Comments on: Economist: Obama Stimulus Not Enough

Nobel Winner Paul Krugman Tells Face The Nation President-Elect's Stimulus Plan Not Big Enough

[flsunjnky]

It''s really wrong that we have come this far and end up like this. Bush can''t fix it, I hope the next one will.

[slinginrich]

This continued policy of throwing mass quantities of Air Money created out of nothing by the FED, and handed to the Government at unimaginable interest that can NEVER be repayed in a thousand years, is all part of the planned destruction of our Constitution and the end of individual Freedom and Liberty.
So sit back, relax, and wait for everything you''ve ever known to disappear right before your eyes.....
Ta-Ta, Droolers!!!

[samthetvcat]

---"To counter criticism, Bush and Department of Commerce set up an instant dog-and-pony show for the press, to prove American exports were alive and well."---
Posted by alphaa10000

Oh Mission Accomplished! GRRRRR!!!!!! :P

The only impediment to bringing back manufacturing seems to be some sort of psychological belief on the part of the people who put the free trade policies in place that to revive manufacturing would be some sort of a ''step back'' - I don''t think that''s a good enough reason to stand in the way of prosperity if all that''s holding us back from moving forward is some sort of psychological impediment. Having good paying jobs and a sustainable economy ought to matter more than hurting somebody who''s somebody important''s feelings :(

[samthetvcat]

---"Well, primarily because government cannot spend its way to prosperity, no matter what the political snake oil salesman say."---
Posted by JT_Lancer

I think Barack''s deliberately not going to impose new regulations because let''s face it fraud grows the economy - it worked in the 90''s with Enron and it worked in the middle of the decade with the mortgage backed securities bubble.

Absent a commitment to reworking a regulatory framework, willful ignorance is just one tranche of morality away from condoning criminal behavior. It''s not on the up and up true growth . . . so yeah, I guess I agree that there''s an element of not being on the up and up, the straight and narrow.

But it might actually work . . . who knows. Another point of contention I have is that by not changing anything of substance like the regulatory framework or our trade relationships he''s essentially playing to our lesser natures by taking the gamble that although we''ve collectively recoiled from spending on consumption, we''ll be unable to resist if he furnishes sufficient temptation by way of a stimulus. I just don''t like that approach when there''s also the option of focusing on our better natures like what we all have to offer the workplace via our unique talents and abilities which have worth both here at home and abroad.

I just think the plan is kind of icky and so-so . . . jmo though . . .

[jt_lancer]

SamTheTVCat - ''There must be drawbacks that aren''t getting a lot of analysis, otherwise yeah why wouldn''t we want to lower unemployment down to the lowest possible amount?''

Well, primarily because government cannot spend its way to prosperity, no matter what the political snake oil salesman say.

[samthetvcat]

---"Yet, the federal government recently entrusted a SINGLE man with $2 Trillion of taxpayer funds:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?
id=26342"---
Posted by JT_Lancer

I guess the thinking was that because he had a PhD the rest of us who had concerns about giving Paulson so much power needed to **** and defer.

I don''t know if it''s fear, or wishful thinking, or greed or what, but I think people don''t question authority nearly enough - why ISN''T the stimulus $2 or $3 trillion? There must be drawbacks that aren''t getting a lot of analysis, otherwise yeah why wouldn''t we want to lower unemployment down to the lowest possible amount?

[jt_lancer]

Krugman - ''But you know, the back of my envelope says it takes roughly 200 billion a year to cut the unemployment rate by 1 percent from what it would otherwise be.''

So, by his rationale, if the govt spent $1 Trillion, it would magically reduce the unemployment by 5 percentage points?

If this government ''magic'' worked (creation of jobs via deficit spending), why is there ANY unemployment?

Wouldn''t it be in the best interest of EVERY politician to have ZERO unemployment? After all, that would greatly improve his or her chances of re-election.

I find it stunning that this guy won a Nobel prize in economics. His arguments are simplistic and have been disproved through history.

FDR spent huge amounts of money in an attempt to ''spend his way out of the Depression'', yet unemployment was HIGHER SEVEN YEARS after he took office.

[renojmc]

Leave it to See B.S. News to make a big deal of an extreme liberal/socialist like Paul Krugman claiming we need more "economic stimulus." That''s like a drunk claiming we need more alcohol.

Pathetic journalism. Truly pathetic.

[jt_lancer]

antoniof123 - ''I was sold on the that idea but now I see the flaw. People can''''t be trusted with that much responsiblility.''

Yet, the federal government recently entrusted a SINGLE man with $2 Trillion of taxpayer funds:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26342

So much for ''transparent government''.

[jt_lancer]

antoniof123 - ''The government can create jobs they can raise taxes to pay for those jobs.''

The question remains: HOW can government ''create'' a SINGLE job without first DESTROYING a private sector job?