A good read... and he is correct, the ideas being put forth by the Republicans are nothing but more of the same crap that was mostly ineffective the last time it was used.

As usual, the comments at the end of the article are the best part

Obama rocks... could you imagine Bush writing a coherent piece like that?

(maybe if it was written in crayon)

How weird is it having a literate President? I'm so confused.

I'm sure Republicans are too.

I had to read the editorial twice. The first time, I had his voice in my head, reading each line, turning his head, pursing his lips. I applauded several times. Then I reread it without the mental images. It really sounds like any stump speech given hundreds of times. That said, I like the idea that he is open to all avenues of communicating his thoughts, ideas and goals with us.

When did the stimulus package become a "recovery plan"? Also, why is there an urgency for long-term spending if the point is to stem unemployment in the near future?

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis

And there has been criticism of this plan which aren't tax cut-related.

FredaDeStilleto: pursing his lips

FredaDeStilleto: It really sounds like any stump speech given hundreds of times.

They are still very much in campaign combat mode. I've heard a few administration people giving interviews about how their plan does "more than what the..(about to say McCain Plan)..does what the American people need", to paraphrase.

FredaDeStilleto: It really sounds like any stump speech given hundreds of times.

This. It was well, written and coherent, though, which is a nice change. I wasn't embarrassed for our country while reading it.

gustakooka: FredaDeStilleto: It really sounds like any stump speech given hundreds of times.

This. It was well, written and coherent, though, which is a nice change. I wasn't embarrassed for our country while reading it.

Extra comma in there. My b.

Last One Left: And there has been criticism of this plan which aren't tax cut-related.

Yes, but those criticisms have been aimed at scuttling the whole thing because less than a tenth of one percent of the money is going to something that somebody doesn't like. Or they are criticisms of Keynesian economics (even though the success of Keynesian stimulus has been historically proven to be more successful than monetarist fiscal policy in getting a nation out of the negative feedback of a severe recession). Put simply the criticisms are invalid and based more on ideological preference than honest facts.

Last One Left: When did the stimulus package become a "recovery plan"?

On January 26th, when the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" was submitted to the House. Google has many articles dating earlier than that that call it a "recovery plan".

What difference does its name make?

Code_Archeologist: Yes, but those criticisms have been aimed at scuttling the whole thing because less than a tenth of one percent of the money is going to something that somebody doesn't like.

Not at all. Take Marty Feldstein and Mark Zandi, for starters. They're both pro-stimulus, mind you.

Or they are criticisms of Keynesian economics (even though the success of Keynesian stimulus has been historically proven to be more successful than monetarist fiscal policy in getting a nation out of the negative feedback of a severe recession).

Citation needed. If Keynes is how you want to go, he would recommend something quick, rather than something slow like all the infrastructure spending that is being planned.

There's plenty of healthy debate about the stimulus/recovery plan, as there should be about something so large. Spending $800tr (instead of thinking it through) vs saving (an estimated) 5m jobs: that's $160,000 per job. If that's his reason for not waiting, it doesn't fly.

Flab: What difference does its name make?

I've just read it as "(economic) stimulus plan/package" in most places. I missed the use of "recovery plan" to describe it. I was just curious.

The difference, to me, is subtle: a stimulus is something that is focused more on the short-term; a recovery plan is more long-term. It's a clue as to what Obama thinks is needed.

I have nothing against the usage; I'm just interested in what he thinks the plan is and what the objectives should be. He can call it a Denny's Grand Slam Giveaway, if he wants.

Flab: What difference does its name make?

I think if call something a recovery plan, you should need to set the criteria where you consider the "recovery" to be complete, and then show how the items in the bill will achieve that, and on what schedule.

A stimulus plan has one criteria: stimulate the economy. Much broader criteria for success.

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Actually, what Americans expect from Washington is action that won't make things worse. I'm not sold that the stimulus package won't make things worse.

This was a good move on his part. The GOP has taken control of the perception of the stimulus package. Obama's got to pull the debate over it out of the weeds.

KaponoFor3: What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Actually, what Americans expect from Washington is action that won't make things worse. I'm not sold that the stimulus package won't make things worse.

Maybe they should take an economic Hippocratic Oath ;-)

Last One Left: Not at all. Take Marty Feldstein and Mark Zandi, for starters. They're both pro-stimulus, mind you.

