Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Destructive Center
What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?
A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.
Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.
Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.
One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending.
The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut. It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut. All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan, with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump.
On the other hand, the centrists were apparently just fine with one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research calls this the “flip your house to your brother” provision: it will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy.
All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.
But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.
After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.
Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.
Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.
And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.
Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself.
Now, House and Senate negotiators have to reconcile their versions of the stimulus, and it’s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists’ worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short.
So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.
For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”
No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.
115 Comments so far
Show AllIf those centrists were anti-firefighter and their house were burning down, they'd rather let it burn than put it out.
Obama's tack toward bipartisanship is an abysmal failure, and people don't trust him anymore to do the right thing since his strategy has been so pro-bipartisan. So he's got a double-whammy, maybe a triple. He appears to be weak to the "centrists", or at least potentially and successfully attackable, his base doesn't trust his promises anymore, and he's joined forces, sort of, with the worst sort of legislators and won't get his goals achieved.
He really doesn't appear to know what he's doing -- starting with allying himself with the centrist pro-war and radical Republican crowd, the same people who supported GW. He's blown it from the git-go... Why the hell didn't he respect and listen to his huge base of voters?
The rumour that Obama came to power because of a conspiratorial settlement reached between the Republicans and the Democrats become more and more believable by the day.
According to the rumour, months before the election, plans were put in place to choose a no-hoper pair, McCain and Palin, to guarantee a defeat for the Republican and a victory for Obama. Obama, a Democrat, a half-black younger man with a Muslim name was the best hope for America to carry the day for imperial USA in the hot spots in the Middle East and Central Asia. The bipartisan consensus decided that that is where American hegemony and therefore, continuous American prosperity lies. The American economy in crisis to them is "small potatoes" or is at most a side-show. Reform of the economy is the last thing on their mind. To them all that is needed is more of the same
The fascist-like big production inauguration of President Obama should have been clear to everyone that a hoax and a 'con' is on its way. The bipartisan hope was that four more years of continual support for a "Messiah-like" new government would give America the time it needs to give the enterprise in the Middle East and Central Asia a successful ending.
We should have realised that the rise of Obama was just an Obama-replay of a show based on the original script of "Bush-the Messiah after 911". It is strange and ironic, but imperial USA actually put its biggest hope on first the Messiah Bush and then the Messiah Obama. Maybe the Roman Empire would have done better had they hit on the same scam
That possibility has been at the back of my mind, and probably at the back, or at the front, of the mind of virtually everyone who self-identifies as a progressive in the US. It was always quite strange that the corporate media did all it could to support the superficially progressive Obama when eight years earlier it had knee-capped the mostly corporatist Gore in favor of the obviously incompetent, uninformed, dim-witted, pure corporatist Bush.
I agree with you 100% except this part:"that is where American hegemony and therefore, continuous American prosperity".
There is no need for more wars for the American prosperity. Wars are harmful
to prosperity.
Unfortunately Professor Krugman is probably correct. Obama's stature as an amateur has been revealed. This "fiasco" doesn't reflect a lack of brains but a lack of experience and wishful thinking. The Republicans have scrambled mightily to find a position on the stage and Obama was never prepared for their determined rally against his program. Many of them speak as if they never heard of Keynes, and can only see the world through the tinted glasses of tax cuts. Ie, pure theology.
Was Obama so naive that he actually thought he could open the eyes of these Republicans, who now have to surmount the Bush legacy and defend their "traditional" values as tax cutters and eliminators of government waste and pork? As "conservative" Republicans attempting to disassociate themselves from the Bush catastrophe? Who may secretly hope Obama's schemes will fail so that they can take the lead again? And blame misguided "tax and spend" liberals for all our economic problems?
And then there's the choice of his economic team. I am still amazed by his choice of Judd Gregg, even in Commerce. Gregg is nowhere close to even being a "centrist."
Judd Gregg is a "free trader" supreme. Doesn't bode well for the President's promises to revisit trade policies.
"Was Obama so naive that he actually thought he could open the eyes of these Republicans..."
I would think that at the very least, Joe Biden would sit Obama down and say, "Listen, son..."
Ugh, why can't he just roll over the GOP and sweep up the bullshit they leave behind? They had their chance to run the country over the past few decades, and it's more screwed up than ever. Ignore their bloody idiotic opinions for once.
Mr. Obama is a fool and arrogant. He believes he knows best, just like the fools whom he replaced.
