Skip to main content

View Diary: POTUS and Rep. Pelosi Announce Plans to Win Back the House (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He's the manchurian austerian, don't you know? (16+ / 0-)

    Adjusted for inflation, the entirety of the stimulus package is by some accounts reported to be larger than the New Deal, per GDP, but the President is supposedly an austerian underneath that? Yes, the stimulus wasn't big enough still (neither was the New Deal). But underneath the stimulus, the guy is an austerian?

    Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

    by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:24:21 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, the stimulus wasn't big enough. (9+ / 0-)

      Even one of his advisers told him so.  She's not longer there.

      •  The stimulus was as big as he could get from (13+ / 0-)

        congress.

        In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

        by Sixty Something on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:07:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody was talking $2 to $3 trillion (6+ / 0-)

        Which is how large economists such as Robert Reich estimate it needed to be. But even Robert Reich would tell you the unfortunate downside to Keynesian economics is that it cannot accurately predict the size of stimulative measures.

        This has been litigated endlessly since 2009. No, the stimulus technically wasn't big enough. And no, the Administration had no idea to what degree the economy was contracting based on initial GDP reports.

        Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

        by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:26:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Incorrect, Romer: 1.8 trillion, Reich: 700 billion (4+ / 0-)

          No one was higher than Romer, Dean Baker was talking about 1.2 trillion...

          Reich called for 500 to 700 billion, Nov. 24th, 2008.

          it cannot accurately predict the size of stimulative measures.
          Actually you count the contraction in dollars, and just put the dollars back in, in the form of stim.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:08:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The the ARRA was bigger than what Reich said? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, Tony Situ, aitchdee

            Robert Reich is pretty progressive. I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, other than the President ended up with a stimulus package larger than what a progressive like Robert Reich called for.

            Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

            by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:14:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You are correct. Chrstine Romer asked for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic, gooderservice

        1.8 trillion, about 8% of GDP, almost exactly what FDR spent in his first term.

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:52:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're embarassing yourself, please stop. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OIL GUY, aitchdee

          In 1933, total federal spending was 9.05% of GDP.

          In 2009, total federal spending was 25.17% of GDP.

          Was all of what FDR spent in 1933 the New Deal...?

          So scurry along now. You're in way over your head here.

          Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

          by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:13:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you saying Romer didnt ask for 1.8 trillion? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gooderservice

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Compare 1933 & 1938 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gooderservice

            whats the difference?

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  1933 = Keynsianism stimulus, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Onomastic, aitchdee

              1938 = David Cameron style austerity.

              But that doesn't prove that Obama should have spent in 2009 the same amount as FDR spent in 1933, since FDR was facing much larger problem that had been going on for three years.

              •  Forget about FDR (0+ / 0-)

                the issue is measuring what happened in 2009, and fitting a solution scaled to the problem. NO?

                The entire ARRA was 787 billion, including tax cuts. Thats 5,2% of GDP.

                U6 peaked at 17.2%, thats about 27 million jobs. Using a multiplier of 2, spending 1.4 trillion would create 28 million jobs.. Thats 9.3% of GDP.

                Christine Romer wanted to spend 1.8 trillion - Dean Baker 1.2 trillion, they got these numbers by, in part measuring the contraction in jobs.

                .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 11:32:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  FDR faced greater than 20% unemployment. (0+ / 0-)

          FDR was trying to get out of the Great Depression that had been going on for 3 years (an effort that did not totally succeed (didn't come close, actually), but was valiant and did significantly lessen the Depression until FDR's 1937 austerity reversed the progress leading to a huge economic downturn).

          Obama, on the other hand, faced not 20%+ unemployment, but 10% (at it's peak).  And he wasn't trying to exit a Great Depression, he was instead trying to prevent a Great Depression (succeeding) and then recover from the Great Recession (failing so far, we've had partial recovery at too slow a pace, not total recovery, though some projections look promising).  

          It's questionable to suggest that Obama should spend as much on his stimulus as FDR spent on the New Deal (by whatever measure you want to use (NoFortunateSon's post suggests that using "percentage of GDP" as the measuring stick is faulty)), since the problems they faced were different in both degree and kind.

          Let me put it this way: Were FDR president in 2009, he wouldn't have spent what he spent in 1933.  Because the problems were different.

    •  Tell it to the 12% of Americans who are (7+ / 0-)

      unemployed or underemployed, the ones whose SS benefits he wants to cut when they retire.  

