We had He-Man and She-ra, and now we have Skechers. But a few malcontents among us aren't happy about it:
An advocacy group on Tuesday asked the Federal Communications Commission to block a soon-to-debut TV cartoon show starring characters first created to market Skechers footwear to children.
Unless banned, the group said, the show could pave the way for Ronald McDonald, Tony the Tiger and other iconic cartoon pitchmen to become stars of their own series ...
And I say: What the hell's wrong with Tony the Tiger having his own series? (The Sugar-Frosted Hour has a nice ring to it.) Swear to God, you let these Socialists start dictating what the children see on the teevee, next thing you know they''ll start demanding that porn channels be removed from the hotel rooms of Comfort Inns. Then where the hell would we be?
Excepting the banksters, our new Socialist Health Delivery System, Medicare and Social Security, plus public libraries, interstate highways, selected police and fire departments, and military contractors, the bedrock of this great country is a free and unfettered marketplace where all parties can buy, sell and gouge until Hank Paulson bails them out.
You let stiff-necked statists dictate what kind of long-form advertising Nickelodeon can show on its cable network, the commies will have won.
Posts
40 comments:
I can't WAIT for Joe Camel the Explorer on PBS!
End Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Government/public schools, welfare of every kind, and small farm subsidies NOW! Extend tax cuts for the very wealthy so they can invest in foreign infrastructure and send more jobs overseas. republicans presided over the largest expansion of Government in U.S. History (including the single largest tax hike in history) when thy were in charge for 8 years. We need MORE of THAT!
"republicans presided over the largest expansion of Government in U.S. History (including the single largest tax hike in history) when thy were in charge for 8 years."
Sigh. No and no. Please refer to the following:
"REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS" published by the US Department of the Treasury in 2006 (http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf)
and
"Since 2001, Bush has been able to practically dictate tax policy to Congress. Tax cuts have passed each of the past five years, totaling $1.8 trillion over 10 years."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500854.html)
The "malcontents" are a group called CCFC "Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood".
From their mission statement:
"CCFC’s mission is to reclaim childhood from corporate marketers. A marketing-driven media culture sells children on behaviors and values driven by the need to promote profit rather than the public good."
http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/aboutus.htm
Ah, those evil corporations again!
Looking at their bios, I'm guessing that most of these people voted for Hope and Change. http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/about/bios.htm
Next thing you know they'll be complaining about how many freakin' toys have been sold based on Pixar, Disney, and Star Wars characters.
Let's test out your claim.
R 2006 - tax cut; R 2004 - minor tax cut; R 2003 - tax cut; R 2002 - major tax cut; R 2001 - tax cut; D 1997 - major tax cut; D 1996 - minor tax cut; D 1993 - minor tax cut; R 1990 - tax hike; R 1989 - tax hike; R 1987 - tax hike; R 1986 - tax hike; R 1985 - minor tax hike; R 1984 - tax hike; R 1983 - minor tax cuts and tax hikes; R 1982 - tax hike; R 1981 - major tax cut; D 1980 - tax hike; D 1978 - tax cut; D 1977 - tax cut; R 1976 - tax cut; R 1975 - tax cut; R 1971 - tax cut; R 1969 - minor tax hike; D 1968 - tax hike;
Totals:
R tax cuts - 10
R tax hikes - 8
D tax cuts - 5
D tax hikes - 2
By the looks of things, Republicans give tax hikes about four out of ten times, while Democrats give tax hikes about... three out of ten times.
Not to mention who gets the tax cuts under either administration.
I hate government meddling as much as the next guy, but "Republican tax cuts" is simply a myth.
And yet...under bad ol' Bush, we had 5% average unemployment, a booming economy, low interest rates, low inflation, and my 401K was kickass.
And then the Dems took over Congress, and Bawney Fwank didn't do his job overseeing Freddie and Sallie (because his boyfwiend worked at one of them) even though the Bush admin tried 11 TIMES to MAKE him do his job, and the rest is history. And despite his incompetence, the Dems let him keep his position - apparently in gratitude for his part in destroying the economy and putting them in power. Nice. But then the Dems have a rep for keeping and re-electing their pervs and crooks - look at Charlie (The Kingfish) Rangler's win of the Dem primary last night.
