Skip to main content

President Obama
Official portrait of Barack Obama
This New York Times lede is what some of us have been dreaming to see:
President Obama will lay out a budget blueprint on Monday that amounts to an election-year bet that a plan for higher taxes on the rich and more spending on popular programs like infrastructure and manufacturing will trump concerns over the deficit.
Of course, polls show that the public wants exactly that. It's about jobs and it's about economic fairness.
The new budget proposal contrasts with the deficit-cutting promises that attended the budget rollout last year and the debates that followed. Figures released on Friday indicate that the White House foresees a slightly higher deficit in the current fiscal year than the $1.3 trillion deficit of the 2011 fiscal year, even after the budget battles that dominated Washington last year.

The deficit is projected to fall to $901 billion in the fiscal year that starts in October, the first time since 2008 that the red ink would be below the $1 trillion mark. But last year, the White House had projected the 2013 deficit dropping further, to $768 billion.

Nobody but grifters in the finance industry cares about the deficit. And basic Keynesian economics says that deficit spending during a deep recession jump starts the economy and puts people to work, and that leads to a multiplier effect as more people and businesses have more money to spend and create more taxable income, and fewer people need government help.

Europe is lurching backward as its conservative governments attempt to strangle the Greek people in order to pay off banks, but a year after austerity fever ran rampant in Washington, and more than two years after Paul Krugman warned of the consequences, the Obama administration appears on the verge of making a clean break back to the Democratic Party's economic traditions. Traditions that just happened to dig us out of the Great Depression.

Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 07:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If you're gonna piss em off, do it right. (18+ / 0-)

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 08:33:40 AM PST

  •  between this great news (11+ / 0-)

    and santorum winning wherever the crazies are, although what choice did they have?

    i'm feeling a lot easier about the election

    whispering:  we could see a landslide for the dems

    •  romney is still the favorite (18+ / 0-)

      for the gop nomination, because he has the money and the party insiders are terrified of the santorum froth, but if he does hold on he will be one of the weakest nominees ever. the gop is a train wreck, and the obama team would really have to screw up to lose this election. andnthe obama team doesn't screw up elections.

      and if the past six months or so are evidence, a second obama term will be much more economically progressive.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 08:47:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But Rand Paul says he's leading (4+ / 0-)

        the delegate count in actual delegates.

        How can this be when he's not won a sate poll?  His caucus goers stick around in the second part of the caucus when delegates are actually voted on.  Everyone else goes home after the polling is done.  So, the only delegates actually chosen so far were Romney's Florida winner-take-all win.

        I'm a fucking retard.

        by Helpless on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:56:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lest we all get smug, an stuff, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          qofdisks

          This is exactly the way that Democrats run caucus, as well.  This is why I have refused to participate in any further caucuses.  Caucus is a scam and a waste of time.  The fact is that caucus is a process in which people are elected to vote for your choice of candidate at the next level (county election), where those people have a chance to be elected as a delegate to go to the state level, there to run to be elected to go to the national level convention, there to cast an actual ballot for an actual candidate.  Up to that point no delegate casts a ballot for your candidate, they are casting ballots for delegates to go to the next level.  Furthermore, there is NO requirement that any delegate cast a vote for the candidate  that he said he supports.   This isn't a candidate nominating process, it's a clusterfuck!
          The statewide primary nominating process is the only avenue to an actual democratic result. Caucus everywhere should be banned.

      •  From your mouth to (3+ / 0-)

        whatever

        Eliminate tax breaks that stimulate the offshoring of jobs.

        by RJDixon74135 on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:05:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'll have to disagree with the second term (5+ / 0-)

        being more progressive economically.

        Obama has shown an apalling lack of understanding in economic matters.

        He thinks the savvy businessmen really are that important, and also too, the deficit.

        And most importantly, his consistent overwhelming desire to not actually do anything to the banks, and his steadfast  belief of whatever Geithner tells him are indicators of the policies he will try to create.

        I think he'll be quite happy to go with austerity and SS "reform", among other dunderheaded policies.

        It's what the serious people want, and he's very serious.

        big badda boom : GRB 080913

        by squarewheel on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:21:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  when you want to make a point (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vadasz, isabelle hayes, Diogenes2008

          it's best to ignore evidence in the actual article:

          higher taxes on the rich and more spending on popular programs like infrastructure and manufacturing will trump concerns over the deficit....the White House foresees a slightly higher deficit in the current fiscal year than the $1.3 trillion deficit of the 2011 fiscal year, even after the budget battles that dominated Washington last year.
          and stick with what you know in your heart.  

          Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

          by SottoVoce on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:25:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Let's just take a look at (8+ / 0-)

          what's really happening.  

