US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review

[Lemur]

[K]indly refrain from sharing stories from [...] the Economist or other similar news contemplative magainzes from the other side.

The Economist is from the "other side"? For real? Then what on earth is your side?

I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about a plain statement of fact. All I said was that we (a) shouldn't base our discussion purely on that source, and (b) that I would need corroborating evidence before I took what they had to say as true.

If I opened up a thread with nothing more than a long screed from Daily Kos, I expect you'd ask for backup as well.

Check out any of the factual bits of what I've posted. It's all legitimate, and if it isn't I'll happily retract. Here's another source on the non-existent CBO report that NRO went on about.

The truth of the matter is that the bailout and the stimulus are huge, complex things, and I'd like to hear actual experts talk about it, and try to get to some sort of picture of what's appropriate and what isn't; what's potentially effective versus ineffective. Bloviation about "Left-Wingery," kinda lowers the level of discourse right off the bat.

Instead of eating your daily breakfast of outrage over my calling NRO exactly what it is, why not clue us in to what you think about the recession (depression?) and the various plans offered to bridge it.

-edit-

Oh, and Don, my links were to (in order): National Review, Washington Monthly, Wikipedia, Forbes, and now The Colorado Independent. If one of those sites is hosted by Firedoglake.com, I'm not aware of it.

[Don Corleone]

The Economist is from the "other side"? For real? Then what on earth is your side?

I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about a plain statement of fact. All I said was that we (a) shouldn't base our discussion purely on that source, and (b) that I would need corroborating evidence before I took what they had to say as true.

If I opened up a thread with nothing more than a long screed from Daily Kos, I expect you'd ask for backup as well.

Check out any of the factual bits of what I've posted. It's all legitimate, and if it isn't I'll happily retract. Here's another source on the non-existent CBO report that NRO went on about.

The truth of the matter is that the bailout and the stimulus are huge, complex things, and I'd like to hear actual experts talk about it, and try to get to some sort of picture of what's appropriate and what isn't; what's potentially effective versus ineffective. Bloviation about "Left-Wingery," kinda lowers the level of discourse right off the bat.

Instead of eating your daily breakfast of outrage over my calling NRO exactly what it is, why not clue us in to what you think about the recession (depression?) and the various plans offered to bridge it. And while you're at it, why don't you see if you can pull in some sources that aren't complete and utter crackpots.

-edit-

Oh, and Don, my links were to (in order): National Review, Washington Monthly, Wikipedia, Forbes, and now The Colorado Independent. If one of those sites is hosted by Firedoglake.com, I'm not aware of it.

Now I may be wrong, but wasn't the impetus for your John Yoo=TortureBoy thread the firedoglake.com blog entry that you actually posted at the bottom of it?

And I'm not saying I don't enjoy the Atlantic or the Economist. I do, they're very well reasoned, well thought out positions that they're advocating. But they do come from one side of the playing field.

If you want my honest opinions on the recession, the need for stimulus and my consideration of the merit of the items proposed so far, I'll be happy to offer those. My intent was to say that if you're going to brand something like National Review as a partisan rag full of hacks, then expect it to come full circle. As for National Review flubbing the CBO report citation, which was wrong, where is your outrage when the NYTimes has another Jason Blair episode? Nope, then it's 'honest mistake', and for the record, Jason Blair really did invent his stories, and I still think that his editors went to press knowing it. But when it's National Review cites a report that hasn't been released yet, you start with the dispersions.

It's that old double standard thing, amigo. It really gets under my skin.

[HoreTore]

And I'm not saying I don't enjoy the Atlantic or the Economist. I do, they're very well reasoned, well thought out positions that they're advocating. But they do come from one side of the playing field.

Yes, The Economist is a hardcore capitalist newspaper. I honestly didn't know you'd turned socialist on us, Don Corleone...

But you're more than welcome among our ranks!

[Lemur]

Now I may be wrong, but wasn't the impetus for your John Yoo=TortureBoy thread the firedoglake.com blog entry that you actually posted at the bottom of it?

My sources for the OP in that thread were, in order: Wikipedia, informationclearinghouse.info, The Wall Street Journal and Firedoglake.com. The latter wasn't even quoted, I just offered the link as bonus reading.

If you want my honest opinions on the recession, the need for stimulus and my consideration of the merit of the items proposed so far, I'll be happy to offer those.

Yes, please.

My intent was to say that if you're going to brand something like National Review as a partisan rag full of hacks [...]

