Skip to main content

View Diary: POTUS and Rep. Pelosi Announce Plans to Win Back the House (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, the stimulus wasn't big enough. (9+ / 0-)

    Even one of his advisers told him so.  She's not longer there.

    •  The stimulus was as big as he could get from (13+ / 0-)

      congress.

      In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

      by Sixty Something on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:07:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nobody was talking $2 to $3 trillion (6+ / 0-)

      Which is how large economists such as Robert Reich estimate it needed to be. But even Robert Reich would tell you the unfortunate downside to Keynesian economics is that it cannot accurately predict the size of stimulative measures.

      This has been litigated endlessly since 2009. No, the stimulus technically wasn't big enough. And no, the Administration had no idea to what degree the economy was contracting based on initial GDP reports.

      Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

      by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:26:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Incorrect, Romer: 1.8 trillion, Reich: 700 billion (4+ / 0-)

        No one was higher than Romer, Dean Baker was talking about 1.2 trillion...

        Reich called for 500 to 700 billion, Nov. 24th, 2008.

        it cannot accurately predict the size of stimulative measures.
        Actually you count the contraction in dollars, and just put the dollars back in, in the form of stim.

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:08:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The the ARRA was bigger than what Reich said? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Onomastic, Tony Situ, aitchdee

          Robert Reich is pretty progressive. I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, other than the President ended up with a stimulus package larger than what a progressive like Robert Reich called for.

          Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

          by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:14:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You are correct. Chrstine Romer asked for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, gooderservice

      1.8 trillion, about 8% of GDP, almost exactly what FDR spent in his first term.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:52:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're embarassing yourself, please stop. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OIL GUY, aitchdee

        In 1933, total federal spending was 9.05% of GDP.

        In 2009, total federal spending was 25.17% of GDP.

        Was all of what FDR spent in 1933 the New Deal...?

        So scurry along now. You're in way over your head here.

        Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

        by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:13:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you saying Romer didnt ask for 1.8 trillion? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gooderservice

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Compare 1933 & 1938 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gooderservice

          whats the difference?

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  1933 = Keynsianism stimulus, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, aitchdee

            1938 = David Cameron style austerity.

            But that doesn't prove that Obama should have spent in 2009 the same amount as FDR spent in 1933, since FDR was facing much larger problem that had been going on for three years.

            •  Forget about FDR (0+ / 0-)

              the issue is measuring what happened in 2009, and fitting a solution scaled to the problem. NO?

              The entire ARRA was 787 billion, including tax cuts. Thats 5,2% of GDP.

              U6 peaked at 17.2%, thats about 27 million jobs. Using a multiplier of 2, spending 1.4 trillion would create 28 million jobs.. Thats 9.3% of GDP.

              Christine Romer wanted to spend 1.8 trillion - Dean Baker 1.2 trillion, they got these numbers by, in part measuring the contraction in jobs.

              .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 11:32:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  FDR faced greater than 20% unemployment. (0+ / 0-)

        FDR was trying to get out of the Great Depression that had been going on for 3 years (an effort that did not totally succeed (didn't come close, actually), but was valiant and did significantly lessen the Depression until FDR's 1937 austerity reversed the progress leading to a huge economic downturn).

        Obama, on the other hand, faced not 20%+ unemployment, but 10% (at it's peak).  And he wasn't trying to exit a Great Depression, he was instead trying to prevent a Great Depression (succeeding) and then recover from the Great Recession (failing so far, we've had partial recovery at too slow a pace, not total recovery, though some projections look promising).  

        It's questionable to suggest that Obama should spend as much on his stimulus as FDR spent on the New Deal (by whatever measure you want to use (NoFortunateSon's post suggests that using "percentage of GDP" as the measuring stick is faulty)), since the problems they faced were different in both degree and kind.

        Let me put it this way: Were FDR president in 2009, he wouldn't have spent what he spent in 1933.  Because the problems were different.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site