          Savvy businessmen are crucial to returning us to a strong manufacturing economy, and those savvy businessmen you're so dismissive of are also crucial to raising employment numbers.  Obama rolled out a training program that has community colleges training people specifically for jobs that are now available, with input from savvy businessmen who hire those people and pay for their training.  In what way is this a bad thing for Americans?

          The week he was inaugurated he put some savvy folks to work looking at where government was too bloated and overlapped too much.  When he supported "fiscal responsibility" he was talking about the polar opposite of what the Republicans were demanding.  He thought it was more a question of prosecuting Medicare fraud, and forcing hospitals to justify treatment plans that were just a leetle bit heavy on the side of doing the same tests again and again, especially the ones that cost a whole lot of money.  

          He got facts on how much fat can be cut out of the Defense budget without putting lives on the line just for the sake of saving a few bucks.  Then he hung the defense budget over the heads of the fiscal purists on the right, knowing perfectly well they couldn't cut a trillion out of the budget without cutting SS, Medicaid and Medicare so the super-committee was guaranteed to fail, leaving the Republicans to cut Defense and Medicare in an election year.  

          Oh, and those cuts to Medicare?  Can't cut benefits at all, however, they can create a complete disaster for themselves by cutting payments to physicians, but that won't save enough.  They'll have to hurt the medical device makers, pharmaceutical companies and the prescription benefit managers (a fake industry).  Because of forethought and planning, Obama knows exactly where the waste is, and he'll put that on the line.

          Financial fraud cases against banks are in the works, and nothing he's agreed to stops more investigations and more charges.  What he did was squeeze some money out of the banks to make some repararations, but mostly to let them know that the party's over and it's time to sober up and do your damn job.

          He's also perfectly aware that austerity is killing Europe, almost killed our recovery from the Great Depression, and would certainly do the same to the Less-Great Depression.

          What you're missing here is that, for the first time in my lifetime, the Republicans are being recognized for what they really are.  He plays them beautifully, they squawk on cue, he looks "weak", he talks about how his base will kill him for this, they get even more arrogant and extreme, and then he gets most of what he wants while making the opposition look as selfish, greedy, and out of touch as they are.  And citizens are getting it, they're not stupid.  Fucking brilliant.  If nothing else, Reaganomics will die and not drag down the whole 21st Century.  

          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

          by I love OCD on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:43:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  love this, nt. (3+ / 0-)

            And my baby's my common sense, so don't feed me planned obsolescence.

            by vadasz on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 12:28:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  right, and what about the savvy businessmen (0+ / 0-)

            who are talking austerity, tanked the economy, moved and are moving jobs overseas ?

            they're the ones Obama's listening to.

            He waited 3 years to launch a 1/2 ass election year effort against widespread fraud and brought us the "they didn't do anything illegal" line.  That was Geithner's doing.

            And you've conveniently failed to mention Geithner's little tour of Europe where he "praised Italy's new austerity moves".  And you have the nerve to say Obama understands how austerity doesn't work ?

            Brilliant, my ass.

            What's brilliant is that he has people like you defending him.

            Can't wait to see the contortions of logic you use to defend him when he proposes rasing the medicare eligibility age.

            And those brilliant cuts to the defense budgets are barely cuts.  Those "cuts" amount to 1% from a highly elevated WAR TIME budget.  And who can forget Panetta's screaming and yelling about the future military strength of the US - oh, wait, he's a "democrat".  just like our president is a "democrat".  We'll just see if those meager cuts stick.

            Thanks for your unconvincing variation of the 11-dimensional chess argument.

            P.S. Citizens ARE stupid, they elected W twice, and they think that being scanned by x-rays at airports is necessary for their freedom.

            big badda boom : GRB 080913

            by squarewheel on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:11:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And I thank you for your fact deficient (0+ / 0-)

              arguments from the leftish!  It's good to know that people stand strong for their convictions.

              It'll also be fun to see what's the next mountain ya'll can create out of the next invisible anthill.  I'm enjoying this more than you know.  I'm starting to think about a diary series highlighting all the "Obama Sold Us Out" nontroversies of the past 3 years.

              I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

              by I love OCD on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 10:12:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  In Huffpost article about Obama cutting Medicare. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          squarewheel, Crazy like a fox

          "Health programs, primarily Medicare, would be targeted for $360 billion in savings, with most expected from cuts to providers, not beneficiaries." (On today's Huffington Post article by Michael McAuliff)

          As it presently stands unless congress does something by the 29th of February payments to doctors (providers) will be cut by 29%.  Try keeping your doctor when the government cuts his/her payment by 29%.  how many more doctors will refuse to take Medicare patients?  This obama's budget.  

          i agree with Squarewheel.  Obama will not be progressive in any way, shape or form. If you pay attention you will see how Obama wants austerity everywhere.  Both in Europe and here.  i remember Hillary Clinton cheering when Greece was told to go to austerity.  i don't see anything to look forward to.

