Skip to comments.Why We Need a Second Stimulus
Posted on 08/29/2010 9:02:44 PM PDT by vrwc1
OUR national debate about fiscal policy has become skewed, with far too much focus on the deficit and far too little on unemployment. There is too much worry about the size of government, and too little appreciation for how stimulus spending has helped stabilize the economy and how more of the right kind of government spending could boost job creation and economic growth. By focusing on the wrong things, we are in serious danger of failing to do the right things to help the economy recover from its worst labor market crisis since the Great Depression.
By easing capital market concerns about the governments future borrowing needs, such a plan would permit larger deficits and slower debt reduction while unemployment is still high. The long-run debt problem the result of imprudent fiscal decisions before the recession, escalating health care costs and an aging population must be addressed once the economy has recovered. But for now the priorities of fiscal policy should be jobs and investment.
Laura Tyson, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, was chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers and the National Economic Council in the Clinton administration. She is a member of President Obamas Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They just can't bring themselves cut spending...they're addicted to our money.
2nd? Haven’t we already had 3?
Why we need to remove Dems and RINO’s from office come November is the more likely mantra or headline.
We might need a stimulus — it wouldn’t be the 2nd though, since last year’s bill didn’t stimulate anything, being totally inappropriate for the task.
Go back to the chicken biz, Laura.
Lets see here. If you are unemployed and over $300k in debt, the best thing you can do to get out of your financial situation is run up your credit cards to the max. Makes sense to me...
Go back to the chicken biz, Laura.
THIS is why I can no longer tell the ‘satire’ threads from the news threads.
You are an idiot.
Nice, who’s getting billions this time round?
Even the dims are running away from this talk. Laura Tyson is a commie pinko dope who has no credibility. I hope Obummer bites this hook. His poll numbers will be to 15% in notime.
They honestly just don't get it.
Me thinks Laura has been a little to close to that nutcase Krugman.
These people will take us ALL unless we say NO NO NO!!!
Stand up or go DOWN!
We don’t need anymore fake spending. I want Obama to tell me what that MUF hit was in Sept. 2008. It was a financial attack on our investment industry that was never explained.
BTW I refied my loan on Friday at 4.5 and the banks have money.
Obama hasn’t even got done spending all of the first (second?) Stimulus Package. Waiting for a fresh influx this October, and then again in October ‘12. Oh, and that “emergency” teacher’s fund? Those funds can be distributed all the way out to.....Nov. ‘12. Buying votes isn’t illegal if you know how to do it correctly. And even better when you can use someone else’s money!
Query: If Libs believe massive government economic stimuli are good for us all, why do they not propose a new one every quarter, or monthly?
I’m figuring the real stimulus is scheduled for November.
well if the person who has spent their whole life in politics and academia (and has never run a business/ had to meet a payroll) thinks more stimulus is the key...who am I to argue? (rolling eyes)
You got him pegged.
The Dems still coming up short on their unions promises?
Or is this the vig?
We NEED a second stimulus because the first stimulus missed its goal of killing off the free economy!
They actually think that spending money we don’t have on make-work projects will “stimulate the economy”. Did they not learn anything from watching the USSR collapse while they had 100% employment?
I’m not actually referring to any forthcoming legislation, so much as the bounce that we’ll see in the stock market the day after Obama’s lapdogs get neutered.
I need some help from my "Liberal Friends." If I understand this right the economic crisis is a result of Bush and Clinton, and Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan and Carter running up the deficit by spending more than we have revenue.
This is the part that puzzles me. The cure for the present economic crisis per Obama and the New York Times is to spend more than our revenue and to tax more than now. The proposed new taxes are far less than the new deficit spending. I am confused.
Bush deficit bad, Obama deficit more than Bush deficit good? Perhaps a greater mind than mine, such as Krugman of the New York Times can explain this to me.
Cut off all government waste “stimulus” of money and wipe out those living on credit or we are in for another 10+ years of depression just like the one that FDR forced on us.
Clintonista Laura Tyson! ROTFL!!! Now there’s an “expert” for ya!
Idiots like this woman are why we’re in this mess.
Not sure I can share your optimism.
Can anybody tell me when a government stimulus actually worked, ever? Ever? Anyone?
