Skip to main content

View Diary: Stimulus and Brewster's Trillions (14 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  $1.5 trillion over and above the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lucius1113, JeffW

    current '09 deficit somewhere on the order of $1.5 trillion?  We stimulated the economy to the tune of $1.2 trillion in '08 and that didn't do much at all.  Will $3 trillion in deficit spending turn things around?  The US economy didn't meltdown overnight; it took decades to get here.  Thus, it's not going to be fixed overnight and not "fixed" at all if all we do is shore up the current system (what does anybody think GWB did for eight years?).  So, far Obama's doing more of that and a pittance on rejiggering the US economy.

    (Did anyone in Japan lose healthcare, housing or have to depend on charity for food when their economy was in the doldrums?)

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 07:02:57 PM PST

    •  The economy would have been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW

      in far worse shape without our current deficits. And we didn't stimulate $1.2 trillion.

      The tarp money and other monies given to banks was not stimulus - it was plugging holes in bank balance sheets.  That money was not stimulus.  

      The U.S. taxpayers got a horrible deal for that money we gave to banks.  That is another topic, the criminality of Hank Paulson.

      But the total deficit spending last year was in the $600B range not $1.2T.  So we didn't stimulate nearly enough to avoid our current situation.

      I am repeating myself, and thats ok.

      by mickslam on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 07:44:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I take a broader view of government stimulus (0+ / 0-)

        spending.  All deficit spending falls into the category for me.  Doesn't mean that it's effective or even intended to stimulate the economy, but if we follow the money, all deficit spending has some stimulative effect.  The TARP money is refunding the banksters for the cost of the housing bubble that propped up the economy for seven years.  The deficit spending to fight the wars, props up arms manufacturers and military service companies.  Neither are cost efficient economic stimuli but it's incorrect not the see that they stimulated certain sectors of the US economy.  

        What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

        by Marie on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:02:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  interesting and totally of the moment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marie

          I see where you are coming from. and in this particular case, you are probably close to the truth.  

          Taking the common view the big banks were bankrupt and their failure would have thrown our economy into a immediate depression,  TARP funds counts as something like stimulus.  However, it does not really stimulate the economy in that it makes businesses and people more likely to spend/consume/invest/get on with economic life.  With some of those funds, we are supposed to get the money back.  

          I think that Hank Paulson has made a huge investment to protect wall street, money manager capitalism.  This was not in the best interests of the united states.  We now have something we needed to avoid - Japan-like Zombie Banks.

          Like the tag line about FDR and GWB.  Know that OHB is going to be awesome!

          I am repeating myself, and thats ok.

          by mickslam on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:59:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site