  •  This portends what President Obama’s (21+ / 0-)

    second Term would look like. We are truly going to get our country back in President Obama's second term! Everything Liberal/Progressives have been salivating for will be in his agenda and he would deliver on them. Don’t forget in the face of the biggest obstructionism in American democracy President Obama moved the Liberal/Progressive needle greatly albeit in baby steps (No Legislature passed in Congress was perfect on day one – SS, Medicare, Voting Act, etc).

    It is incumbent upon all of us Liberals/Progressives/Democrats and every right thinking American to work all butts off – Donate, Register/educate voters, GOTV, #OVB (occupy voting booths) and all attorneys be on deck to make sure no shenanigans in the voting booths, counting and reporting of votes.

    America’s better days are ahead. Go Obama/Biden 2012!
    Fired up and Ready to go!!!

  •  What would help Obama significantly (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978, claude, Sue B

    Obama has been on the "tax the wealthy" train for a very long time now.  The questions from just so many (mostly the right, of course) is exactly HOW is that extra money going to be spent.  

    Will it be to help pay down the debt?  Will it be to provide even more entitlements?  Will it be used to increase pay and bennies for federal employees? .... what?

    I think it would help Obama in a very big way for him to outline just exactly HOW the increased revenue for the federal government will be spent.  

    Just a suggestion.

    - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

    by r2did2 on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:49:32 AM PST

  •  OMG! (5+ / 0-)

    Traditions that just happened to dig us out of the Great Depression.
    Like Abbott and Costello!!!

    "How quickly these kids have affected the public dialogue. So proud of them." Clarknt67

    by TexMex on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:53:33 AM PST

  •  Sounds Good (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    squarewheel, makettle, PorridgeGun

    But then a lot of the beginning words from the White House sound good. then there is the jumps to the right to
    compromise with those who do not compromise.

    I hope he holds tight. But, I do not, like many others, to be surprised if we end up looking at the Boener/Cantor budget.

    •  Very true. (4+ / 0-)

      But it's refreshing to see the starting position be our actual principles, rather than starting negotiations from a compromise as the Whitehouse kept doing previously.

    •  I'll bet you 10,000 metas (0+ / 0-)

      that we won't get anything close to the House budget :-)

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'ya aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il ya toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:00:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to put Pelosi back in charge in the House (5+ / 0-)

        and then the Obama second term could deliver on some real change.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:16:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  At the risk of sounding ageist, isn't there (0+ / 0-)

          someone in the House available for the speakership who isn't twenty years the president's senior, without 25 years of legislative and political baggage?  (Reid, for that matter, has been in Congress since 1982 and is a year older than Pelosi.)

          Congressional disapproval cuts across our party as well as the GOP, and for good reason.  We desperately need new faces and vision at the helm of legislative effort.  Neither Pelosi nor Reid distinguished themselves when they controlled their respective majorities.

          Steny and Schumah, by the way, need to hand over the reins, too.

          "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

          by Mogolori on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 01:16:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pelosi got 400+ bills passed in the House to have (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tekno2600

            the Senate let them die.  One bill was to stop paying corporations to thke their factories overseas.  Everything died in the Senate because the Senate refused to get rid of the fillabuster.  the fillabuster allows the minority to rule.

          •  I think Pelosi is a good leader. I think Reid (0+ / 0-)

            will be gone soon. But, I wouldn't really think of it in terms of age or new faces. The House mainly works on seniority, so we're not likely to see a 20-something freshman come in and have them hand her the speakership.

            Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

            by tekno2600 on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 06:03:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Let's be serious (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mike101

      Is this a policy proposal, or election-year politicking as usual?  If the latter, wait to see whether Congressional Democrats decide to run with it, or run against it.  It's a perfect political issue, which is why my guess is Hill Democrats will wrinkle their noses in disgust and pass on it.

      This announcement is only good news insofar as the left is able to make Democrats — in Congress — own it.  It's not enough to have the President.  Politically, he doesn't matter anyway;  Obama's job has never been in the slightest danger from any of those clowns on the Far Reich.  But when 90% of Americans disapprove of Congress, what Democrats on the Hill do on this issue (or not do) is of major importance.  

      Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

      by Big River Bandido on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 12:16:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds good to Me Mr. President: (6+ / 0-)

    just keep on telling the people what you stand for, who you are fighting for and where you want to take us, and I am reasonably sure the majority will be happy and will re-elect you. Communication and empathy for those hurting are critical!

  •  Obama is now a Keynesian (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    714day

    Therefore, I predict Timmy Geithner has been taking his personal stuff home from his office for the last few weeks.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'ya aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il ya toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:58:10 AM PST

  •  Gut Reactiion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sue B, I love OCD

    to "Traditions that just happened to dig us out of the Great Depression."

    is pretty snarky.

    But it sounds good.  Obama's plan sounds promising. We need more Dems in office to make it happen.

    “The most important trip you may take in life is meeting people halfway” ~ Henry Boye~

    by Terranova0 on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:59:44 AM PST

  •  That's a hell of an assertion (0+ / 0-)
    Nobody but grifters in the finance industry cares about the deficit.
    Says who? The New York Times cares, for starters. As does almost every rational person.
    And basic Keynesian economics says that deficit spending during a deep recession jump starts the economy and puts people to work, and that leads to a multiplier effect as more people and businesses have more money to spend and create more taxable income, and fewer people need government help.
    That's a nice thought, but it's completely unprovable. It could just as easily be completely fictional.

    How would you know, other than "I like the people who agree with it and I dislike the people who disagree with it"? It's no different from religion.

    "We made really substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the administration to something with which we still have problems."

    by Carnet on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:03:45 AM PST

    •  I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marty marty

      know this debt is never going to be paid off.

      But what I also know is it is the excuse they will use to dismantle the social safety net in this country.

    •  We know austerity hasn't worked in this recession, (5+ / 0-)

      anywhere in the world, and we know deficit spending in the face of recession has been the method of recovery ever since the Great Depression. These are historical facts although I suspect you will quibble and deny. There is no guarantee increased deficit spending will improve economic conditions now, I'll give you that. But given a choice between an action with a proven track record of success and one that is a clear current failure, are you saying to continue doing what hasn't worked is the better choice? I'm sure you believe so. You may even have faith in that position. Where else is belief in the face of overwhelming evidence a virtue? I'll have to think on that...

      Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

      by VTCC73 on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:26:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not even advocating austerity (0+ / 0-)

        but there's a huge difference between "austerity would make things worse" and "nobody cares about the debt".

        You can be against austerity (which I agree has a poor track record) and still think the debt is a problem.

        "We made really substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the administration to something with which we still have problems."

        by Carnet on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:11:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the deficit is a problem for better times. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mike101, VTCC73

          The deficit is the pinhole oil leak on our car, it needs to be looked at, probably will need to be fixed, but right now we have just put out the fire in the back seat and are getting around to fixing the flat tire. So add another pint of oil to keep things going till we get back on the road again, THEN we can worry about the leak.

          if that analogy sucked, the point is that the deficit is a long term concern that is better addressed from a position of prosperity.

          "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." - Henry Ford

          by sixeight120bpm on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •   Puh-lease..... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis, mike101

      Spending 8-10% of GDP on jobs stimulus will create 20 to 25 million jobs.

      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 Feb 11, 2012 at 10:28:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's called (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mike101

      basic macroeconomics.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:10:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marty marty

    second term? No mystery.

       

    Obama does the same things over and over again. So if you want to know what an Obama second term will look like, look at the first.
        Obama will continue to support and cover for the banks, corporations, and rich in every way he can. He will do next to nothing on jobs or to help homeowners. Elite wrongdoing will not be investigated or prosecuted. He will continue to pursue the War on Terror with all of its satellite wars and special operations. He will continue to erode the financial security and Constitutional protections of the 99%. He will continue to push Cass Sunstein’s agenda of broad deregulation. And he will continue his attacks on Medicare and Social Security.
    Here come the HRs.

    I'm going to screen shot this and save it because it's going to be a very accurate portrayal of the future and I want proof of how wrong the people on this site are about Obama.

    Much like the proof I have of my vote for Obama. I took a picture in the voting booth of my ballot cast for him. Fool me once...

  •  Just one quibble (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis
    Nobody but grifters in the finance industry cares about the deficit.
    Deficits tend to lead to a devaluing of the dollar.  Millionaires and billionaires hate this devaluing of their wealth.

    I'm a fucking retard.

    by Helpless on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:04:29 AM PST

  •  Over 3.5 million jobs from the last stimulus, plus (5+ / 0-)

    probably a million or more saved in Detroit. Imagine what a real stimulus would do, without tax giveaways to the rich. The success of the Obama Recovery, Obamacare, and the Obama Surplus of 2016 will really piss off the wingnuts.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:07:41 AM PST

  •  He's no dummy. (6+ / 0-)

    He knows full-well it's an election year.