      Obama may have pulled off a miracle in 2012 when he ran for re-election with a shitty economy and high unemployment.  It would be a massive mistake if he and his ardent supporters assume he can pull off an even bigger stunt in 2014.  Tell him to take his sadistic impulses elsewhere.

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

      by Betty Pinson on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:51:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it was a "miracle." (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, deep info

        I equate it to Bush being reelected in 2004, even though he lied us into war.

        If there had been a stronger candidate than Romney, I think he would have lost.  Romney was a joke.  I don't know, maybe a lot of people considered Kerry a joke, too. The republicans successfully swift-boated Kerry.

        Oh, and some/many people who voted for Bush's reelection thought Bush was a fighter pilot during the Vietnam era.

      •  I love how they keep thinking he's a fluke... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0, Onomastic, Tony Situ, aitchdee

        Like he pulled off some kind of miracle in 2008 and 2012.

        Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

        by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:31:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The other day, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox, 3goldens

        I can't recall, some popular writer was saying how much of a tragedy that the BO presidency is - supposedly, the Bush administration was supporting some sort of mortgage relief, but BO nixed the plan.  

        I'm wondering if efforts by BO would worsen the chances of democrats.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:40:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This (5+ / 0-)

          http://delong.typepad.com/...

          The source for the report is Barney Frank.

          •  Thanks. (4+ / 0-)

            All those people losing their homes who didn't have to....

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:05:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Good report from Barney Frank about Obama. (0+ / 0-)

            I had actually missed that one.

          •  I'm confused. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tony Situ, aitchdee, sviscusi

            According to the piece you linked to, President Obama didn't even know about the mortgage relief proposal. His people didn't tell him about it.

            The mortgage crisis was worsened this past time because critical decisions were made during the transition between Bush and Obama. We voted the TARP out. The TARP was basically being administered by Hank Paulson as the last man home in a lame duck, and I was disappointed. I tried to get them to use the TARP to put some leverage on the banks to do more about mortgages, and Paulson at first resisted that, he just wanted to get the money out. And after he got the first chunk of money out, he would have had to ask for a second chunk, he said, all right, I’ll tell you what, I’ll ask for that second chunk and I’ll use some of that as leverage on mortgages, but I’m not going to do that unless Obama asks for it.  This is now December, so we tried to get the Obama people to ask him and they wouldn’t do it.
            http://delong.typepad.com/...

            I was curious so I read the entire New Yorker Magazine article piece you linked to supposedly quoted.  They and you seem to have left out a few things.

            Here's the entire quote.

            The mortgage crisis was worsened because critical decisions were made during the transition between Bush and Obama. TARP was basically being administered by Hank Paulson as the last man home in a lame-duck presidency. I tried to get them to use the TARP to put some leverage on the banks to do more about mortgages, and Paulson at first ­resisted—he just wanted to get the money out. And after he got the first chunk of money out, he said, “All right, I’ll tell you what, I’ll ask for a second chunk, and I’ll use some of that as leverage on mortgages, but I’m not going to do that unless Obama asks for it.” This is now December, so we tried to get the Obama people to ask him, and they wouldn’t do it. During the critical period when the TARP was being administered, there was a vacuum of political leadership. At one point, Obama said, “Well, we only have one president at a time.” I said I was afraid that overstated the number of presidents. We had no president.
            [empahsis added]

            http://nymag.com/...

            It was Barney Frank, pushing for help for home owners, not Bush.  Barack Obama would not be sworn in as President for a month, and his advisers hadn't told him about any plan for mortgage relief for homeowners.

            And yet, he's somehow to blame for this?

            Now I may be missing something, but that's stretching things a bit, isn't it?

            "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

            by Onomastic on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 10:32:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just like the Tea Party (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tony Situ

              The Liar Blog Fake crowd live in their own reality.

              Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

              by NoFortunateSon on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 05:12:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Obama is a lead weight on the Dems. (0+ / 0-)

          It hasn't been noticed by a lot of people yet.

          I find that I spend my political activism time saying "Look, I know you don't like Obama, but your local Democratic state senator is not Obama, vote for him anyway".

      •  U6 is 13.8% 'bout 22 million (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:09:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Obama is a sadist!" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic, aitchdee

        "Obama loves inflicting pain just for his own perverse pleasures."  Is that the latest progressive talking point?  Is there no line you guys won't cross in your character assassinations?

