Barth's picture

    Hell in a Handbasket (a special Sunday post)

    By Barth on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 2:54pm |

    whatever a handbasket is, or why going to hell in it is notable, this is proof that it is happening. 

    Where once a president, seeking re-election, said: 



    This Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.... 

    Of course we will provide useful work for the needy unemployed; we prefer useful work to the pauperism of a dole. 

    Here and now I want to make myself clear about those who disparage their fellow citizens on the relief rolls. They say that those on relief are not merely jobless—that they are worthless. Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief—to purge the rolls by starvation. To use the language of the stock broker, our needy unemployed would be cared for when, as, and if some fairy godmother should happen on the scene. 

    You and I will continue to refuse to accept that estimate of our unemployed fellow Americans. Your Government is still on the same side of the street with the Good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side. 

    Again—what of our objectives? 

    Of course we will continue our efforts for young men and women so that they may obtain an education and an opportunity to put it to use. Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers, our insurance for the unemployed, our security for the aged. Of course we will continue to protect the consumer against unnecessary price spreads, against the costs that are added by monopoly and speculation. We will continue our successful efforts to increase his purchasing power and to keep it constant. 

    For these things, too, and for a multitude of others like them, we have only just begun to fight


    it is now reported that 
     

    A wide range of economists say the administration should call for a new round of stimulus spending, as prescribed by mainstream economic theory, to create jobs and promote growth. It is clear that the House would never pass such a plan.... 

    A series of departures has left few economists among Mr. Obama’s senior advisers. Several of his political advisers are skeptical about the merits of stimulus spending, and they are certain about the politics: voters do not like it.


    So there you are. 

    Have a nice day. 

    Comments

    We already had $500 billion in real stimulus and it proved to far less to overcome the global forces of this recession.  So what would the point of doing that again if just keeps conditions at place where people say is unacceptable.  So what amount would be needed?  $1 trillion? $2 trillion? $3 trillion?

    Lets say $2.5 trillion for argument's sake.  As soon as we do, anyone who has a sliver of understanding of the current dynamics in Congress knows that is just on DOA proposal. Which would lead to one of the points made in the NY Times article:

    So far, most signs point to a continuation of the nonconfrontational approach — better to do something than nothing — that has defined this administration. Mr. Obama and his aides are skeptical that voters will reward bold proposals if those ideas do not pass Congress. It is their judgment that moderate voters want tangible results rather than speeches.

    While my first inclination would be say to fight for the stimulus, to go for the bold idea, as a way of differentiating one with the Republicans in the upcoming election would be the way to go.  But there is a certain logic to the notion that if the president gives a bunch of FDR speeches, but nothing comes out of Congress, it will be the lack of productivity rather than the proposed bold ideas that the public will base their voting decision on.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 3:37pm

    I'm starting to think that you have a lot of money.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 3:41pm

    hahahahaha.  it is the reason i got into the non-profit sector:  the big bucks.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 3:59pm

    It looks as though "tangible results" in this context consists of collaborating with Republicans and conservative Democrats to protect low tax rates on the well-off, to cut spending on social programs, and to watch our infrastructure continue to crumble.

    Of course, we may find another war to launch, from time to time.


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 4:11pm

    It seem that is partially true:

    As part of this appeal to centrist voters, the president intends to continue his push for a so-called grand bargain on deficit reduction — a deal with Republicans to make even larger spending cuts, including to the social safety net, in exchange for some revenue increases — despite the strong opposition of Congressional Democrats who want to use the issue to draw contrasts with Republicans.

    Administration officials say that their focus is on a number of smaller programs that could benefit the economy, a theme Mr. Obama has emphasized in his recent speeches.

    “We know there are things Congress can do, right now, to get more money back in your pockets, get this economy growing faster and get our friends and neighbors back to work,” Mr. Obama said on Saturday in his weekly address.

    Obama would seem to be going after some increases in the wealthy's taxes. 

    But the reality is that if Obama aligned himself with the liberals in Congress, there would be no tangible results. 

    Which is not saying that Obama is just itchin' to join the liberals if he thought they could eke out a victory.

    Which is not saying this all tickles me pink.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 4:30pm

     going after some increases in the wealthy's taxes. 

     

    O cursed fate, that his signature should have been forged on the Bush tax extension...


    by jollyroger on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 4:41pm

    Don't you love this report?