    When the R's water it down--and if there's any way they possibly can, they will--they're going to look like assholes. He wants that.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:08:27 AM PST

  •  You'll have to clue me it (0+ / 0-)

    about when PBO proposed deficit reduction in the near term.

    That would be because he never has.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by NLinStPaul on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:11:06 AM PST

    •  you'll have to clue me in (0+ / 0-)

      as to his efforts to differentiate near term from long term, and how much keynesian rhetoric he used during the year in which he spent so much time and effort focused on deficits.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:19:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please tell me that (0+ / 0-)

        you have paid enough attention to what Obama both said and proposed to know that he has NEVER talked about deficit reduction in the near term. I suppose I could use my entire afternoon tracking down all the references he's made to that. But the bigger point would be to wonder how you missed it.

        The truth is that our long term deficit is something that needs to be attended to - just as short-term investments are necessary.  

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by NLinStPaul on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 01:33:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  deficits (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marty marty

          shouldn't have even been part of the vocabulary. and maybe you missed his appointing the catfood commission at the exact moment we actually needed to be discussing a second stimlus. or how his extension of the bush tax cuts inevitably led to last summer's fiasco, and the inevitable mandated cuts. yeah, it always was about long-term debt, nudge nudge wink wink.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 01:54:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  A solid quarter Century of Stimulus spending (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jalenth, I love OCD, nominalize

    put the Great Depression to rest.  After FDR got cold feet about deficit spending America had to wait for WWII and the GI Bill to do the real work in digging out from the Depression.   The Stimulus was continued by massive infrastructure investments by the government, especially the Inter-State Highway program and by the private sector, especially the creation of Suburbia.   Unfortunately no American (not even Krugman) would propose such a long and all encompassing stimulus in a single package, not just because it is too grand but also because it requires much higher tax rates across the board.   Real stimulus and real change always has to happen incrementally and apparently haphazardly to get done.   This is precisely what Obama recognizes and what shapes his policy proposals.   But his critics don't understand it.

    •  Deficit spending on jobs stimulus has near zero (0+ / 0-)

      to do with tax rates. Wanna talk capital flow-Re: domestic investment rates, ok. Wage growth, ok, income/wealth inequality, ok. The Keynesian purist might say that Obama is missing an A+ mark because hes proposing an increase in taxes to pay for jobs stim, when its better to use deficit spending to creat jobs stim.

      In 1980 the top income rate was 70%, effective was 23%... today 35%-20%. Effective income rates have not moved nearly as much as the statutory rates over 30 years.

      Now if you want to increase taxes and give back huge deductions and exemptions like we used to do prior to the 80's... to incentivize capital flow to emerging markets and tech... to the tune of 2-3% of GDP, in essense using tax policy to create US jobs......

      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 Feb 11, 2012 at 10:40:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  krugman, roubini and stiglitz (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mogolori, marty marty

      all rcommended that the original stimulus be about twice the size it was.

      fdr's original stimulus had a huge initial impact, then he rolled it back in 1937, but then reversed course well before wwii spending.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:15:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama is going to wipe the floor with Santo... ugh (2+ / 0-)

    It's going to be a loooong election year if Santorum will be the candidate :-)

  •  It must be an election year (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, PorridgeGun

    Still - I'll take it!  Especially if it ends up getting, you know, done.

  •  Tardis to Queen's Rook's Crenel's 3x8x1x3x3x8x2x7 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thor Heyerdahl

    Hypertransübercheck!

    Your move, GOP.

  •  What It's Missing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    What it's missing is a strong component to end free trade. The deficit that matters is the trade deficit. We cannot continue to package up and send $300 billion a year to China and about a trillion dollars overall to other countries every year. It is impoverishing the U.S.

    Congress needs to move quickly to restore wealth-producing jobs to the U.S. To do that, we need at least a reasonable international minimum wage and uniform tariffs of 10% or more. Congress needs to authorize the President and require him to go back over the next two years and renegotiate all our trade agreements to include these provisions.

    Right now you are making about one-half what you should be making. That's because of free trade.

    Since 1978, when U.S. manufacturing peaked, this country has lost over a quarter of that manufacturing. At the same time, our wages have fallen--but worker productivity is up over 80%. Wages used to track productivity, going up in proportion throughout the twentieth century. But starting in the 1970s they declined while productivity continued to rise. This is because we did not manage globalization.

    Adding stimulus to the economy when we have no ability to focus that money on the U.S. economy has very little effect. You can see this in the last stimulus bill. While it had a positive effect it was blunted and dilluted by international trade.

