Totally agree with artaban and LOB here. Obama's vetting process has proved to be a huge disappopintment - not just Daschle, geithner et al but let's not forget the Richardson fiasco.

And I'm still very, very nervous abut Billary at State.

But its good to hear him apologize and kudos to him for getting things moving on the stimulus pacakge. we need middle class tax relief NOW and we need to start thos einfrastrucutre projects ASAP. its like the more drilling argument - yes, it will tkae a while for them to start to pay off, but the longer we wait, the longer it will be before we see any benefits.

Id also like to see some of teh prok and soem of the protectionism trimmed (really - all the steel MUST be made/porduced in teh US?) - but on the whole, the package is exactly what I have been calling for and I think it will do exactly what it is intended to: jolt teh economy shoprt term back into life, and then we cna start building from there.

Bush supporters are worried about Obama trampling the constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05bolton.html?_r=1&ref=opinionthe

(John Yoo was the Bush lawyer/crony best known for claiming that the president can do whatever he wants and questioning him is a national security risk). 

We definitely need to get that stimulus package in place immediately, because 500 million Americans are losing their jobs every month we do not have that package in place.  Don't believe me? Ask Nancy Pelosi:

www.nypost.com/seven/02042009/news/politics/pelosis_500_million_person_slip_153530.htm

jmccarthy said:

LOL - ask Nancy Pelosi.   

I'm not sure there's a person out there who's more clueless on economic related matters.  

George Bush?  :)

I just want to hear less about tax cuts from the right.  Tried that.  Didn't work.  The only way to QUICKLY stimulate is projects, for better or worse - especially when consumer confidence is so low. 

Too bad about the Dashle/et. al. but not surprising.  Everyone has baggage.  But the vetting should have been done better.  As Mr. Stewart said 'if you are selling hope and responsibility...pay your f'in taxes!!!". 

rings said:

They haven't really tried cutting the corporate rates - and the tax rebates are not tax cuts - agreed the silly rebate checks don't work.  A corporate rate cut would help immediately, IMO - those extra $$$ would likely immediately effect the job cuts we've been hearing about.  

Japan didn't come out of their decade long funk until they cut taxes - massive spending didn't work for them, and most economists (hesitate to use word most, but...likes of Nobel winners Hayek and Friedman, as well as American Universities teach) now say that Roosevelt likely extended the problem during the Great Depression - he didn't fix/help it.   

I'm all for spending on infrastructure projects - but right now there's way too much in the bill that's not infrastructure.  Serious long-term economic damage can be done to this country if infinite entitlement programs are added and/or the size of government grows too big (not a good thing when Government represents too big a % of overall economy)

Agreed - entitlement spending is clearly not the answer. We're on the smae page as that.

My populist side compels me to argue against cutting corproate atxes at the moment - though it owuld help my economic situation direclty if the bgi financiers start spending again. Right now though, I want the cuts implemented to the payroll tax and maybe the fedral sales tax. Lets get more money in the hands of the middle class - as soon as possible. Once we start spending again, the economy will perk up.

I'm not tlaking about rebates or printing more money - inflation scares the hell out of me at this point. But Obama is talking about payroll and fed sales tax reductions along wiht infrastrucure projects rigth away, and that's why we need this package. Cut the pork and protectionism by all means, but they need to get this done.

I'll take up the FDR argument later today. i'm getting a little irritated about the revisionsit history that has been spreading since Obama's election and I read quite a few good articles about what FDR pulled off in the thirties. In fact, I am reading Alter's book about his first 100 days at the moment, and I highly recommedn it.

Stag Lord said:

I can empathize.  I hate all the revisionist history that would suggest that the Cold War hero himself, Joseph McCarthy, did something wrong.  He's an American hero people, don't ask questions!

 Well, like or love what FDR pulled off in the thirties, the thing most people seem to be glossing over is that we're still paying for them.

