« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Second Stimulus

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  November 21st, 2009 at 06:55 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It was this past week in which Barack Obama said that deficit spending could cause a double dip recession. Nonetheless, a “New Consensus Views Stimulus as Worthy Step.” That, at least, is the headline in the New York Times as it tries, on its front page above the fold, to push for a second stimulus.

But things are not as they seem.

Remember, Obama says more deficit spending is bad. Then there is this:

Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say.

No, some conservative-leaning economists counter, we were right: The package has been wasteful, ineffectual and even harmful to the extent that it adds to the nation’s debt and crowds out private-sector borrowing.

The Times goes on to say that “more dispassionate analysts [have] reach[ed] a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.” But concedes that only “a quarter of the stimulus money [has gone] out the door after nine months.”

If all of this is above the fold in the New York Times, particularly the last bit, why the heck do we need a second stimulus? Only one quarter of the first stimulus has been used and unemployment continues to rise.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Mario

    I can’t believe that the NYT talked to that many economists and not one bothered to point out that the policy they are defending, fiscal stimulus, is, in every case, inferior to monetary policy. The Fed abandoned its role, and we’re just supposed to accept that as fait accompli; debating the particulars of bad policy while the existence of a better, time-tested policy is simply ignored. It’s like hearing fellow passengers insist that we were lucky to get a ticket on this transcontinental horse & buggy while our jet sits in the hangar.

    This is a second-rate policy from a third-rate President and a worthless Congress. That anyone takes it seriously is a sad commentary on the state of the nation. Somebody wake Bernanke up and tell him to get moving before they do it again. Even if he doesn’t think that unconventional monetary policy can work, anything is better than this. We can’t afford for him to sit on his hands while the Kleptocrats raid the treasury.

  • dclamage

    Because Erick, Liberals don’t believe that what they’re doing is wrong; it’s just that they haven’t done enough of it!

    As if there’s this magic threshhold that once breached, suddenly all of their desired results will come flooding in.

    There is a branch of Mathematics called Catastrophe Theory that may apply here.

  • RedBeard

    …now that WE have control, we’ll do it RIGHT.”

    Sincerely,

    Baracknancyharry Obamapelosireid

  • USNJIMRET

    Pretty much tells the tale, doesn’t it?
    All that remains is for the business as usual act of the ‘experts’ telling us it’s raining while they pee on our feet.
    But the ‘experts’ are indeed expert………….at the rain/pee thing.

  • jacon4

    and if Obama doest wake up soon, not only is he going to lose the congress next year but 2012 is almost a sure bet for a new administration.

    In some ways this is very similar to Bill Clinton in ’92-93, Bill allowed the left & congress to lead him down the gays in the military, health care reform, etc. path until the republican landslide in ’94. At that point Bill realized that unless he got control of the agenda, his days in the WH were numbered.

    The question is, is Obama smart enough to figure this out and the answer is, i dunno.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Once we took over, Clinton stopped directing the agenda. His re-election campaign was built strongly on prosperity led by Republicans, plus statist micro-initiatives that were high on bleeding heart feel goodism, and low on good sense or impact.

  • bk

    When did the Clinton budgets get under control? When the Republicans took over Congress.

    When did the Bush budgets get out of control? When the Democrats took over Congress.

    Yet to hear the MSM tell it, Clinton balanced the budget and Bush blew it.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Heck, from the government shutdown on, his Presidency was consumed with the affair, the cover up, and then impeachment.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    The Marxists in charge of the Democrat party have an agenda and won’t be denied and they don’t give a damn about the short term cost to their party.

    Obama has stewed in Marxism his entire life, he’s a true believer and he himself has said that he doesn’t care if he’s a one term president if he achieves his agenda. He wants to create a nation of serfs and oligarchs much like the old USSR. He firmly believes he is among a small group of elitists that have a right an duty to manage the lives of the American people who in their minds can’t be trusted to manage their own lives.

    These people are evil, pure and simple. They must not only be defeated next year they need to be politically annihilated so they can never threaten our liberties again.