He will go down as the first black Jimmy Carter, former president of the USA.
Now prepare your selves for the Great Depression part II.
"Now prepare your selves for the Great Depression part II."
It's already there so shut up already and quit demeaning the troops and the working class like you always do !
I was a "troop" in the late 70s/early 80s (US Army Intelligence Analyst). If they expected me to go to war for such a thing as Bush did in Iraq or A'stan, I would have gone AWOL. THAT'S why I blame the individual troops for their participation and I don't blindly glorify them, because they can refuse just as so many have already done. What the US military has become in the past several years is not the military I've always supported.
Those like your lost family members were not drafted, they knowingly signed up for such a heinous "cause", or they naively bought the "patriotism" BS as young men are prone to do. It is terrible that they were killed, but they walked into it of their own accord.
That would have been your choice. Others made another choice back then.
Your comment is offensive to say the least.
What's offensive is claiming "I needed a job" to justify killing, maiming, and wreaking general misery on an entire people when they do not threaten your national security.
The blame goes on the politicians and the vested interested who push these wars, not the troops. And as long as you support free trade, outsourcing, and insourcing to keep everything artificially "cheap", you're part of the problem because these young folks who could have had a nice life were rendered choiceless. What did you want them to do, commit suicide ?!?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
And for their part, the blame goes on the troops for participating in something they must know is wrong. Period.
Don't you understand the plight of these people? In your time, things were different but for the past 3 decades, military benefits were not only slashed but even the basic critical needs of protection these last 6 years alone in Iraq have been reduced. Sometimes people try to look for a good job or a better paying job even as their banks, utility companies, insurance companies, lawyers, hospitals, etc ... push people into near bankruptcy and often times the only means of recovery left is to join the army and hope that you'll make it alive and maybe even get rid of your debt burden. You act like the conservatives who preach "personal responsibility" but never practice what they preach. I ought to hammer a yellow ribbon on your forehead for this !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Let's not forget that the economy wasn't so bad for the first several years of the Iraq and A'stan occupations. Only in the past 6-12 months have things gotten ugly. At any rate, you're saying that if you're having a hard time finding a job, it's OK to sign up for killing innocent non-combatants for Bu$hCo's oil war - under the lie of "War On Terror". No, that doesn't cut it as an excuse.
Recall that in the late 70s/early 80s there was also a recession, one of the worst up until the current one. But the military wasn't doing then what they have been doing since 2001-02. If it were, I would not have joined.
Take your yellow ribbon and shove it. I don't get along well with faux-patriots.
"Let's not forget that the economy wasn't so bad for the first several years of the Iraq and A'stan occupations."
What NONSENSE ! The economy has been a shitpot for the last 8 years except for rich lazy folks such as yourself benefitting from Dubya's policies. Just because Faux Noise and CNBC say that the economy was good doesn't make it so. Most troops who serve don't come from rich families.
"Only the past 6-12 months have things gotten ugly."
Apparently, you only rely on corporate media bullshit. Here, read these two articles and then come back when you're done:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v6iSEPT172008Economicreality.htm
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v6iSEPT242008ashtonbailoutles.htm
"You're saying that if you're having a hard time finding a job, it's OK to sign up for killing innocent non-combatants for Bu$hCo's oil war."
Hey ! Where were you when the DEA bombed our hemp farms in Lakota when we were trying to pave the way for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and wars for oil ?!?!?!? Don't you dare blame these poor souls for joining when they were out of luck on getting a job or even a good paying job just to keep up with the rising costs of living that you supported !
"No, that doesn't cut it as an excuse."
There you go again ! You're trying to defend bad recruiters and bad pols who perpetrated this mess in the first place. You fail to recognize that we're in a DISHONEST system that has to resort to lies and manipulation to win and there you go defending it.
"Recall that in the late 70s/early 80s there was also a recession, one of the worst up until the current one."
There was a recession but things were not as dishonest and shitty compared to today.
"But the military wasn't doing then what they have been doing since 2001-02. If it were, I would not have joined."
How do you know that you wouldn't have been seduced if it were then what they are today? Get this through your stupid head. Drafts are not needed because the neoconservatives have found ways to keep this an all-volunteer army and yet exploit an economic crisis to seduce and recruit.
"Take your yellow ribbon and shove it. I don't get along well with faux-patriots."