Where did I talk about "hacks"? I said "they are very good at what they do." Twice. There are some very talented, bright people at National Review. And they work for a dedicated partisan organ. Why is that so hard to hear? Why is it even in dispute?

And once again, if The Economist is from the "other side," what side is that, exactly?

[LittleGrizzly]

And I'm not saying I don't enjoy the Atlantic or the Economist. I do, they're very well reasoned, well thought out positions that they're advocating. But they do come from one side of the playing field.

Ill admit i don't know these so ill just ask, would they use phrases like various left wingery and other things you would more expect from someone like rush, the impression i got from Lemur was that NRO was more bias and partisan than these others you mentioned, if you really go into deatil theres little that has no partisan or bias so i can only assume he meant the level of bias and partisanery rather than its exsistence at all...

[Don Corleone]

Now, as for the matter of the stimulus itself... I think all sides are being disingenous. Non-partisan economic think tanks seem to agree the most rapid results will come from direct government spending, but the most enduring efforts would be tax cuts. In other words, it would appear that both sides might be onto something.

I see a lot of demogoguery going on from all sides. I see a lot of Lefty policies being inserted into the stimulus under the auspices of a stimulus bill. Not that some of them, like child healthcare, aren't good ideas, but if you want the bill approved quickly, keep the number of items in it down. There's also the provision that any institution that allows prayer or worship services on its grounds will be excluded.

I see a pathetic lack of address of the fundamental core issue in all of this: homeowners ability to live with the mortgages they currently have. How banks are allowed to collect 50Billion in TARP payments and still refuse to restructure mortages, which probably hurts themselves as much as the mortagees, is beyond me. The plan Lindsey Graham is floating about funding $30 billion to the FDIC to restructure mortages seems brilliantly simple. And yet, because Lindsey Graham made the mistake of propsing it himself, instead of giving it to a Democratic colleague, it's being shelved.

The core issue driving deflation is consumer confidence and disposable income. Nothing I've seen in the stimulus package from any side even begins to address that.

And oh, by the way, I'm really opposed to making Jillian and Allison, and their kids, pay for the of our generation and our parents.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, do you want me to focus on the stimulus package and TARP reform, or do you really want to continue the NR debate, even though you keep telling me to drop it (though you're the one that brought it up). I suspect you're pissed that I didn't let you do a drive-by on it, and that's why you keep trying to get the last word, then say "now, back to the topic". If we're going to stay on topic, then let's stay on topic.

You said the NRO editors are good at what they do in a tongue-in-cheek sense. You had just gotten done saying they're an advocacy machine for the Republican party, and then you say "and they're very good at it".

They would describe themselves as thoughtful essayists that consider current events from a particular perspective. They don't make any bones about that, but the key point is thoughtful essayists on current events, not Republican shills.

Now, if it makes you feel better to dismiss everyone out of hand that doesn't subscribe to your world-view, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But I'm not going to let it walk by unquestioned.

And as for the Economist, they advocate free-trade and globalization (things I agree with), but they also take some pretty strong stance on the need for central banks, controling currencies and interfering in functioning markets (things I don't) . In other words, they take an editorial stance. Does that somehow dismiss their viewpoint as invalid? Should I say something like "they're an advocacy rag for the world bank, and they're very good at what they do"?

[Lemur]

[D]o you really want to continue the NR debate, even though you keep telling me to drop it (though you're the one that brought it up).

I'm sorry, when did I tell you to drop it?

And as for the Economist, they advocate free-trade and globalization (things I agree with), but they also take some pretty strong stance on the need for central banks, controling currencies and interfering in functioning markets (things I don't) . In other words, they take an editorial stance.

Most publications take some sort of editorial stance. As another poster pointed out, it's a question of degree. Do you see any functional difference between The Economist and National Review? (I'm assuming you're read enough of both to offer an informed opinion.)

I thought your point about "homeowners' ability to live with the mortgages they currently have" was very astute. I have wondered about that myself; why do you read and hear about banks (a) jacking up interest to unpayable levels, (b) refusing to negotiate with the homeowner, and then (c) foreclosing? It makes no economic sense on any level. Obviously, people who bought more property than they could handle will have to lose their homes, and that sucks, but what about people who get the (a) (b) (c) treatment? Would a mere $30 billion in the FDIC have stopped that bleeding, as Graham proposed?

-edit-

You said the NRO editors are good at what they do in a tongue-in-cheek sense. You had just gotten done saying they're an advocacy machine for the Republican party, and then you say "and they're very good at it".