    The U.S. has not gained any net new jobs in trade-related industries since we made free trade our policy. This should tell you something. Free trade is a failure and it has to end or the U.S. will continue to suffer high unemployment rates and lowered standard of living. Until now we were able to get by by selling off assets to make up for the lack of wealth creation. We've simply run out of assets to do that.

    The President's budget moves in the right direction, but it simply is inadequate to the task. It's like thowing cups of water on a fire to stop the house from burning down. Until they turn on the firehose of tariffs and make some kind of deal on the international minimum wage we won't have recovery. We'll get a bump, that's all.

    Of course, if he's just doing this to get re-elected, a bump will suffice. But fixing the problem will require more than taxing the rich fairly and putting money into infrastructure. You have to fix the underlying structural problem. That problem is our trade imbalance. It's got to go.

    •  In 1936 a dollar of jobs stim stayed in the US (5+ / 0-)

      thats no longer true.

      Is that what youre trying to say?

      It is not true is that we have  no ability to focus that money on the U.S. economy. We spend 2% of GDP on infrastructure, we used to spend 5%, we need to spend 5% again. Infrastructure doesnt go overseas.

      Money spent on Solar, Wind, HVDC supergrid systems doesnt export the electricity to China....

      And over all the stimulative effect is the same as it was in 1936, just that the multiplied dollars dont stay in the US to the degree they did in 1936.... They stimulate the world economy.

      If I read what youre trying to say, you make a good point, a dollar doesnt stay in the US like it did in 1936, but lets also acknowledge where stimulus dollars can be focused.

      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 Feb 11, 2012 at 10:49:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That Part's True (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox, mike101

        The more important point, however, is that the underlying problem is not cyclical, it's structural. A stimulus helps with the business cycle. It flattens out the cycle so that we don't have lows that cause irreparable damage. It gets us moving toward expansion again.

        But the main reason we see very high unemployment rates, a housing bust, and low wages is the structural problem--the trade imbalance.

        Up to the 1970s the U.S. worker was competing with other U.S. workers for jobs. Then, we opened up our labor market to the world. We said to companies, "You don't have to make products in the U.S. to sell them here. Go make them where labor is cheap and sell them here where the prices are high."

        As a result, the U.S. worker was suddenly competing with 25 times as many other workers. The only wonder is that wages haven't gone down to zero. (There's a barrier, of course, which is what is necessary for the worker to make to stay alive while they are actually working. Wages can't go below that for practical reasons--the worker would die.)

        People stand around and scratch their heads and wonder why the U.S. economy isn't doing so well. Some say it needs a stimulus. Some say it's tax policy. (The Republicans say we should tax less to get things going. Shows how hopelessly out of touch they are. But then, Republicans don't know money.)

        It's no mystery what's going on. It is our national policy to ship wealth-producing jobs overseas and keep wages down. The natural result of that is that, for thirty years or so, we've been shipping wealth-producing jobs overseas and wages have gone down. Plus more people are unemployed.

        Well, Duh!

        •  We aren't allowed to mention this, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberal Thinking

          we have had, in effect, open borders and amnesty that has allowed in millions of low-skill workers to compete with US citizens and legal immigrants.

          But if you suggest any kind of immigration controls, you're a racist.

          •  It's a Problem (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roger Fox, Utahrd

            It's not as much of a problem as it's made out to be, IMO. But the solution for it is to improve the standard of living at the sources of immigration. That would mean promoting family planning there. That's something else no one wants to talk about.

          •  Many things are far more important (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Liberal Thinking

            Energy and resource depletion?

            Industrial policy, tax policy.....

            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 Feb 11, 2012 at 12:33:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  BTW (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roger Fox, mike101

            Our trade policies, such as NAFTA, have contributed to the pressure on people to come to the U.S. by displacing a lot of them. By putting cheap U.S. food in Mexican markets, for example, we displaced a lot of subsistence farmers. Where are these people going to go with their farm skills?

            Well, they tried to go to Alabama, until the kind people of Alabama cracked down on "illegals".

            We didn't need to displace them in the first place. That was a side effect of our trade policy.

            The real solution here is to provide technology, organizational skills, and other things that will bring up their standard of living there. We need to support eliminating corruption. We need to promote women's rights. These are the things that help to dry up the problem at the source.

            But it doesn't line the pockets of the rich to do that, so you don't see it on the agenda.

            •  I'm an UNAM Pumas fan (0+ / 0-)

              So I would rather have immigrants from Mexico City move up here.

              How is expensive food supposed to help Mexicans in Monterrey, Guadalajara, El DF, etc?

