If anything, the stimulus bill is too small, not too large — as Paul Krugman points out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html

“We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.”

So you give us a link which quotes the CBO, whose conclusion you agree with. Then when it’s noted the CBO states the stimulus may actually hurt the economy, we get:

>Congressional Budget Office

Well, let’s just say I think the CBO is wrong, if that’s what they are saying.

So, guess we need some clarification, Mitsu. Do you think the CBO is claiming we’re not spending enough and spending too much at the same time? Or, as usual, are you simply talking out of both sides of your mouth, the right side not knowing what the left side is saying?

But after losing four, now five cabinet appointments, launching the most immense spending bill in history and getting only three Republican votes in the two house while championing bipartisanship during his campaign and inauguaration, backpedaling and rationalizing much of his shredding the Constitution rhetoric, and so forth, I don’t see how Obama’s start can be said to be particularly good.

I have my bias to be sure, but objectively speaking I would argue that we haven’t seen a president fumble and stumble this much in the first three weeks in the past fifty years or more.

This is really a ridiculous slur, huxley, and totally uncalled for.

Mitsu — It’s stronger tea than I usually serve, but I say it out of respect for your intelligence.

To waltz in and

* slur those of us here as having “perceptual filters” because we see the mistakes and missteps Obama is making,
* assert that Obama is doing extremely well and is joy to watch,
* assert that “Of course, it’s hard to do much worse than the last 8 years” slurring Bush and those of us who supported him
* that Obama had no say in the stimulus bill because “it is not up to Obama to write legislation in Congress”
etc.

These are all silly overreaches or slurs. Since I believe you understand what you are saying, I assume you are being intellectually dishonest.

If you pull back on your rhetoric, I’ll do so with mine.

But it is not up to Obama to write legislation in Congress.

The Executive Branch is certainly distinct from the Legislative Branch, but …

Obama is the head of government, the head of state, and the head of the Democratic Party, which controls both Houses of Congress. Would it be too much to ask a little…uh…leadership of him?

If not, what the hell use is he? Is he just there to sign whatever Congress puts in front of him? Who calls the shots – Obama or Reid/Pelosi?

Well, at least you admit I’m not dishonest, Gerard.

>Congressional Budget Office

Well, let’s just say I think the CBO is wrong, if that’s what they are saying. The problem with economics, of course, is that you can always find economists on every side of nearly every question. However, let’s just say I put more faith in the predictions of economists who foresaw the current debacle than those who did not; Nouriel Roubini, for example. He predicted this disaster. In his view, a massive stimulus package is needed. I believe he is correct, you can feel free to disagree.

>it is you who live in a bubble

The topic is whether or not Obama attempted to reach out to the other side. Of course there’s room for debate on the stimulus package itself, but at least one of you claimed he didn’t try to modify the package *at all* in response to Republican criticisms; I am saying he clearly did. It’s reasonable to object that you don’t think the modifications were significant enough, but it’s not reasonable to say he made no effort whatsoever. I certainly agree he didn’t change the package from 65/35 spending/tax cuts to 40/60 spending/tax cuts as one of the Republican plans suggested, but I don’t agree that he didn’t make a sincere effort; efforts which have been heavily criticized by liberal Democrats. He has been lambasted for including so many tax cuts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/democrats-criticize-obama_n_156466.html

He has been criticized for cutting the family planning provision:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/01/27/stimulus-finalized-without-medicaid-family-planning-expansion

He’s been attacked for the plan being too small (Krugman link, above, plus:)

http://www.kcci.com/money/18602222/detail.html

Now, as to whether the package is stimulative: Some Republicans have criticized the plan for having too many long-term investments and not enough short-term boosts like infrastructure spending. However, one of the lessons to be learned from the Japanese “lost decade” is that ignoring a fiscal crisis for too long can lead to long-term stagnation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/business/economy/13yen.html?ref=business

which suggests that the Obama administration is, in fact, not doing enough, not that they’re doing too much.

Simply spending money on infrastructure is also a poor way to spend money — yes, some infrastructure spending is fine, but if you don’t also shore up long-term competitiveness, you’re going to end up with a lot more waste. Japan also dumped billions into infrastructure and the net result was … lots of bridges to nowhere and roads to nowhere. Yes, it helped prevent Japan from sliding into a massive economic black hole, but it didn’t create a basis for an economic resurgence.

The US has had a trade deficit for decades; we have lost competitiveness in every area except high tech. If we’re going to regain our position as the leader of the free world economically, we shouldn’t just dump money into roads and bridges — we should also try to tamp down the cost of health care, build schools, build mass transit, etc. All of these efforts also dump money into the economy and are thus stimulative, but they also help rebuild our competitiveness.

I’m not saying the stimulus plan is perfect but I think many of the criticisms are off base.

Not true at all, he’s doing a great job of leading right out of the gate, but it’s the lemmings over the cliff, from “redistribution” to “engaging” (aiding and abetting) the enemy (ie. Syria) with hollow diplomacy, while getting set up to betray Israel, he is indeed no less than the Manchurian Candidate, a muslim communist posing as a Christian Democrat; With his comrades in the now way too far left-wing Dem Party, they are about to foist a massive transition of our government and culture into an imitation of european socialism, bordering on a communist state…

This doesn’t surprise me; campaigning for public office is, in a real sense, what he does best, and what he’s spent most of his professional career doing.

It does make me wonder, though: will he learn to lead, instead of campaigning? And if he doesn’t, how long will it take the American people to tire of a President who campaigns for the job instead of doing the job?

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

If some of us studied economics 101 would we agree with your views that seem to mirror Krugman and Keynes? There are just as many economists who do not agree with those particular theories. Since so many parallels seem to be being drawn between now and the “Great Depression” and Obama and Roosevelt possibly the most relevant thing I can think of is Henry J. Morgenthau, Jr. ‘s observation seven years into the New deal spending (and paraphrasing here) “We’ve spent all this money – more than ever before – and it hasn’t worked”

Why does anyone think it will work this time.

To me all the bailouts and stimuli are just enabling the addicts.