Badmovies.org Forum

I had been entirely pessimistic that this stimulus would, like the other stimuluses and bailouts, do nothing for the economy.  I think temporary measures are meaningless and you have to tell people "from now on there will be no income tax" then they can reset their long term plans to spend more.    But the fact that the guy I call the most dangerous man in America, socialist Paul Krugman,  seems to agressively dislike this current plan gives me hope.   

7, 2009, 5:36 pm
What the centrists have wrought (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/)
I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.  :lol:

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.

The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.


600,000 fewer beaurocrats and rent seekers sounds like a great stimulus to me.  is anyones state government not bloated?  in massachusetts we pay police officers 40 dollars an hour to direct traffic.  everyone knows we could be paying a guy to do it at a fraction of the cost like every other state but the state has been unwilling to make the change.  Now they'll have to.

Hmmm . . . could it be - strange though it may seem - that Lester and I agree?


This may be a sign of the Apocalypse!

The problem with having states cut jobs is that it's not the bureaucrats that will oose those jobs, it often will be people in needed positions who are not cronines of local and state political figures who get cut. A prime example is the local board of education where I live cut jobs recently cause of a budget crisis they are having. The jobs that got cut were all the scholl nurses and most of the special education department. Schools still have a ton of people working in admiastrative positions that are not needed yet they all kept their jobs.
Then there is another problem I see which is all these cities lining up for part of this stimulus money for projects really not needed like installing a fountain or putting up a statue of a popular sports coach. Makes as much sense as building a high dollar sewer system that only 1% of you area's population can use and expecting the other 99% to pay for it anyway.
So I hope there is some controls on how these cuts and money can be used, otherwise it's a waste in general no matter who's in charge. Cause without any controls on these, in 6 months to a year we could be back in the same spot we are in now.

meQal-  great post.  the government is doing absolutely everything they can to "ride out" this crisis without losing anything themselves.  they will throw everything overboard but the cheese

I agree completely. Same thing happened in Ontario over a decade ago, when the province was cutting education and health funding. Some of this was certainly justified. Having some dealings with the local school board in the early 90s, I saw more than a few extravagances that accomplished nothing in the classroom. But when it came down to cutting costs, the cuts were more often to front-line employees. Nurses would get the axe while hospitals would hire CEOs at a quarter-million a year. And school boards would decide that some schools did not warrant a full-time secretary, librarian, or even cleaning staff. People blamed the government, but it was the bureaucrats. The way the funding is calculated today, some towns don't even warrant their own school, but give many school officials more money, and the classroom is not necessarily the first place it will go. Of course, the bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education are as much to blame, if not more. If the money could flow more directly to schools, things would be much better.

they don't call it a correction for nothing.  it wasn't just wall street that got us here

The content of this post will shock you----> I actually have no opinion on this topic.  :bouncegiggle:

oh come on.  don't you think it's time the government cut some of their extravagences?  we are in a recession after all