Yes, there are valid criticisms out there that the stimulus package is not big enough. But what Obama was addressing in his piece were the superficial criticisms being laid out by Republican lawmakers and their talking heads.

As for the comparison of Keynes vs Friedman when it comes to economic recovery... Sweden during the Great Depression was the first nation to recover (3 years before the US) because they adopted Keynes' philosophy 100%. Iceland adopted Friedman's monetarist laissez-faire policies to bring themselves out of a recession in the late 80's, as a result their financial system has collapsed in an even more dramatic fashion than the US because it was even more hollow and fragile from a complete lack of government oversight.

Flab: Last One Left: When did the stimulus package become a "recovery plan"?

On January 26th, when the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" was submitted to the House. Google has many articles dating earlier than that that call it a "recovery plan".

What difference does its name make?

Ask the guy who coined the term "death tax." I always forget his name (Lund or something). He's a pollster and GOP message marketer.

Or Lisa Simpson....

Lisa: If I'm going to bail the country out, I'll have to raise taxes, but in my speech I'd like to avoid calling it a, "painful emergency tax."

Milhouse:What about, "colossal salary grab."

Lisa: See, that has the same problem. We need to soften the blow.

Milhouse: Well, if you just want to out-and-out lie ... [Lisa doesn't object] Okay, we could call it a, "temporary refund adjustment."

Lisa: I love it.

Diogenes: Maybe they should take an economic Hippocratic Oath ;-)

heh... maybe we should have everybody in banking and finance do that, take an oath to do no harm to the economy, no matter how much money they might be able to make.

Or include an ethics portion to the testing that they have to do for their licensing like lawyers have to take to pass the bar.

Last One Left: It's a clue as to what Obama thinks is needed.

Agreed. It's nice to see the Obama administration have the balls to say "we'll fix this thing" rather than the usual politician's "Here's a cookie, now shaddap!"

Code_Archeologist: Diogenes: Maybe they should take an economic Hippocratic Oath ;-)

heh... maybe we should have everybody in banking and finance do that, take an oath to do no harm to the economy, no matter how much money they might be able to make.

Or include an ethics portion to the testing that they have to do for their licensing like lawyers have to take to pass the bar.

Bankers? Ethics? Something here does not compute.

Code_Archeologist: Yes, there are valid criticisms out there that the stimulus package is not big enough. But what Obama was addressing in his piece were the superficial criticisms being laid out by Republican lawmakers and their talking heads.

I realize that. I was merely pointing out that there are legit criticisms of the stimulus and he should have addressed those, much like he did with the 'Buy American' provision. Maybe he will. I don't know.

As for the comparison of Keynes vs Friedman when it comes to economic recovery... Sweden during the Great Depression was the first nation to recover (3 years before the US) because they adopted Keynes' philosophy 100%. Iceland adopted Friedman's monetarist laissez-faire policies to bring themselves out of a recession in the late 80's, as a result their financial system has collapsed in an even more dramatic fashion than the US because it was even more hollow and fragile from a complete lack of government oversight.

That's not a very fair comparison. They were two very different situations with two different causes. I believe the general consensus is that the matter is still undecided. I'm also not sure what monetarism has to do with tax cuts; it's more about interest rates and money supply.

I'd like to see more of this kind of thing, regardless of which party is in the White House.

Flab: Agreed. It's nice to see the Obama administration have the balls to say "we'll fix this thing" rather than the usual politician's "Here's a cookie, now shaddap!"

I just realized I do not have any cookies at home. What's Obama going to do to help me?

/I like his proactive stance too
//I'd just like more information

Mad Tea Party: I'd like to see more of this kind of thing, regardless of which party is in the White House.

THIS. Regardless of the partisan crap, Bush always seemed distant and detached to me. And he talked down to the public, always with that "what part of this are you not getting?" tone.

Last One Left: I'm also not sure what monetarism has to do with tax cuts; it's more about interest rates and money supply.

Friedman's monetarism that the Republicans tend to push includes a plan for extreme market and business deregulation, which includes significant cuts to corporate/business taxation.

Diogenes: Mad Tea Party: I'd like to see more of this kind of thing, regardless of which party is in the White House.