              We have free trade with Canada.  Where are the starving Canadian farmers?

              •  I Don't Understand That (0+ / 0-)

                I really don't understand your question. I don't know where you get the assumption there would be expensive food. I don't know about any starting Canadian farmers. The ones I get my Stoned Wheat Thins from must be doing quite well!

                •  More Mexicans live in cities (0+ / 0-)

                  than live in rural areas.

                  If cheap US-grown corn caused farmers to move to the US; then it also helped keep city-dwellers at home.

                  •  It's Not Equivalent (0+ / 0-)

                    When someone in the city has to pay slightly more for food, they don't up and come to the U.S. But when a farmer can no longer support himself by farming, he has to get another job.

                    The effect of this, even if there are an overwhelmingly larger number in the city than on the farm, is simply not equivalent.

        •  Ah yes, it is more than tax policy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberal Thinking, mike101

          Quarterly trade deficits started in the mid 60's, and by the mid '70's they were annual trade deficts.

          2010 Census report, a male working ful time year round had a median income of 47k, in 1973... 49k.

          Leading edge tech jobs are harder to export, as long as you keep advancing the tech. SO if we create those jobs here, and have an educational systems that creates the leading edge skills for those jobs, those jobs wont be outsourced. But we dont do that anymore. Right now the US is not the highest wage country in the world, this can be an advantage.

          Since the 80's, we've had recessions in '82, 2000 & 2008- all 4 ad the new norm, the jobless recovery. This is not by accident, it is because we dont invest in US jobs like we used to, the way we used to.

           

          the underlying problem is not cyclical, it's structural. A stimulus helps with the business cycle. It flattens out the cycle so that we don't have lows that cause irreparable damage.
          Absolutely. From 1800 to 1930 we had 27 downturns, 24 of which lasted from 1 to 5 years, peak to trough loses of 15% to 35% and shed 20% to 30% of jobs.

          From 1938 to 1982 we saw only 3 recessions  GDP growth worse than negative 1%, '47-'58-'82. Simply put the result of new deal tax policies and GLass Steagall II.

          8-10% of GDP spent on jobs would create 20-25 million jobs. The Feds used tospend5% on infrastructure and we used tax policy to throw in another 2-3%.

          Thats why you can expect the jobless recovery, outsorcing and tax policy.

          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 Feb 11, 2012 at 12:30:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mike101, Roger Fox

            The public let itself be hoodwinked by The Bandits. Unrestricted trade is good for big investors. It tilts the table so that all the money rolls into their pockets.

            This scheme is why you see increased income disparity. If you get your income from investments, you can invest in China to increase your income. But if you are a worker, you can't go to China to increase your takehome pay.

            People have to wake up to why we have these economic problems. That's why The Bandits keep throwing things at us to distract from the real problem. They talk about the federal deficits and they talk about tax policy and they bring on the culture wars. They give workers all these people to hate as a means of keeping them from blaming The Bandits themselves. That's why we have racism and sexism and gayism and white surpemist movements. If you can convince people that the Canucks are going to come down and steal their jobs, then they won't realize that it's The Bandits that are doing it. This is all intended to keep people from waking up to the one, most central thing that's taking their money and their rights away: free trade. In economic terms, free trade has sucked trillions of dollars out of the working U.S. economy and practically eliminated the unions. It's the single biggest factor. It's cut wages dramatically, as you indicate. Until we get our act together and fix that problem we can expect more of the same: tax cuts and spending cuts but more money borrowed to increase military spending. It only hurts the 99%.

            •  AS a side note (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Liberal Thinking

              Last year I looked at blue jeans. I found made in the USA (Texas) jeans for $25, imported jeans got $20.

              Not a huge difference. Give a tax break to that Texas company to increase output, like a tax break for creating more jobs, and Tweak the tariffs, and the price ends up the same.

              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 Feb 11, 2012 at 03:01:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  i wouldn't end free trade (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Thinking, mike101

      i would mandate that free trade include uniform labor and environmental standards.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:17:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the Basic Principle (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laurence Lewis, mike101

        No product should be sold in the U.S. unless it is made to our  workplace and environmental standards.

        Putting a sensible international minimum wage in place would be a rational and practical first step in getting there.

        However, every country (not just the U.S.) should have a uniform tariff built into their laws. This encourages local production. We cannot, as a world, afford to have massive quanties of things put on boats (and planes) and shipped thousands of miles to market. The carbon load from that is just too high. To encourage local production, there should be a tariff.

        •  How's that going to happen? (0+ / 0-)

          How are we supposed to build or reopen factories in this country?

          Either NIMBY neighbors will file lawsuits against them or Environmental Impact Reports will keep them closed.