    We conservatives can no longer sit on the sidelines, as we are a trusting bunch, and expect that our elected representatives are following the Constitution and looking out for America and not themselves. We must use the law to defund the radical groups that are the storm troopers of the Democrat party, ACORN, SEIU, the unions, the ACLU, et al.

    I’m not a conspiracy kind of guy but I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t some kind of high level cooperation and strategic planning going on between all these thinly veiled Marxist groups. It can’t just be coincidence that so many Leftist groups have as their goal elimination of the middle class, rule by a privileged elite, redistribution of wealth, an end to the capitalist system, and imposition of socialism.

    We need to find a way to reclaim the schools which have over the decades been turned into propaganda mills for the statists.

    Now, how do we accomplish all of this and also undo much of the damage that’s already been done?

  • Richard Mullins

    they just knew that they were getting lots of money in the Treasury and only spent below that. So the classical retelling is a big lie and when we do get the majority in the house, we should look at that time and not repeat it.

  • samdallas

    Clinton happened to be in office when the software boom erupted. Adding that many well-paying jobs to the economy in such a short time would give a chimp a surplus.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    We held down spending and cut the capital gains tax.

  • samdallas

    Adobe, Intel, NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft. We dominate the world in this area like we used to in cars.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • samdallas

    The real threat is China making software and chips. That is both an economic and military threat. Net neutrality is a side show.

  • http://www.colbykamin.com/ Colby Kamin

    …”We Are All Socialists Now,” they were really just talking about the media. Was this another Frank Rich hit piece?

  • mikefisk

    …the long-standing monetary policy has also helped spur our current balance of payments deficit, and is serving to some as justification for turning the printing presses on at full speed now.

    But yes, monetary policy is a far more powerful instrument for responding to shocks in the economy, even more so if you believe some of Ben Bernanke’s research into credit view models of the economy (which, in the wake of the current downturn, are pretty well proven, at least in their basic concepts). The only case I can think of to the contrary were if you personally believe in strict Keynesian models of the economy (which not even Keynesians do anymore; most of them espouse something closer to the New Keynesian worldview) or if you were intending to use economic models to be deliberately disingenuous to the American public (far more likely).

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So it’s not a side show at all.

  • samdallas

    The proponents want it to prevent anticompetitive practices (and such practices have been a bane on the industry), and the opponents think it will make telecom so unprofitable it will kill the internet. I think the anticompetitive stuff will get slapped if it goes too far as we just saw with Intel. And as for “all packets are created equal” that will slow average response time, but not in a big way in my opinion, and creates such a KISS requirements spec that it will also introduce some efficiencies. So yes, I think it is a side show.

  • samdallas

    Is creating a free national engineering school in the spirit of Westpoint. It is a national security issue that we are losing our lead.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • samdallas

    but that is not from personal experience, so I assume some redstaters with firsthand knowledge can set me straight if I am wrong.

  • samdallas

    to its competitors like Intel just had to with AMD (in a pretty open and shut case).

  • mschmitt
  • samdallas

    but if it is a valid fear it is actually an argument for net neutraility (which not I am not promoting– like I said I don’t think it matters much)

  • samdallas

    with or without net neutrality. It is their speed which is at issue.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The military works *despite* being government-run, not because of it.

  • penguin2

    it is West Point. I’ll beat ColdWarrior to telling you, as he a graduate of West Point.

  • samdallas

    I have a cousin that taught there. Glad they didn’t see that.

  • reverendred

    and it isn’t pretty. Yet we are still going down that road. Why? Because it is enticing, and people are easily enticed. The Catholic Church had the dangers of this system figured out decades ago, and condemned socialism before most people in the U.S. had ever heard of it.
    RR

  • reverendred

    Leo XIII had some pretty strong stuff to say, like

    To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. (paragraph 4 of Rerum Novarum, written in 1891!)

    The Footnote Guy

  • reverendred

    and Harry Reid’s latest proposal is an increase in taxes for those making over $200,000. Remember that campaign promise Obama made to cut taxes for those making under $250,000? I guess this is one of those sacrifices that Obama was referring to in his speech to the admiring throng on election night.

    Cut taxes. Then raise them. I am so looking forward to voting in 2010.

    Red Wall