02-11-2009, 11:33 AM
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I think his point was along the lines that Obama resorted to fear tactics to get his stimulus passed, which is a fair thing for him to say. Things went from, "we must pass this bill to help free up lending in our economy" to "OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING EVERYONE'S GONNA BE BROKE AND THINGS ARE GOING TO BE WORSE THAN THEY WERE IN THE DEPRESSION IF WE DON'T PASS THIS BILL RIGHT NOW!$#!$#@!", and this happened almost overnight when members of congress, including some Democrats, balked at his original bill, which wasn't even his, it was Pelosi's.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I fell for that once, too. As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Bush used that same argument on the first stimulus and I still don't feel very...stimulated. smile.gif The fact is, nobody knows what will happen with or without this stimulus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I quoted both of these, because I think they speak to the same issue. You have to understand one thing when we talk of this. Bush DID use the same argument, and essentially he was wrong, but the push to get TARP passed and the argument that Obama is making right now are two (almost) entirely different arguments. Bush and Paulson were worried about a credit crunch when the original TARP negotiations began. They thought we were in the midst of a liquidity crisis, and that priming the lending pump would get things going again. They (obviously) were wrong (and you are correct that they also pushed it through too fast). The stimulus is an entirely different matter. We are HEMORRHAGING jobs right now. RIGHT NOW. It's happening. It's not theoretical. And every job we lose is one more person that can't spend money in an economy that desperately needs spending. As spending decreases, more jobs are lost. As more jobs are lost, spending decreases. It is an ugly fucking spiral. And it's happening as we speak. The stimulus needs to have happened 6 months ago. It's that critical.
Furthermore, Obama really isn't trying to scare the people so much as to light a fire under the asses of the Republicans. For some godforsaken reason the Republicans are treating the stimulus as if it is a budget that needs to be balanced. It's a SPENDING BILL. We need to spend money. In normal times, that's fiscally irresponsible. Right now it's a necessity. I heard a great line the other night concerning McCain's approach to this. Cutting back on the spending in a spending bill is like taking a shortcut while you are jogging. You can do it, but why in God's name would you?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Fair enough, and I agree with this, however, I don't agree with listening to economists who just a year ago were telling us to buy homes and that the housing market was stable. Most of them, anyway. Some were spot on, but in either case, both sides were merely guessing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, many got things wrong, that's true, but many got it right (Roubini, Krugman, etc). But seriously, can you find me ONE decent economist who doesn't think that things are going to get worse, probably much worse, before they get better?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I fell for that once, too. As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Bush used that same argument on the first stimulus and I still don't feel very...stimulated. smile.gif The fact is, nobody knows what will happen with or without this stimulus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I quoted both of these, because I think they speak to the same issue. You have to understand one thing when we talk of this. Bush DID use the same argument, and essentially he was wrong, but the push to get TARP passed and the argument that Obama is making right now are two (almost) entirely different arguments. Bush and Paulson were worried about a credit crunch when the original TARP negotiations began. They thought we were in the midst of a liquidity crisis, and that priming the lending pump would get things going again. They (obviously) were wrong (and you are correct that they also pushed it through too fast). The stimulus is an entirely different matter. We are HEMORRHAGING jobs right now. RIGHT NOW. It's happening. It's not theoretical. And every job we lose is one more person that can't spend money in an economy that desperately needs spending. As spending decreases, more jobs are lost. As more jobs are lost, spending decreases. It is an ugly fucking spiral. And it's happening as we speak. The stimulus needs to have happened 6 months ago. It's that critical.
Furthermore, Obama really isn't trying to scare the people so much as to light a fire under the asses of the Republicans. For some godforsaken reason the Republicans are treating the stimulus as if it is a budget that needs to be balanced. It's a SPENDING BILL. We need to spend money. In normal times, that's fiscally irresponsible. Right now it's a necessity. I heard a great line the other night concerning McCain's approach to this. Cutting back on the spending in a spending bill is like taking a shortcut while you are jogging. You can do it, but why in God's name would you?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Fair enough, and I agree with this, however, I don't agree with listening to economists who just a year ago were telling us to buy homes and that the housing market was stable. Most of them, anyway. Some were spot on, but in either case, both sides were merely guessing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, many got things wrong, that's true, but many got it right (Roubini, Krugman, etc). But seriously, can you find me ONE decent economist who doesn't think that things are going to get worse, probably much worse, before they get better?
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.