Speak for yourself. You're the traitor who's blaming victims on everything and you sound no different than the faux-patriot self-righteous rightwingers I have to put up with everyday. Go have a beer with them. Blame these young men and women just like you'd blame your wife if something happened to her !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"What NONSENSE ! The economy has been a shitpot for the last 8 years except for rich lazy folks such as yourself benefitting from Dubya's policies. Just because Faux Noise and CNBC say that the economy was good doesn't make it so. Most troops who serve don't come from rich families."
I didn't say the economy was great for average people, but there have been jobs. And you're making far too many assumptions, since I'm nowhere near rich and never was. If I was, why would I have joined the US Army as an enlisted man, not even an officer? And I don't listen to Fox or CNBC or other MSM.
Dumb ass.
"Hey ! Where were you when the DEA bombed our hemp farms in Lakota when we were trying to pave the way for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and wars for oil ?!?!?!? Don't you dare blame these poor souls for joining when they were out of luck on getting a job or even a good paying job just to keep up with the rising costs of living that you supported !"
You have no idea what I supported. You contradict yourself, by saying you grew hemp to avoid oil wars, then say it's OK for "poor souls" to join and fight oil wars.
Go smoke another doob, fool.
"There you go again ! You're trying to defend bad recruiters and bad pols who perpetrated this mess in the first place. You fail to recognize that we're in a DISHONEST system that has to resort to lies and manipulation to win and there you go defending it."
I defended nothing of the sort. You sure like to spin and distort to try to support a point, don'tcha? I said using the "I needed a job" excuse to justify joining the military during Bush's wars is untenable. Plain & simple.
"There was a recession but things were not as dishonest and shitty compared to today."
I agree to an extent. But then we had that notorious liar and all-around shithead, Reagan.
"How do you know that you wouldn't have been seduced if it were then what they are today? Get this through your stupid head. Drafts are not needed because the neoconservatives have found ways to keep this an all-volunteer army and yet exploit an economic crisis to seduce and recruit."
I KNOW I would not have been part of what's happened in Iraq & A'stan, no matter what the conditions might have been. If you rob a bank because you're poor, some might say it's understandable, but you've still broken the law. Same if you're part of killing and torture for the sake of a paycheck.
"Speak for yourself. You're the traitor who's blaming victims on everything and you sound no different than the faux-patriot self-righteous rightwingers I have to put up with everyday. Go have a beer with them. Blame these young men and women just like you'd blame your wife if something happened to her !"
No one had to volunteer to join in the mayhem that is the US Iraq & A'stan wars. They had freedom to choose and they chose the war.
"Dumb ass."
Speak for yourself fartface.
"You contradict yourself, by saying you grew hemp to avoid oil wars, then say it's OK for "poor souls" to join and fight oil wars."
You fartface. Some folks in my state tried to get us off dependence on foreign oil so that we wouldn't have to be fighting these wars for oil but you wouldn't budge your dumb butt and fight the DEA.
"I said using the "I needed a job" excuse to justify joining the military during Bush's wars is untenable. Plain & simple."
Well, what do you expect them to do, kill themselves?
"I KNOW I would not have been part of what's happened in Iraq & A'stan, no matter what the conditions might have been. If you rob a bank because you're poor, some might say it's understandable, but you've still broken the law. Same if you're part of killing and torture for the sake of a paycheck."
Oh really ??? Sorry dude but this isn't the Age of Enlightenment. Unlike those days, you wouldn't even be aware of the conditions unless you were lucky to find out. If you wanted to kill someone but knew that you'd get the death penalty but not if it were a kid, chances are you would hire a kid to do your dirty work by brainwashing him or her into carrying out your crimes and ruining their lives and then you'd frame the kid as the culprit who had every intention while you're "free" as can be.
"No one had to volunteer to join in the mayhem that is the US Iraq & A'stan wars. They had freedom to choose and they chose the war."
What a rightwing kook you are. Here you go inventing excuses and ranting that same old rightwing "personal responsibility" bullshit. Yeah, defend the crooked liars doing all the tricking and manipulating on the victims but blame the victims. To hell with you ! SUPPORT THE TROOPS OR GET A YELLOW RIBBON TATTOED ON YOUR FOREHEAD, sir.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Job creation was pathetic during Bush's first term and not great during the second. Greenspan kept the economy going nicely for some.
"All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering."
.........which will lead to substantially more anger, more crime and significant social unrest.
It's the perfect set-up by our leaders to declare Martial law, at which point we can say good-by to the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution.
Welcome to the U.S. Banana Republic; a government of, by and for the wealthy.
