporter of increased government involvement in the economy. Hoover served in the Wilson administration as head of the United States Food Administration beginning in 1917 and, as Secretary of Commerce throughout the Harding-Coolidge administrations, was the most active Cabinet member in pursuing increased government involvement in the economy. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover's administration, real per capita federal expenditures (graphed in Figure 1), increased by 88 percent. Under President Roosevelt's administration from 1933 to 1940, just before World War II, they increased by only 74 percent. Although Hoover started from a lower base, in percentage terms expenditures under Hoover increased more in four years than during the next seven New Deal years. [13] If a case can be made that federal policies under the Harding and Coolidge administrations were a solidification and extension of Progressive principles, the case is much more easily made for President Hoover's administration.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2-2.html

Hoover raise governement percaptia spending even more than FDR did, So if Governement spending was the answer, why did we end up in the Depression exactly?

 

[Master Mason]

Here is an interesting article on Japan (not an opinion piece):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html?scp=2&sq=japan&st=cse



Seems there are two sides to this issue as well.

As for WWII, the other factors were constraints on economic growth. Why would we recreate those?

because for you plan to be successful, we would have to ensure that all government expendatures only benifit americans....

 

[mefordis]

Don't they say to take your money out of high to medium risk investments if you plan to retire in 5 or so years? When were you planning on retiring? I'm not trying to say it's your fault, not at all. I"m just curious. I hope you and everyone else can come close to recouping their lost $$. Me included.

I have no confidence that this bill will do anything to improve things for the seniors.

I am 60.5 years old. We did everything we were supposed to to have a comfortable retirement. We owned a modest home, saved a lot of money, invested, and had a good nest egg. WE HAVE LOST 1/3 OF OUR ASSETS IN THE PAST THREE MONTHS!!! We have lost more than I had ever thought I would have.

I am a member of the third year of the baby boomers. All my life the rules changed when I got there. Those in charge looked at the prior two groups and decided that things had to be different. They never got better.

The "hidden" health care provisions will definitely negatively impact myself and those my age. All those promises I have been hearing all of my life about Social Security, pensions, benefits --- POOF!! Gone!!

Although I am not surprised I am disappointed and depressed over the whole thing.

 

[Goofycampers]

Man that is really bad news.

 

[Chicago526]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2-2.html

Hoover raise governement percaptia spending even more than FDR did, So if Governement spending was the answer, why did we end up in the Depression exactly?

Fundemental problems in the banking and financial industries. One of the big things FDR did was stablize the banks. When the stock market and banks imploded, they dragged the rest of the economy down with them. Once FDR fixed the banks and put in more regulations, more Federal spending was needed to start the economy back up again (spender of last resort).

 

[ntsammy5]

This will keep the printing presses running overtime

 

[Laz]

Get those wheelbarrels out! Weimar Republic here we come!!!

 

[Disneycrazymom]

What a sad day. I fear for what will come next.

 

[Mr Man]

Speaking of Tim "The Financial Wizard" Geithner, well the Obama Administration put the 2nd part of the TARP plan on hold until the Obama "stimulus" bill was squared away, and so today Geithner come forth with this utterances reaction was swift... Ouch!The ironic thing that the CBO identified the stabilization of the financial and banking systems as a significant cornerstone in the recovery of the economy. Instead the Obama Administration seems to have put all of their attention into the "stimulus" bill that's filled to the brim with Democratic pet projects masquerading as "stimulus". We can "stimulate" all we want until the cows come home, but if the banking and other financial markets are still a mess, we're not getting out of this financial mess any time soon. But hey, we'll at least have a national medical records database!!!! Wee-hooo!!!

That dang Turbo Tax program......still messin' up his plans......

This is going to get really ugly before it gets any better.

Luckily, what has been done.....can be undone (and will be).


Have fun with the electric golf carts. There will be no more "bread and circuses" after this.

 

[breezy1077]

I haven't read any of the responses, but does anyone else feel like FDR put us in this toilet, and Obama's going to finish it by flushing?

 

[ntsammy5]

I haven't read any of the responses, but does anyone else feel like FDR put us in this toilet, and Obama's going to finish it by flushing?

Actually Ronnie and his supply side economics, laffer curve and defecit spending caused this recent problem. Bush finished it off. Obama hasn't done a thing yet, but he will.

 

[breezy1077]

Actually Ronnie and his supply side economics, laffer curve and defecit spending caused this recent problem. Bush finished it off. Obama hasn't done a thing yet, but he will.

Oh my gosh, that's too funny!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Actually Ronnie and his supply side economics, laffer curve and defecit spending caused this recent problem. Bush finished it off. Obama hasn't done a thing yet, but he will.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. But, hey - you are only 0 for 5. Care to try again?

 

[Rebelmom67]

Actually Ronnie and his supply side economics, laffer curve and defecit spending caused this recent problem. Bush finished it off. Obama hasn't done a thing yet, but he will.

You have obviously drank too many of the beer in your sig.

 

[ntsammy5]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. But, hey - you are only 0 for 5. Care to try again?

Right, right,right, right! Two can play that game.

I don't know what Obama is going to do, but it should be interesting. I don't trust ANY politician. They're all crooks and they all cause problems.



ADDED: Bill was the only one who knew EXACTLY what he wanted and went after it, talk about chutzpah. That was his only success and it got him impeached!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Right, right,right, right! Two can play that game.

You are too funny!

I don't know what Obama is going to do, but it should be interesting. I don't trust ANY politician. They're all crooks and they all cause problems.

Agreed...