Skip to main content

View Diary: P is for Poutrage (50 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Obama has expanded the social safety net, and... (8+ / 0-)

      ...has increased increased government spending more than any other President in history. The value of the stimulus, with respect to GDP, was twice the entire New Deal.

      The comparison to Herbert Hoover is laughable.

      "Irrelevant people trying to deal with their irrelevance led by a shrewd businesswoman trying to make it impossible for candidates to not buy ads from her."

      by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can you provide citations? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades

        The New Deal cost over $500 billion, inflation adjusted.  ARRA was $855 billion.  

        If you compare against GDP in current dollars, as anyone trying to make a valid comparison would do, the New Deal dwarfed the stimulus.

        "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

        by Wayward Son on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:14:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I've corrected you on this before (5+ / 0-)

        yet you continue to repeat this falsehood about the stimulus being twice the entire New Deal.  So I repeat what I wrote to you before:

        "As a percentage of GDP the Stimulus was roughly the same as the Public Works Administration (which unlike the Stimulus was entirely devoted to infrastructure), that is, 5 percent of GDP.  The Stimulus was about $830 billion in a $14 trillion economy in 2009, whereas the PWA was $3.3 billion in a $56 billion economy in 1933.

        However, the New Deal contained two other big spending measures.  There was the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, which allocated $4.88 billion in a $73 billion economy, and another $2 billion spending plan in 1938 passed in response to the Roosevelt Recession.  

        All told, the New Deal spending programs were much, much bigger relative to GDP than the Stimulus."

        Please stop repeating this falsehood about the Stimulus being twice as big as the New Deal.  It is demonstrably false.  You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

        "I used to try to get things done by saying `please'. That didn't work and now I'm a dynamiter. I dynamite `em out of my path." - Huey Long

        by puakev on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:37:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The real problem with the Stimulus (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Emocrat, Meteor Blades

          is not just that it was too small, but that most of it was directed at very short-term cash infusions which could do nothing to create long-term sustainable jobs.  Tax breaks for the middle class and financial support for state budgets only transferred some much needed cash into places where existing jobs could be kept alive for another year or so.  But the structural problems with the economy, the financial sector, were not altered.  

          On the other hand, the New Deal, as you point out, emphasized infrastructure development in addition to emergency relief, and that was exactly what the country needed to help build a new economic foundation for the coming generation.  The equivalent today would be to put far more funding into infrastructure (again), green technology, information technology, biotech, etc.: areas of potential growth and new, lasting jobs.  Obama did recognize this, as the Stimulus did include such elements, but they were trivial compared with the stop-gap elements.

          Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

          by dnta on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 10:46:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  but obviously the budgets of the last two years (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Imhotepsings

          were not limited to ARRA.

          •  Still not bigger than New Deal spending (0+ / 0-)

            federal outlays went from 4.6 billion in 1933 to 6.4 billion in 1935, an increase of almost a third.  Outlays went from 3.5 trillion in 2009 to what will probably be an estimated 3.8 trillion in 2011.  (source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/...)  

            "I used to try to get things done by saying `please'. That didn't work and now I'm a dynamiter. I dynamite `em out of my path." - Huey Long

            by puakev on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:10:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you are counting ARRA as baseline - no? (0+ / 0-)

              it came into the 2009 budget as far as I know.

              •  Yes, but nevertheless (0+ / 0-)

                as Table 1.2 from OMB notes, federal outlays went from 8.0 percent of GDP in 1933 to 9.2 percent in 1935, but that still understates somewhat the increase in spending since GDP grew during that period from 57.6 billion in 1933 to 69.6 billion in 1935, a growth of 20 percent.  By contrast, outlays went from 25.0 percent of GDP in 2009 to what will be an estimated 25.3 percent of GDP in 2011, while GDP has barely grown, from 14.1 trillion to 15.1 trillion, or about 7 percent.