Obama is being used as a Trojan Horse to push right-wing economic ideology and cement unlimited power for the unitary executive.
An out-of-touch idiot like McCain could NEVER give the gift Obama will unknowingly hand over to the neo-conservative movement.
When Jeb is elected in 2012 he'll have to (privately) thank Obama for doing the heavy lifting.
It shouldn't be any surprise that Obama showed his weakling posture for the so-called "stimulus bill,"--a bill that provides $3 trillion in taxcuts for the rich and hardly anything for those who need it most.
Obama showed his weakling posture before when he caved on the Military Commissions Act, FISA and the Patriot Act. He was elected because he promised change. But in order to change the right-wing government in Amerikkka he will have to grow a pair of balls. I don't see that happening because he is part of the problem. He is bought and paid for like the rest of the sellouts that the plutocracy owns.
Where do you get the $3 trillion number? I do agree that it's an expensive and outrageous package but the cost so far isn't even $1 trillion let alone 3.
The new tax cuts inserted in the bill have been reported to cost $3 trillion over 10 years.
Interesting. Do you have a source or link so I can look this up? And what about the existing Bush tax cuts that won't be repealed?
Uh it's in the article above, re-read it.
"even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years."
That's the Republican's poison plan, not Obama's. Now, if the Democrats or enough of them sign on to it and finally Obama signs it as well then you can blame him. Until then, the cost is not $3 trillion.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Marlene: The source for the $3 trillion in taxcuts over 10 years is Krugman's article.
"even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years."
That's the Republican's poison plan, not Obama's. Now, if the Democrats or enough of them sign on to it and finally Obama signs it as well then you can blame him. Until then, the cost is not $3 trillion.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"the existing Bush tax cuts that won't be repealed?"
These will expire in 2010 if nothing is done before and I'd be surprised if it was.
I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Republicans will use that as a wedge issue to challenge the Democrats on unfounded fears of tax hikes. If the Democrats in Congress followed by Obama choose to allow the Bush tax cuts to be renewed, it will be 2006 and 2008 all over again but this time it will be the Democrats not the Republicans who will lose.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
What's the matter with Obama and the Democrats these days? I voted for them because I trusted them to provide change that I could believe in that they promised and now all I see are more of the same ?!?!? It's bad enough that I had to watch my son and son-in-law die in Iraq helplessly but now my widowed daughter is going to get no benefits whatsoever from this scam even as she's being pushed closer to bankruptcy that she's even thinking about committing suicide with her two children !! What's the fucking difference between watching one's own loved ones die in a inexcusable war and getting crushed economically to the point of suicide ?!?!? And no, death benefits for spouses don't come so easy but call me a liar if you wish.
Marlene Davis
I am very, very sorry for your loss. If they are witholding his death benefits from her may they rot in hell. I've been told that it has been a problem with Marine widows and it is apparently from a directive by Rumsfeld in 2003.
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for pointing out the info. At this point though, my daughter doesn't care about the benefits as to her, nothing can replace her husband or brother. She along with myself and my husband also tried to plead with them not to give up looking for employment but they refused to listen. Not even my husband threatening to disown them for joining would stop them. He didn't mean for threatening to disown the daughter in the threat but for her husband. I can never forget the younger days when my two children would grow up and help each other out like dedicated hard-working siblings. She even found a loving husband upon completing college. It was their temptation to join the military which did them in. She trusts no one these days and always tries to prepare for worst case scenarios in life. I'm sure she'll get the benefits at some point though I can't say what they go through these days. I'd like to see those US contractors in Iraq have their benefits withheld for a change and see how they like it out there !
Nothing can replace them, but they earned their benefit. They paid a very high price for it. She should have it.
I would tell any kid that asked me not to join now, but they join anyway, just as yours did. When you are young,I guess we think we are bullet proof.
Don't get me started on Contactors....thats a ship that never should have sailed.