          Well, at least we'll create some jobs for $600 an hour lawyers.

          •  We Have to Manage It (0+ / 0-)

            There are many brownfield areas, places where factories used to be that have fallen into dissuse. We need to have legislation and funding that requires these areas to be restrored in an environmentally-friendly way and that funds that restoration.

            This is what we should be spending our "infrastructure" funds on.

            I think we can do it. For one thing, we did it before.

      •  Fair trade - not free trade. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laurence Lewis
  •  I hear there will be NASA cuts (0+ / 0-)

    So I guess we'll see. If there across-the-boards cuts in most non-military agencies I don't see what there is to celebrate.

  •  More election year rebranding (0+ / 0-)

    Once elected, he wouldn't veer right again would he?

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:12:08 AM PST

  •  Money spent on jobs stim=17m jobs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mike101
    For more immediate job programs, the White House will urge $350 billion in short-term job spending, as well as a six-year transportation and infrastructure program that would cost $476 billion. He will ask for $60 billion to refurbish at least 35,000 schools and help state and local governments hire and retain teachers, firefighters and police officers.
    886 billion to be spent. A good multiplier would be for every 100 billion spent we would create 2 to 2.5 million jobs. SO we're talking 17 million to 22 million jobs best case scenario....

    That friends is not too shabby. Except its only for one year........ But the scale of the solution being proposed in is line with the scale of the problem.

    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 Feb 11, 2012 at 12:44:47 PM PST

  •  What if he Cuts Medicare & Social Security (0+ / 0-)

    Here's the Austerity part of the budget:

    Deficit Reduction: $4 trillion over 10 years achieved largely by honoring the July debt limit deal, and by tax reforms that would both allow the Bush tax cuts for top earners to expire, and to enshrine a version of the Buffett rule into law. This section also includes hundreds of billions of dollars in as-yet unspecified cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs, which will mimic proposals President Obama presented to the Super Committee in September.
    President Obama offered to cut social security and medicare last summer.  It is unclear whether those proposals will make it into this budget.  

    If they do, the president has to be opposed with everything democrats can throw at him.

    The rationale used will be that it is a grand compromise.  We end the tax cuts for the rich and cut medicare and social security.

    When he was running for president, Mr. Obama pledged to end the tax cuts with no strings attached.  He did not mention the cutting medicare part.

    And that position made sense because the tax cuts give the wealthy special treatment and lower rates.  Getting rid of them is setting things right so the wealthy pay a rate closer to what everyone else does.  Imposing draconian cuts to medicare in trade for those cuts would be no bargain, it would be a sell out.

    We will find out soon enough.

    •  If we create lots of jobs, that increases FICA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sam I Am

      payments, so SS wont have to be touched.

      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 Feb 11, 2012 at 03:05:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Medicare is cut in his budget. Money going to (0+ / 0-)

      providers.  if nothing happens in Congress about it before Feb 29 - providers will aptomatically be cut 29% which will be horrible.

      •  He Proposed Raising Eligibility Age from 65 to 67 (0+ / 0-)

        It is unclear whether he is going to try that one again.  

        Let's hope he's realized that was a really dumb idea.  

        Many of us  could never vote for him if he did that it would be such a betrayal.  And it's a terrible policy on other grounds too as it will triple the cost of health  care for many in the affected age group and leave many with no coverage when most vulnerable.  

        •  This was one of his ideas. He devised the Simpson (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crazy like a fox

          -Bowles commission (Catfood Commission), Gang of 6, Gang of (pick a number) until he gets what he wants.  AUSTERITY.  He is bound and determined to take down Medicare and Social Security.  Bernanke (the head of the FED) has publically stated that he wants that money in the stock market.

          President Obama will do what Bush could not do....privatize Social Security and Medicare. -- That's the only pot of money left.

  •  Those jobs are never coming back (0+ / 0-)

    American manufacturing has been essentially irreversibly outsourced.
    http://www.democracynow.org/
    Friday, February 10, 2012
    Minute marker 29.

  •  Sure hope this is true. Currently reading (0+ / 0-)

    "It Takes a Pillage" by Naomi Prins.

    We already sort of knew all this, but boy, can she drive the point home.

  •  It's a really weird feeling to have a U.S. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Escamillo

    President being more progressive than European leaders.

    So very different from the Bush/Cheney Era....

    Tipped and recced.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 06:32:25 PM PST

  •  Whatever gets built out of this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    we need to put a big logo on it so EVERYONE knows that our government built it, and that EVERYONE realizes they depend on the government in some fashion.

    "You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic."

    by nominalize on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 11:58:14 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site