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 ...
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.
You can have both larger deficits and debt reduction??
But for now the priorities of fiscal policy should be jobs and investment we need a huge slush fund for the mid-terms and we need it NOW!
Fixed it.
This sounds like someone who already has huge debt on a couple of credit cards saying that getting a third credit card will solve the problem.
It is reported that Obama is still sitting on about $400 billion of unspent stimuus money.
Must be he can’t find enough useless hare-brained research projects or foreign leftists to give the money to.
The best stimulus for America will be to hear these three words:
FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA
He is using that as a hedge against that attack that was never explained in Sep 2008. I do not trust them at all.
Obama people can spread havoc. But it takes a Hillary disciple to go for the kill shot.
Where’s the BARF alert?
“Why We Need a Second Stimulus? Because We’re The New York Times.”
Frank Rich has a new ‘nom de plume’?
The first was a complete waste of money, but, heck, future generations haven’t been sufficiently enslaved; let’s add to their burdens and maybe they’ll NEVER get out of debt.
Wouldn’t THAT be amusing!
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.