THIS. Regardless of the partisan crap, Bush always seemed distant and detached to me. And he talked down to the public, always with that "what part of this are you not getting?" tone.

This is what still has me excited about Obama. He talks to the people, explains the rational behind what he's trying to do, and has made some genuine efforts to bring everyone on board.

I haven't listened to all the republican talking points, but what I have heard all seems like "we think you should do it this way because that's how we've done it in the past".

Last One Left: Also, why is there an urgency for long-term spending if the point is to stem unemployment in the near future?

here's a good explanation of that... (new window)

the first part.

The guest editorial tagline I've liked the best is the one from the Wall Street Journal:

"Mr. Nugent has recently released Love Grenade."

Code_Archeologist: Friedman's monetarism that the Republicans tend to push includes a plan for extreme market and business deregulation, which includes significant cuts to corporate/business taxation.

I think you're confusing monetarism (which is his view on money supply) with laissez-faire policies (which is concerned with trade, business and markets), laissez-faire policies with his view on tax cuts (which were meant to restrain government) and his view on tax-cuts with whatever the hell Republicans have been talking about for the last 8 years (which is concerned with who-knows-what), because it sure as hell wasn't restraining spending.

dstanley: The guest editorial tagline I've liked the best is the one from the Wall Street Journal:

"Mr. Nugent has recently released Love Grenade."

ted nugent makes everything funnier

FredaDeStilleto: It really sounds like any stump speech given hundreds of times.

there was a good article from joan walsh basically about that yesterday (in response to his announcement of the CEO pay restrictions and the remarks he made).

It's better, but it's not enough. He needs bigger and simpler themes: Put money in the hands of those who need it most -- and will spend it fastest. Create jobs and rebuild infrastructure so we see no more levees fail, bridges collapse and school buildings crumble. Invest in new, future-facing job-creating projects like new transit and green industry. Finally, do what our brave ancestors did, and make government again the engine of economic development, by providing the support 21st century employers and workers require: from Head Start and early education programs through college funding; new health insurance programs; lifetime worker retraining, investments in broadband infrastructure and green technologies.

It could be inspiring; it's certainly necessary. If Obama fights on big themes of rights and responsibilities and how we get through this crisis together, he wins. If he lets the debate remain on the level of "Why is there contraception funding in the bill? How is furniture for the Department of Homeland Security stimulative? We've just got to reinflate the housing bubble!" he loses, and we lose. It shouldn't be this hard.

AzDownboy: As usual, the comments at the end of the article are the best part

When did YouTube commenters become WSJ commenters?

Is this what their readership has devolved to?

burndtdan: here's a good explanation of that... (new window)

Thanks, that was something I hadn't heard before.

I do have two issues with that. Why won't short-term spending now stem long-term unemployment (I don't think he addresses that)? Also, if that is the case, why does he say that: a temporary increase in government spending should have a larger impact on demand than a permanent increase, not a smaller impact.

If he's right in his column, the stimulus should focus on increasing temporary spending and not stuff like energy independence.

Note, I'm not expecting you to answer for him; I'm just trying to wrap my head around this thing.

Last One Left: burndtdan: here's a good explanation of that... (new window)

Thanks, that was something I hadn't heard before.

I do have two issues with that. Why won't short-term spending now stem long-term unemployment (I don't think he addresses that)? Also, if that is the case, why does he say that: a temporary increase in government spending should have a larger impact on demand than a permanent increase, not a smaller impact.

If he's right in his column, the stimulus should focus on increasing temporary spending and not stuff like energy independence.

Note, I'm not expecting you to answer for him; I'm just trying to wrap my head around this thing.

well, first (i can only answer this because i regularly read his columns and blog), he believes that the short term stimulus will stem the long term job losses. it will, for example, lower the long term unemployment rate from 11% down to 8% (numbers pulled from my rectum for purpose of explanation). however, 8% is still too high, so the job isn't done yet, thus those not-quite-so shovel ready projects that will get money into the economy in a year or two will be kicking in to push the unemployment level lower.

the second is that this is all temporary government spending, even if it's not being spent right away. none of the spending in the stimulus is in perpetuity.

Flab: Last One Left: When did the stimulus package become a "recovery plan"?