The first paragraph says it all. Are there any leaders left with common sense?
Isn’t it foolish to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?
These people are fools!
Answer: BECAUSE we are not totally bankrupt YET!...
“commie pinko dope who has no credibility”
Sounds like a good descripption for Obama
ROTFL!!! Love it!!!
THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER ONE!!!
Bush had one, Obama had one, so this new one would be the third. All over the media Bush's stimulus seems to be disappearing. I wonder if this is deliberate in order to sell another stimulus because the press doesn't believe the public will go for another one if they remember it is really the third stimulus.
We got into a discussion about the current financial mess, and just as I expected, he laid the Blame on the Bush Administration. He accused Bush of decimating the Middle Class while catering to the Rich.
I asked him if Tax Revenues increased under Bush. He didn't know, so I educated him to the fact that Tax Revenues increased 35% with the Bush Tax Rate Cuts in place from 2003 to 2008, while “the rich” paid more of the overall Tax Liability than ever before.
His Berkeley Professors convinced him that the “Middle Class” slid into poverty under Bush, while I explained to him that the reality of increased Tax Revenue proved that a greater number of the Middle Class moved into the “Upper Middle Class” category than moved down to the “Lower Middle Class” or “Working Poor” category as he was taught.
Four years of a Liberal Berkeley Education takes its toll.
I explained to the Young Man that the definition of Rich to a Liberal is someone making a dollar more than they do.
I'm not sure if he appreciated what I had to say, but hopefully he will realize the truth one day.
They could have stimulated the economy by decreasing taxes.
- The government stimulus is to slow to react. Government red tape, controls, etc made the money infusion slow.
- The multiplying effect, i.e. how much every dollar stimulated the economy was horrible. How much does studying the Mormon cricket stimulate the economy? The money went into all sorts of things, most of these things benefited a politician somehow and did not have a large stimulating effect.
The problem with liberals is that they only see the government side stimulating anything. They ignore the fact that there is such a thing as a private sector, or that most employers are smaller and mid sized proprietor ships, partnerships and LLCs. So while this buffoon talks of stimulating an economy, the reality is that this Congress and administration has managed to create so much turmoil and fear that many are holding back on spending. Health care reform, talk of carbon taxes, expiring Bush tax cuts, massive financial reforms..... Hell, not even the federal agencies tasked to oversee these new laws really know what they are to do, what half this crap means......... Nearly every new law passed in the last 18 months has an economic growth suppressing effect (textbook macro economics) and this idiot is talking about how they are saving the economy by spending money on pet projects?
If this economy recovers it is “in spite” of this Congress and administration.
OK, so we just asked the wrong Tyson.
We’d be better off asking Mike what HE thinks we should do.
Given the mountain of deductions and credits in the current tax law (many of which are now essentially useless anyway), it's time to seriously look at going to a true no-deductions flat income tax (other than a generous initial exemption) as soon as possible that ends taxes on bank account interest, capital gains and stock dividend payments--something originally proposed some 14 year ago by Steve Forbes. The very fact the current income tax system encourages American citizens and businesses to offshore savings, jobs and manufacturing facilities, and even corporate headquarters beyond US borders as a means of tax avoidance is flat-out economic insanity; we should simplify and change our tax laws so we keep our savings and capital investments as much as possible in the USA, which would help build up bank assets again and encourage American companies to keep jobs, manufacturing facilities and even corporate headquarters here in the USA, a step very necessary for true economic recovery and future growth.
Why on earth would anyone listen to an economist from UC-Berkeley? That's like asking a communist for stock picks.
What I find to be simply amazing is that the Democrats have been spending money like there's no tomorrow for the past 18 months, presumably to help the economy.
The only problem is is that NOW they are saying Obama and his politburo need to concentrate on JOBS now. Hello? Knock, knock. McFly!?? Why have they been spending ANY OF THIS MONEY on other things other than to stimulate job creation? And these idiots think they deserve to stay in office?
By threatening to increase government spending even more and increase tax rates, the Obama administration will generate economic stagnation at best and an even bigger recession has become a strong possibility. Those with money are looking for safe places to wait out the uncertainty Obama is generating. They won't be creating new jobs any time soon.