There's gonna be a party this November come election time - a Grand Old Party.
I agree with Steve - what's wrong with Tony the Tiger getting his own show? He'd sure as hell be a step up from horrible-looking, unfunny characters like Flapjack and that stupid blue jay and raccoon from the Regular Show. Plus, the funniest cartoon I saw as a kid - hands down - was the Linus the Lionhearted Show, created in part by such stellar comic minds as Carl Reiner and Sheldon Leonard. It didn't matter to me that Linus - and Sugar Bear, his co-star - began as cereal mascots. What mattered to me was that the show was genuinely funny. If a good, funny cartoon could be derived from Tony or Lucky the Leprechaun or the Trix Rabbit - characters that at least LOOK appealing - then that's all anyone should care about. Screw the media watchdogs that try to raise other people's kids. They should take a look at the cartoon shows that have no overt connection to cereal or toys. They're more likely to rot kids' brains than Tony or Lucky.
^Steve was being facetious. But you're right anyway. Linus was ace.
Seeing how I was in the target audience when they launched and was oblivious, I don't get the "He-man" and "She-ra" negative (?) reference at the beginning of the article. Was there something wrong with those shows? Were they "half hour ads" for something? Other than He-man toys (which compared to the GI Joe/Transformers/Ninja Turtles toys push they were pretty tame) I'm not sure what they were trying to sell. Bad hair products?
Steve was being facetious ...
Say what?
I blame the writers.
Re: "I hate government meddling as much as the next guy, but "Republican tax cuts" is simply a myth."
Thank you for at least checking the reference.
However you did not adjust your results for which party was in control of Congress in the years you cited. For example, you cite:
D 1997 - major tax cut; D 1996 - minor tax cut
Both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans at that time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses).
In the 1994 mid-terms, Republicans swept into control of Congress based largely on the Newt Gingrich led "Contract With America" platform vowing to lower taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_america).
It is simply ridiculous to claim that these tax cuts could be attributed to Democrats simply because Clinton was President.
Also, in the time slice that you cite, 1968-2006, there have been 3 Democratic Presidents (serving for about 13 years total) vs 5 Republican Presidents (serving about 25 years total), so your sample is biased - for positives and/or negatives - toward Republicans.
In any case, by checking my reference, you have in fact confirmed that the claim that Republicans are responsible for "(including the single largest tax hike in history) when thy were in charge for 8 years" is demonstrably false, per your post:
"R 2006 - tax cut; R 2004 - minor tax cut; R 2003 - tax cut; R 2002 - major tax cut; R 2001 - tax cut"
Once again it is nice to see those of us who are right of center come out from hiding and speak our minds. Even tho I assign an R to my party affiliation I do put our national welfare above political affiliations and I am sorry that our current president did not live up to all that we'd hoped he'd be. Maybe he'll learn like Pres. Clinton did that the country is more moderate that progressive and that it is all "about the economy, stupid" and move to the center,
Yes, it is a fact that repblicans presided over the LARGEST tax hike in U.S. History---no one disputes that--no one can. The facts are just that: FACTS.
Thankfully, his place in history has gone down with the popularity of this terrible hike. That is, the worst president in history.
republicans have shown how bad they are at managing our money. They have yet to prove they deserve another chance. So shameful.
The wingnuts lack common sense. And they're anti-education.
But the fact that today, the gop promised to raise the debt $4 trillion--in a plan that PALES to our President Obama's stimulus plan (which has stopped the bush economic debacle from being far worse than it otherwise would have been). Just remember--every single wingnut conservative governor, senator, and representative who railed against the stimulus TOOK THE MONEY AND ARE PROUD OF IT. The hypocrisy is ripe.
Here's a totally anecdotal test case from my own childhood:
POST cereals had THE LINUS THE LIONHEARTED show on network TV when I was a little kid. Every single character in the series was a mascot for one POST breakfast cereal or another. It was taken off the air and I was really disappointed because despite the crassness of the idea, it was really not a bad show for it's time. Many of the voices were top comedians my parents enjoyed as well.