On January 26th, when the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" was submitted to the House. Google has many articles dating earlier than that that call it a "recovery plan".

What difference does its name make?

This is why I think legislators on the losing side of a bill should be the ones to officially name it. The names might be wildly inaccurate, but they would have the virtue of being funny and memorable.

Snarfangel: This is why I think legislators on the losing side of a bill should be the ones to officially name it. The names might be wildly inaccurate, but they would have the virtue of being funny and memorable.

next on c-span, the house appropriations committee meets to discuss the "nancy pelosi is a rancid biatch act"

Snarfangel: This is why I think legislators on the losing side of a bill should be the ones to officially name it. The names might be wildly inaccurate, but they would have the virtue of being funny and memorable

A couple of examples could be...
Social Security Reform bill: Letting Old People Rape Your Children Act of 2010
Card Check Act: The Accidental Communist Bill of 2009

burndtdan: however, 8% is still too high, so the job isn't done yet, thus those not-quite-so shovel ready projects that will get money into the economy in a year or two will be kicking in to push the unemployment level lower.

This may be the case. However, wouldn't it be better to address it at that time (or at least make it so that spending doesn't go forward if it's not necessary)? After all, further government spending may crowd out private spending at that point, which isn't a good idea at all, even in a Keynesian approach.

the second is that this is all temporary government spending, even if it's not being spent right away. none of the spending in the stimulus is in perpetuity.

This is slightly different from what Obama says:
This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education.

I understand he's not creating new things like Social Security, but perhaps a time-line for these things is necessary.

Code_Archeologist: Social Security Reform bill: Letting Old People Rape Your Children Act of 2010

The "Herbert", for short.

Last One Left: This may be the case. However, wouldn't it be better to address it at that time

no. they are already exhausting all the projects that are "shovel-ready", and what is left are projects that require a year or so of preparation. if we start the preparation now, they will be ready to go when we need them; if we don't, they won't be ready.

also, with the economy in the state it is, now is the ideal time for the government to borrow the money to fund these projects because the rates on that debt are so incredibly low. borrowing that money later will cost more.

burndtdan: no. they are already exhausting all the projects that are "shovel-ready", and what is left are projects that require a year or so of preparation. if we start the preparation now, they will be ready to go when we need them; if we don't, they won't be ready.

Prep can be done now, but that's a fraction of the total price of these projects. What I mean is that if the economy gets better, there's no need to actually go ahead with those projects.

also, with the economy in the state it is, now is the ideal time for the government to borrow the money to fund these projects because the rates on that debt are so incredibly low. borrowing that money later will cost more.

If rates go up, that would be a sign of things getting better, which means further stimulus isn't as necessary. If they don't, there's no problem borrowing then, instead of now.

I don't think we've fully explored the idea of a $900b tax break. I mean, do we really know that tax breaks can't work? I am not so sure.

I mean...ok...like...we've done it a few times before. But, really, tax breaks could work. Trickle-down economics can work if we get that money back in the hands of hardworking Americans and such.

Targeted government spending? Pfft.

Last One Left: What I mean is that if the economy gets better, there's no need to actually go ahead with those projects.

huh?

We should only work on our own country when the economy is in the crapper?

bulldg4life: Last One Left: What I mean is that if the economy gets better, there's no need to actually go ahead with those projects.

huh?

We should only work on our own country when the economy is in the crapper?

that's the mentality that got us here in the first place.

burndtdan: there was a good article from joan walsh basically about that yesterday (in response to his announcement of the CEO pay restrictions and the remarks he made).

Thanks for the link. I agree - he has incredible potential for being a great communicator. But without simplifying the message and, at the same time, putting some "meat" onto the basic plans, he stands a good chance of losing some hard-won support. People want to hear a real plan, not an idea of a plan.

bulldg4life: huh?

We should only work on our own country when the economy is in the crapper?

Nope. But then it isn't just a stimulus. That's what I've been wondering from the start. My conversation with burndtdan were entirely under the assumption that this was just a stimulus.

Last One Left: What I mean is that if the economy gets better, there's no need to actually go ahead with those projects.

Or at least no need to fund them with hastily appropriated federal dollars that run up the deficit. When the economy begins to come back, the state and local deficits will begin to come back, and then deferred projects get budgeted just like normal. Not by an act of Congress.