Fast Company shows the success of the Stimulus in saving jobs with the "mess" President Obama "inherited." Can you imagine the disaster that cities all over the U.S would be in without the Stimulus? The lack of the Stimulus would have had a devastating affect throughout the country in safety, schools, hospitals and homes without the extension of unemployment benefits.
Many cities had lost big after investing with Goldman Sachs in instruments they thought secure. (Yeah, we know what happened there.) The Stimulus was absolutely necessary. Economist Paul Krugman has long said that it was not nearly big enough. Let's see. It's still being allocated. But it's working. Perhaps we need a wee bit more patience. Let's keep the faith and make it happen!
12 comments:
The Stimulus was essential. How scary it would be for all of us if we didn't even have that resource? I agree that we need to keep the faith. Patience and prayer.
"Patience and prayer."
Yes, indeed. We also need to do everything we can do to bring about change for ourselves. Often this includes finding ways that fulfill the need or pleasure of others. During the Great Depression there were more millionaires made than during any other time.
I dunno. Mass Senator Scott Brown, an esteemed authority on economics, just said not one job was created by the stimulus. If you can't trust a politician whom CAN you trust?
LOL, John! But on the real serious side this is exactly why I wrote that post on hypocrisy. Are these people outright liars or simply dumb? In either case, they are not fit to be in Congress no matter the Party. Their agenda is NOT their constituents.
I find the debate over jobs saved and jobs created absurd.
Republicans will agree that many jobs were saved - but they say none were created. So, a saved job, somehow is a waste of money.
How can anyone make this argument without laughing?
That's truly absurd, Zorro, quite deceitful too. There is also about 3/4, if I'm not mistaken, of the Stimulus that has not been allocated yet. Last I read over 640,000 jobs were created or saved. The reality is that unemployed dropped for the first time last month to 9.7%. That's still high but it's moving in the right direction. Who can deny that?
Here is how Sam Stein of the Huffington Post writes about Arnold Schwarzenegger's take on the Republican hypocrisy on the Stimulus:
"Appearing on ABC's This Week, the moderate Republican frequent GOP scourge pointed to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in particular for arguing this past week that the stimulus bill hadn't produced a single "net" job gain.
"I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around, and pushing back on the stimulus money and saying, 'This doesn't create any new job,'" said Schwarzenegger. "And then they go out and do the photo ops, posing with the big check and they say: 'Isn't this great, look at the kind of money I've provided for the state and this is money to create jobs, and this has created 10,000 new jobs, this has created 20,000 news jobs, and all those kinds of things.' It doesn't match up."
It's hypocrisy, said host Terry Moran. "Exactly," Schwarzenegger replied.
"I don't want to beat up on my Republican colleagues but I think it is kind of politics rather than thinking about one thing, and this is: 'How do we support the president? How do we support him and everything we can in order to go and stimulate the economy back and think about the people and not the politics?'
"Anyone that says this hasn't created a job, they should talk to the 150,000 people getting jobs in California," he added, "from the private sector and also from the public sector."
Romney, it should be noted, has already been slapped on the wrist once for the stimulus-related statement he made during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday. The Associated Press fact-checked the speech and found his "assertions lacked context at best and at worst were flat-out wrong."
The Republicans want a deficit. It is probably why we went from surplus to deficit so fast under Bush.
Here is a Krugman Article.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp
Zorro - It is really hard to think that politicians would really wish the people of America harm for political expediency but that appear to be exactly what's going on. As usual, thanks for the article. I'll read it and probably have something to say.
Excellent article by Krugman! Who can honestly deny or disagree with any of it? I found the ending particularly poignant after the run through of the bad policy of the Republican leadership on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. That strangulation of the government that Norquist spoke of is truly what they're trying to do, but it's purely ideological. This is what renders their policy arguments hallow and empty, not to mention hypocritical.
"At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power.
How truthful is this ending?
"But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: in effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn’t enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first."
Krugman is right on!
I think most of what goes on in the country as far as economics goes has a hidden agenda. Much of the right wants a plutocracy. Their problem with a strong effective government is that it prevents a plutocracy. They are snowing people when they discuss freedom. Part of the globalization movement is also tied to this. They do not want a true middle class. This is actually my biggest problem with the Seth Godins and the Tom Peters types. They provide, unwittingly, the rationalization for globalization and the whole idea of everyone working for themselves and being free agents. They are effective communicators and therefore they provide great talking points for the globalization crowd. The circles they travel in keep them insulated from what is actually happening. I saw one of Toms twitters where he said that times like these build character (I guess he has character. Must have got that in Viet Nam, along with John McCain). I'm sure he believes it, but very wealthy people just don't need to say this kind of stuff. Their wealth also has a lot to do with this insulation. These guys don't seem the least bit interested in building infrastructure or having a strong manufacturing base. They don't even seem interested in the state of the nation. The examples of companies they use are often elite hotel chains of all things. And I think these types of people are quite influential.
Zorro - You well know that I understand your take on the matters you present here. Much of it, I do not oppose. I will say that I sincerely believe that many of us do things "unwittingly" as you have indicated and the consequences can indeed be dangerous, even deadly for some economically and in real life. For example, Sarah Palin's open remark about politicizing war was, in fact, what many Republicans--including some presidents and vice-presidents-- have been doing for years. She just literally "unwittingly" said it publicly. Regarding globalization and the push for a nation of independent agents, I am largely in agreement with you. As always, thanks for your comments. They're appreciated.
Post a Comment