The most ironic point in all of this is the fact that I LOATHE breakfast cereals of all kinds. Never ate them then and still hate them all.
But I miss those goony characters.
"Yes, it is a fact that repblicans presided over the LARGEST tax hike in U.S. History---no one disputes that--no one can. The facts are just that: FACTS."
I'm disputing that.
Please cite a source for your "FACTS".
"President Obama's stimulus plan (which has stopped the bush economic debacle from being far worse than it otherwise would have been)"
Actually, based upon the unemployment rate, Obama's stimulus plan was far worse than if there had been NO stimulus plan instead - based upon projections created by Obama's economic team itself - check-out this graph and discussions at the links:
http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif
http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/correction-to-the-may-unemployment-chart/
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/15/making-sense-of-stimulus-spending.html
Also, here is a link to the recently resigned Christina Romer - one of Obama's chief economic advisors, and one of the principal architects of the stimulus plan. This link is a transcript of her last official speech, where she attempts to defend why the graph noted above is so off:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/100901-National-Press-Club.pdf
Basically, she says that she underestimated how bad the economy was, so therefore her forecast was wrong. She thinks that the stimulus should have been even bigger:
"While we would all love to find the inexpensive magic bullet to our economic troubles, the truth is, it almost surely doesn’t exist. The only surefire ways for policymakers to substantially increase aggregate demand in the short run are for the government to spend more and tax less. In my view, we should be moving forward on both fronts."
Way to go Christina! Now go back to your ivory tower and write some research papers and leave the fixing of the economy to people who actually understand how business and commerce works.
Re: Here's a totally anecdotal test case from my own childhood
I agree with this. Some adults tend to think that kids are idiots in regards to cartoons and merchandising. But when I was a kid, I only cared if the cartoons were entertaining, I didn't give a damn about them being toys or not.
And as far as merchandising goes, I would have eaten Cap'n Crunch with Crunch Berries with or without a dedicated cartoon. That stuff was like crack for kids. Still is for me.
Actually, based upon the unemployment rate, Obama's stimulus plan was far worse than if there had been NO stimulus plan instead - ...
Funny. The Congressional Budget Office's report said something way different:
The oft-criticized stimulus plan boosted the economy in the second quarter by as much as 4.5%, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.
In a report published the same day as Minority Leader John Boehner's criticism of President Obama's economic policy, the CBO said the stimulus law boosted the economy by between 1.7% and 4.5%, lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points and increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.
In practice, that means the stimulus plan is the main reason the U.S. economy grew during the second quarter.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stimulus-plan-boosted-gdp-by-as-much-as-45-cbo-2010-08-24
The CBO is non-partisan. You can look at its reports on the American Recovery Act for yourself. Google "CBO american recovery act."
Screw the CBO...if it ain't on FOX it ain't real !!uh huh...Now I'm going to hold my hands over my ears and ignore facts and just listen to Beckless and Inhannity - they're worried about important things like keeping tax breaks for paople making a lot more than me!!
Re: "Funny. The Congressional Budget Office's report said something way different"
Well I guess we should all be thankful that some liberals are actually attempting to cite rational sources to support their ad homiem partisan claims. This is how civil & informed debate should be conducted. Bravo.
I am very familiar with that CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf). In reading press coverage about this report you would almost think that the CBO has MEASURED the ACTUAL effects of The Stimulus. However, this is NOT the case. From the report (Appendix: Evidence on the Economic Effects of Fiscal Stimulus):
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) based its estimates of the economic effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on information from various sources: macroeconometric forecasting models, general-equilibrium models, and direct extrapolations of past data."
Hmm. Models and extrapolation of past data. For economics. Okay. In other words, they made an educated GUESS. They did not actually MEASURE anything. These are some of the same economics experts who failed to predict the current economic problems in the first place. And they are probably using the same damn economic models for this report. And how valid is it to extrapolate from past data when trying to make predictions for a "once in a life time" event?
The devil is in the details. Go back and actually read and think about what that CBO report says, and doesn't say.