                "I used to try to get things done by saying `please'. That didn't work and now I'm a dynamiter. I dynamite `em out of my path." - Huey Long

                by puakev on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:47:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you leave out 1/2 $T (0+ / 0-)

                  in jump from 2008 to 2009 which, i believe should mostly be ARRA.
                  and the GDP growth comparison is of limited use since New Deal started in the trough and ARRA started on the downslope.

    •  Thanks. I was going to do a similar (8+ / 0-)

      piece. Obama writes an op-ed that is designed to appeal to independents and marginalize Republicans. He explains why we need to invest more today and not jeopardize a weak recovery, a point he makes every day. The op-ed  spends most of its words explaining why the wealthy must pay more and that taxes have to be increased on them. Some people equate him to Hoover. Wow.

      Moreover, this is a political document. It is designed for the 2012 election. There will be no grand bargain. That train left. We are only going to get a debt limit increase, without much attached to it. There is no time for anything else. We may not even get that before 8/2, but it will happen eventually.

       

      Further, affiant sayeth not.

      by Gary Norton on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 09:04:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cuts to Social Security... (0+ / 0-)

      Making the tax code more regressive...

      Getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction that the middle class heavily depends on...

      Cutting corporate taxes...

      No firm increase on taxes on the rich according to the current deal floated...

      Austerity...

      Yeah, I'm outraged. You want us to support this dismantling of the safety net? Fuck that. You are nuts.

      What Obama is doing is toxic to himself and the party and the country as a whole. They call the third rail for a reason.

      •  That's a perfect illustration of what's wrong with (5+ / 0-)

        progressives.

        Obama writes:

         

        But we should also ask the wealthiest individuals and biggest corporations to pay their fair share through fundamental tax reform. Before we stop funding clean energy research, we should ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up the tax breaks that other companies don't get. Before we ask college students to pay more, we should ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Before we ask seniors to pay more for Medicare, we should ask people like me to give up tax breaks they don't need and never asked for.

        And your analysis is "Making the tax code more regressive..."

        •  I'm not talking about his speech. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jabney

          I don't pay much attention to what they president says, citizen k, as I've found what he agrees to and does is much more instructive.

          I'm talking about what is in the supposed Grand Bargain. It undoubtedly shifts the tax burden downward. That's the very definition of regressive.

          Promises of increases to rich people's taxes at a later date are worthless when the R's will fight them to the death and he already caved on letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

          And even if the rich's taxes are increased, it is still NOT OKAY to cut Social Security in any way. It does not add to the deficit, period.

          BTW "poutrage" is insulting, and I'm sure you meant it to be, when people are going to be hurt when this austerity program is implemented during the worst economies ever.

          I can't go back and forth on this all day, so I will let you have the last word...

          •  So (5+ / 0-)
            I don't pay much attention to what they president says, citizen k, as I've found what he agrees to and does is much more instructive.

            I'm talking about what is in the supposed Grand Bargain. It undoubtedly shifts the tax burden downward. That's the very definition of regressive.

            you don't pay attention to what he says, you pay attention to MSM rumors about things that may or may not happen?

            In reality, Obama expanded the social safety net when he had a Democratic House and has defended it since the 2010 elections.

        •  Some people listen to what Obama says (0+ / 0-)

          Others - mostly actual progressives - look at what he does. His lips move, and they shape words about progressivism, but when his hands move, they move to tenderly cradle the richest of the rich, whilst mercilessly squashing the poor.

          •  sorry but MSM rumors are not facts (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Imhotepsings, Gary Norton

            try again

            Perhaps in less purple prose, if you don't mind a suggestion.

            •  Not at all, (0+ / 0-)

              but I do mind you stalking me across the diaries. Smeg off - I have the right to hold an opinion wihout being stalked and harassed whenever I express it.

              Just because I don't toe the DKos party line on all issues does not make me a Republican.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (62)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (16)
  • Environment (16)
  • Texas (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site