Stag Lord said:

Curious as to what the 'revisionist history' you are referring to is.  Hayek was a contemporary foil of Keynes - and the theory that FDR's spending programs prolonged the Depression is really nothing new amongst economist/financial people - it just gained even more traction as Japan's situation added even more data/evidence supporting it.   If the conclusion that FDR wasn't the great savior is revisionist - maybe 'history' was written too early or inappropriately on that.  

Payroll tax cuts would be good.  Still think the media/masses are underestimating the impact and swiftness of a Corporate tax rate cut.  I can virtually guarantee that would have reduced the number of job cuts we've heard of so far - and those are jobs and spending $$$ to middle and low income earners/spenders generally

welll, to start with - conventional economic wisdom at teh time (conservative and liberal) was to rasie taxes and implement protectionsim to alleviate the cirsis of the Depression. Roosevelt resissted both these impulses - he was looking for a total break with the failed economics of the past (Smoot-Hawley was enacted under Hoover). Roosevelt was also against entitlement programs - he resissted a lot of his advisors on teh left who wnated to immedaitely pay the Great war bonuses and to start getting money immediately into teh hands of the poor to stimulate spending.

The great exception fo course was Social Security, which Roosevelt made sure was tied to employment.

One of the failings of the New deal was that it was focused almost solely on public works, without attendant tax cuts. see Alter pp 153-158. Given the intellectual climate of the time though, it would have been nearly impossible to do anything else. More to follow.

Stag Lord said:

Great, and underappreciated point ( I'd contend the 'intellectual climate' had a lot to do with they way Bush Jr governed also, and obviously many people despise him)- I'm waiting for more

LordofBrewtown said:

I am not sold on corporate tax rate cuts, for the same reason it didn't work with banks.  They will use the funds to shore themselves up, or buy competitors that are really stuggling, ~or heck - pay out silly bonuses :)  All are not bad (other than the consolidation, something that CERTAINLY isn't needed any further), but won't help in the remotely near future. 

Payroll taxes might be better, but I was under the impression those funds are more tied to Social Security?  And we don't need to mess that up any worse than it is already. 

Infrastuture and strong spending on the 'general good' projects I like, and things being put out like credits for buying homes (as long as they GO AWAY phasing out) and R&D i can get behind.  And, I still think a credit for buying a Prius or whatever isn't a horrible thing - two birds with one stone (three actually - dependance on foreign oil, the environment, buying cars).  

And personally, I don't think the New Deal was a life-saver (WWII was, ironically), but it put a TON of people to basic work - which wasn't bad.  As bad as things are now, they are not even remotely close to how bad things were then.  Plus, I agree with the basic change in business practices and regulation that came out of it...much of which was (surprise!) repealed only in the last 5-10 years when hubris came back.   

LordofBrewtown said:

I don't think it's going to last a few more years.  We've been "in it" longer than the average bear market as it is, and I'm also intensely conscious of all the analysts that say we'll start coming out of the recession six months before it becomes really clear that we have.  

I'm not pinning any hopes on the politicians, because that's not how recessions have been ended in the past.  What will happen (and may be already) is that you have a lot of people that were making big salaries, and have capital and creativity, but no jobs.  Those people will get together with others who are out of work, or connections they had through jobs, and more than a few will start up new small businesses.  Those businesses will create goods or services that improve lives or create wealth.  Over time, those small businesses will need to expand in order to keep up with growing orders, and they'll hire people to sell, manufacture, deliver, etc..  

They'll need new buildings for their facilities, and that will lead to a resurgence in the real estate or construction industries.  

Thing is, people eventually get fed up (little pun their) with waiting for some false messiah(s) to come along and save them, and they finally get the message they're going to have to do it themselves.  

That's how recessions really end. 

rings said:

I think you give the Corporations more credit than I do.  They are going to pay out the silly bonuses, and buy competitors regardless  - even if it means cutting jobs to pay for them.  Those things are likely already in their plans/budgets for the year.  I think a Corp Tax cut would simply allow the Corps to not make the job cuts we've been seeing.