Forgot to address this. Why do you declare that I'm being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic? I think they are very good at what they do. And they make no bones about being a partisan organ. A memorable quote from the election season past: "Obama's the enemy — a far-left Democrat. We should be attacking him at every weak point. That's politics. A pro-Obama emailer whines to me that the Pastor Wright business is 'a Swift Boating of Obama.' Well, duh!"

Here's a not-terribly balanced post from today: "The economy began to collapse when the Democrats captured the House and Senate and we then knew that the lower tax rates on individuals, capital gains, and dividends would end after 2010. We are in the early stages of the Reid/Obama/Pelosi recession and nothing they are even talking about doing will help."

Do these strike you as the sorts of things you would read in Newsweek, The Economist or any mainstream news magazine?

[Don Corleone]

Okay, Lemur, there comes a point where friendship and decorum dictate that an issue be dropped. I'd say we've passed that point. I plead no lo contesto on the charge of National Review being the print version of Limbaugh's radio show, as I already know you've got your fingers in your ears to any rebuttals.

I thought your point about "homeowners' ability to live with the mortgages they currently have" was very astute. I have wondered about that myself; why do you read and hear about banks (a) jacking up interest to unpayable levels, (b) refusing to negotiate with the homeowner, and then (c) foreclosing? It makes no economic sense on any level. Obviously, people who bought more property than they could handle will have to lose their homes, and that sucks, but what about people who get the (a) (b) (c) treatment? Would a mere $30 billion in the FDIC have stopped that bleeding, as Graham proposed?

Well, this is what happens when you incentivize troubled assets, no? When you make defaulted mortages worth their full value, what reason does the bank have to see to it that the mortage doesn't go into default? So many things about TARP were so poorly thought out (or were shrewdly thought out, but not with the stated goal in mind), and this would be prinicipal among them.

It's not that banks aren't working with homeowners to come to agreeable terms. The healthy ones are actually leading on this. Many reigional and local banks are pro-actively contacting homeowners whose 5-25, 7-23 ARMS are about to convert and working with them to set up terms they can actually meet.

It's the larger banks, the ones that are beating a path to Treasury's front doors, that are putting the thumbscrews to the homeowners. Why shouldn't they? Either the homeowner pays, with everything they've got, and the bank makes unprecedented profits on what is a relatively secure loan, or the homeowner is forced to default, and the Treasury reimburses the bank for the failed loan, and the bank winds up with the collateral, aka the house, to boot. Heads the bank wins, tails, guess what, they win again..

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Congressional Budget Office says Obama's stimulus plan will lead to a lower GDP in the long run.

CR

[Lemur]

Specifically, in the realm of taxes, we need to cut the corporate tax (higher than most of 'socialist' Europe), the capital gains tax, and broadly cut down the huge amount of regulation that makes it much more difficult for small businesses.

Hmm, so in your view, tax cuts really can solve the majority of our current economic problems. Why didn't we see something along these lines proposed while George W. Bush was still in office? Surely an agenda of deep deregulation would have stood a better chance under a Republican President ...

Either the homeowner pays, with everything they've got, and the bank makes unprecedented profits on what is a relatively secure loan, or the homeowner is forced to default, and the Treasury reimburses the bank for the failed loan, and the bank winds up with the collateral, aka the house, to boot. Heads the bank wins, tails, guess what, they win again..

That just makes my head hurt. Ow. Ow.

I'll be quite blunt: I don't have enough of an economics background to know what to root for here. It's clear to me that we are in deep doo-doo. It also stands to reason that if we wait around long enough and do nothing, it will probably fix itself. But nobody knows how long that will take, and nobody really wants a decade of recession. I am leery of the Dems and their porkish tendencies, but then again, over the last eight years I've gotten used to everybody and his dog loading up every bill with pork. The only difference now is that the people doing it have a (D) on their names, and the folks with an (R) have experienced a prison conversion and re-discovered Adam Smith.

I've heard quite a few people drawing comparisons with the Great Depression, often claiming that FDR lengthened the depression, and that only the Nazi menace truly ended the hurting. Does anyone here thing the Great Depression is a useful yardstick? Any lessons we should take from it?

-edit-

The Congressional Budget Office says Obama's stimulus plan will lead to a lower GDP in the long run.

An interesting bit from that:

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

So in the short-term the stimulus would work?

[Devastatin Dave]

Here's a very telling statement from John "Did you know I served in Vietnam" Kerry said about the importance of passing this legislation...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog..._whats_the.asp

Our country is dead...