Thank you Thomas for the words of comfort. These young boys just thought that fighting in wars would somehow make them manly enough. My daughter tried to help them get back their employment and even helped them tweak their resumes and answer interview questions even better but in the end they gave up and thought that somehow joining would make them more manly enough that they would end up getting employed without having to go through an interview. We tried to stop that madness and my husband even tried to discipline them but it was no use. They were too headstrong and even teamed up and shouted at my husband telling them that they weren't little boys and even blamed us for their unemployment status. It was first a debate turned into a shouting match for an hour and a half and only getting louder to the point that they were even about to get into a fist fight. I stopped them by threatening to call the police. I had never ever seen them act so angry and crazy like this in my entire life ! After they left, they only spoke to us once and apologized deeply and that was 2 years later. I forgave them. Two weeks after that, my son lost his life in the battlefield and then the week after my son-in-law lost his life as well. Maybe my husband and I are at fault since we were unable to convince them that we're not treating them as children but trying to help them out in life. I don't know. :(
You and your husband bear no fault here. Believe me. These kids were adults and made their opwn decisions. You gave them the best advice you could and thats really all you could do.
They may have wanted to get out later but they wouldn't desert their brothers. he only ones at fault here are Cheney and his bunch that wanted this war. They didn't fight when it was their time but like all cowards don't mind sending other young men out to die.
I hope you find peace about this.
Sometimes it can be tricky to detect if one's children are swinging towards signing up for the military. Out here in Tulsa though, most kids are brainwashed by middle school into "wars for patriotism". It used to be on boys only but nowadays more girls are catching on to it to make matters worse. And usually the longer a young one is unemployed, the greater their chances that they'll be tempted by recruitment advertisements, phone calls, and other means. Plus, they're working on improving data mining so they can find out their most likely obedients who won't say no. Scary.
Yet even in the army, there can indeed be some unity which keeps them together. Coming back home isn't always easy. One of my older coworkers had a son who came back and so badly missed serving because he was so used to it and surprisingly met new friends. When he came back he had no friends to talk to and lived a life of a solitary single. He's been trying to find a match since he now wants to be a married man but no luck so far as of 5 months ago.
Marlene,
I am sorry for your loss and the pain that you endure.
I am still concerned that Krugman still seems to support the original 800 Billion, pork and all.
But if the Bill ends up with the standard Republican tax cuts for the same old folks rather than for the American worker and retaining all Democratic pork too, all my questions will be answered.
And I'll know that this recession will not only last even longer but will put us in danger of a Depression.
The GOP will let the Democrats keep their pork as long as they get to add more of their own which they'll do as they always do.
Pork is what Republicans call any investment of taxpayer money that actually benefits the taxpayer and not the elites. It is the job of congressional representitives to bring home the bacon for their districts. One man's pork..
We can no longer afford either ones pork I'd say.
Then what are you left with?
In order for Government to function--the revenue has to come from somewhere, if they cut local or state "pork" than taxes go up on the state and local level. Meanwhile federal programs are underfunded so there is less disaster relief, less oversight, the FDA can't function and so on. What good are tax cuts when you don't have a job and the more people lose their jobs, the more people lose their homes....What are these people thinking??? You don't have to be an economic genuis to connect the dots. This stimulous plan as it now stands is sure to accelerate the downward spiral. Either Clinton's boy is triangulating with ideologues due to his own illusions of bipartisanship or they are all intent on looting it for themselves before the deluge.
We're borrowing from China, remember?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
There is a domino effect.
Thomas,
What you are calling "Pork" is mostly either investment in vital infrastructure which provides jobs and is needed for the economy to function. It is also funding for programs that prevent people from starving or freezing.
The streets in my city are in disasterous condition, and the first good thaw is just starting.
We have a light rail tunnel that will have to be abandoned without much needed funding. A majority of the workers downtown rely on public transit to get there.
No, Pennsylvania can't increase state and local taxes - they are already terribly regressive as they are due to a constitutionally mandated flat income tax. The republicans from rabidly right-wing places like Punxautawney are even opposing a tax on the big Shale Gas boom going on here.
Tax breaks are the absolutely the most ineffective form of stimulus as dr Krugman pointed out. "Pork" is the best. Or are you smarter than him?
---USAn---
USAn
Funding for streets, light rail tunnels, bridges, etc is not what I am referring to. And the tax cuts I favor would be payroll tax cuts, not those being proposed by Republicans which are more of the same.
I think at one time Paul said that payroll tax cuts were the fastest method of injecting money into the economy....but lets not trust my memory.
In any case I know you know exactly what I am referring to. I don't believe we will stimulate too many jobs designing new ice breakers, etc. Even perfectly worthy projects of and in themselves that don't stimulate job growth don't belong in this bill.
"Or are you smarter than him?" Hhhuuuummmmmmmmm! No. But even I, close to genius level, am wrong every few years or so (LOL)....doesn't mean he is always right. Not many economists have been if you look at this train wreck.