    Administration officials, frustrated by the intransigence of House Republicans, have increasingly concluded that the best thing Mr. Obama can do for the economy may be winning a second term, with a mandate to advance his ideas on deficit reduction, entitlement changes...

    This administration is already interpreting his re-election as a mandate for deficit reduction, entitlement changes...

    Just what we need. 


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 4:53pm

    From a thirty year perspective, actually it is what we need.  Much of the debate right now is how much we should focus on the short term vs. the intermediate term vs. the long term. 

    One of the views would be that whatever the US could possibly do for the short term would swallowed up by the meltdown in Europe.  Even though it would help from things getting worse, for the average joe in the street, things would be pretty much the same as they were before the "second stimulus."  From a political strategist point of view, one gets the negative of the stimulus (increasing the debt which is still on track to increase even with the current deal on cuts over the next 10 years) with no of the benefits that would be derived from a decrease in unemployment, etc.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 5:17pm

    Oh sure.  A mandate will fix it!


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 5:25pm

    Let's keep in mind that as far as I know, no one in the administration is talking about a "mandate." 


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 5:31pm

    You might want to check this link, Trope:

    White House Debates Fight on Economy, NY Times

    Yes, it appears that several in the administration are talking about a mandate in the next term to cut deficits and entitlements. That's what I quoted from above.

    Not much talk about a mandate for bringing our boys and girls home from the front, however.


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 5:41pm

    Since I have already quoted from this article a few times today, I would assume that implies I have checked it out.  What I am saying is that while the WH may say what is there they are running on, they haven't said explicitly that should they win it would be a mandate for this.  If the people send a bunch of Dems to Congress who run on a campaign of no touchy to entitlements, then it quite likely that the WH will not be saying on election night there is a mandate for this, and would get into a grind out fight with a Democratic-controlled Congress over it.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:05pm

    Point taken.

    I was just confused when you said that no one in the White House was talking about a "mandate." 

     


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:29pm

    So the White House official quoted is fictitious?

     


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:14pm

    while the reporters used the term "mandate," there is no one in white house being quoted as such.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:23pm

    I ain't no economist and can't rub two nickels together, but here are two ideas I have read or heard about that could help, at least a bit:

    Steve Benen:

    how about a new stimulus package focused on granting Republicans’ requests for public investments?

    Joe Nocera:

    Someone suggested to me recently that the government could create a $50 billion fund for small business, and use it to pay, say, 20 percent of the wages of new hires for two years — first come, first served. Why doesn’t Obama suggest something like that?


    by Barth on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:51pm

    Regarding the first suggestion, given, as my latest blog shows, the incumbents already enjoy a 80%+ chance of being re-elected, there is no way the Democrats would in no way go along with a plan that would ensure the Republicans hold onto their gains from 2010.

    The second one is more possible, and the indication is that WH would be open to such a proposal because it has the air of possibility of making it to the light of day.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:14pm

    If we need to be craven about this, how about only funding the projects in safe Republican districts.  Then fund ones in safe Democratic districts.

    But jobs are more important than political advantage right now.  How would an incumbent Republican take advantage of funding her or she "got"?  By extolling the virtues of government spending.

     


    by Barth on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:23am

    Regarding Nocera's suggestion, the question is, who would pay the other 80%?

    This is the zombie tax credit proposal on steroids. It is based on the questionable premise that employers are in a hiring mood, but are held back by lack of incentives to hire.

    The only real incentive to hire is demand, and demand is what's missing today. So why would any employer want to pay 80% of the cost of an employee that is not needed?


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:33pm

    Here's a 20% jobs plan that works: 4 *day work week. (already succeeding in European venues)

     

    *day=8 hours, btw, no fudging.  Also make overtime triple pay so they can't just work the existing staff to death.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:38pm

    While my first inclination would be say to fight for the stimulus, to go for the bold idea ...

    Thanks for the chuckle, Trope. I needed that.


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:21am

    A shout out to DD - this one is for you


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:02pm

    If I had a radio show (which I did for a short time two decades ago?) this would be my theme song for sure.

    If my Irish Catholic grannie were still alive I would have sent her disc. hahahahah

    Just to piss her off!


    by Richard Day on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 2:07am

    Latest Comments