    •  and much of the stimulus money... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gooderservice, 3goldens, deep info

      ..when to people who are rich already.  IE bankers.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:03:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And what has he done since? (6+ / 0-)

      Since then, he has made deficit reduction his prime goal.  Deficit reduction = austerity

      Unless you were hibernating during the summer of 2011, there is no way to deny that Obama is a champion of austerity.

      If Obama was not a supporter of austerity, then he would agree with John Conyers that we need to repeal the line of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that enacted sequestration.  Obama does not want to do that.  He wants to replace it with cuts to Social Security and Medicare and extract chump change from the rich (and we all know that the tax increases will be undone in the future but the benefits never restored).

      Obama rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan (of which he still spoke highly) not because it took an axe to the welfare state, but because it cut military spending too much for his liking.

      •  So he was for stimulus before he was against it? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic, OIL GUY, aitchdee

        What changed between 2009 and 2011? Hmmmm......

        Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

        by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:34:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Simpson-Bowles was created BEFORE 2010 election (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (or Simpson-Bowles Commission) was created in April 2010, i.e. before the 2010 election.  Obama had already moved to austerity mode.  It was not a response to the 2010 election.

          •  So what changed? (0+ / 0-)

            Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

            by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:18:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If I had to guess (0+ / 0-)

              He did the stimulus out of necessary because the economy was seriously tanking.  However, as soon as that was over, the self-described Blue Dog Democrat (http://my.firedoglake.com/...) wanted to shift the focus to deficit reduction, which was a larger priority for him.  He may have drunk his own Kool-Aid and though he would actually usher in an age of "post-partisanship" and thought that deficit reduction would be the best issue for that.  He had, however, begun to talk about cutting Social Security and Medicare even before taking office, but he couldn't move on those policies while the economy was seriously in the gutter.  

    •  I've heard the New Deal claim & its Horse Hockey (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, deep info, gooderservice

      During FDR's first term Fed Gov spending went from 10% of GDP to 20% of GDP. SO the New Deal cost at least 8% of GDP. Which is why Christine Romer asked for 1.8 trillion in stim, about 8% of GDP.

      Government spending at the start of the 20th century was less than 7 percent of GDP. It vaulted to almost 30 percent of GDP by the end of World War I, and then settled down to 10 percent of GDP in the 1920s. In the 1930s spending doubled to 20 percent of GDP.
      http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...
      If we count the entire ARRA spending of 500 billion, thats 3.35% of GDP.

      The reality is only 170 billion was spent on infrastructure, about 1.7% of GDP in 2010, and 1.3% in 2011.

      Republicans like to exaggerate the amount spent to show the stim wasnt effective and to generally deride Keynesian Economics. But typically Infrastructure gets a multiplier of 2.5.

      170 billion spent on  infrastructure in 2010-2011 created 4.2 million jobs as the White House noted. Yes, the Stimulus worked as advertised.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:50:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your calculations are incorrect (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OIL GUY, aitchdee, sviscusi

        The total cost of the ARRA was closer to one trillion.

        Plus, you're comparing total Federal spending under FDR to just Stimulus spending under Obama.

        Use the correct numbers, and go back and recalculate.

        Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

        by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:56:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh cockleshells (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info

          You got no links, just an opinion, so you think Wiki is wrong?

          That is some funny shit.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:13:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your Google machine is broken? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OIL GUY, aitchdee

            Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

            by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:17:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  787 billion minus 288 billion in tax cuts= (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens, gooderservice
              The Act specifies that 37% of the package is to be devoted to tax incentives equaling $288 billion and $144 billion, or 18%, is allocated to state and local fiscal relief (more than 90% of the state aid is going to Medicaid and education). The remaining 45%, or $357 billion, is allocated to federal spending programs such as transportation, communication, waste water and sewer infrastructure improvements; energy efficiency upgrades in private and federal buildings; extension of federal unemployment benefits; and scientific research programs.
              144 billion plus 357 billion is 501 billion in spending programs.

              Of which only about 170 billion are infrastructure dollars.

              .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:30:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tax cuts are stimulative (0+ / 0-)

                Not as stimulative as infrastructure, but stimulative nonetheless. You don't get to fudge the numbers.

                Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

                by NoFortunateSon on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 05:06:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (70)
  • Elections (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Culture (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Memorial Day (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site