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 government’s 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 Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
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.
Agreed.
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.