"Beckless and Inhannity - they're worried about important things like keeping tax breaks for paople making a lot more than me!!"
uh huh, and so are these "paople":
"Thirty-one House Democrats, most of whom face tough re-election bids this fall, have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them to extend expiring tax breaks for all income levels, including the wealthy."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/15/more-democrats-break-with-obama-on-tax-cuts/
"In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether. Ideally only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html?_r=1
they must be watching Beckless and Inhannity too i guess.
If all we are talking about here is taxing and spending, that means the Right is controlling the debate and making the rest of us play defense.
If the Bush tax cuts generated jobs, where are they? The tax cuts are still in effect. It's bad economics. The tax breaks are being paid for with borrowed money. We need a better, more thoughtful solution than simply leaving the Koch brothers all alone to play with their money and allowing corporations like Exxon to pay zero domestic corporate taxes.
Enough with the partisan pissing contest. How about some real ideas?
Go to the Daily Show website and check out the extended version of last night's interview with president Clinton. There is someone who is actually thinking solutions, not debating ideology.
well i went to the daily show website and found this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-14-2010/faces-of-debt
best quote:
"It looks like the Summer of Recovery has slipped into the 'Autumn of Nothing but Ramen Noodles for Dinner.'"
I love this debating society quote cherry-picking you guys do to validate your points. What about the rest of it? What about the substance? What about Clinton's analysis of the differences between the economy he had to deal with and the one that Obama was presented with?
My favorite part was more in the way of subtext: Look at the lengths Clinton and his foundation have to go through to get the private sector to do what supply-siders and Libertarians claim will AUTOMATICALLY happen in the absence of taxes and regulations. The Newt-wits and Koch puppets have it wrong. Without practical incentives, carrot and stick, the greedy monster just keeps eating, and nothing comes out but the shit end of the stick for the rest of us.
Ah, I miss Bubba. In some ways he did more to advance a conservative agenda than any President since Reagan (albeit with a Republican controlled Congress).
I submit to you that four of the most significant achievements of the Clinton Administration were:
1. Welfare Reform - "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it"." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996)
2. Free Trade / NAFTA - "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement." (http://www.historycentral.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html)
3. DOMA -" the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)
4. Iraq Liberation Act - "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act)
Anybody for Clinton (Hillary) for President in 2012?
"I love this debating society quote cherry-picking you guys do to validate your points."
What you derisively refer to as a "debating society" is merely an attempt to address and engage the often strident, unsubstantiated partisan dogma posted here by liberals (this being a union blog and all).
What you derisively refer to as "cherry-picking" is the citation of primarily original and (hopefully) politically "acceptable" sources that present a legitimate rebuttal or refutation of liberal claims.
The issue seems to be that you don't like this.
But it is not the responsibility of your political/philosophical opponents to do anything to support your arguments - that's YOUR responsibility. If you are not up to the level of the discussion, then please refrain from participating. Don't complain when someone else is trying to support their positions by citing references/sources.
Rise to the challenge. Don't merely post unsubstantiated partisan drivel. Do some research to back your claims and post links like the person who referred to the CBO report regarding effects of The Stimulus.
Or you can go back to your echo chamber where you don't have to engage with people who disagree with you.
...they [the CBO] made an educated GUESS ...
Not quite.
From the August 2010 CBO report:
"Recipients reported that the ARRA funded almost 700,000 full-time equivalent jobs during the first quarter of 2010. Such reports, however, do not provide a comprehensive estimate on employment in the United States. ...
Estimating the law's overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients' reports provide. Therefore, looking at recorded spending to date as well as estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law's impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar polices on the economy and using various mathematical modesl that represent the workings of the economy ...
Etc.
Slightly more than an educated guess. But if you want to quote from the appendix rather than the body of the report to bolster your argument, go right ahead.
"using evidence about the effects of previous similar polices on the economy and using various mathematical modesl that represent the workings of the economy"
This is nothing more than a re-statement of what is in the appendix (which is significantly titled "EVIDENCE on the Economic Effects blah blah"). They extrapolated from previous data to estimate the effects of the stimulus. They didn't MEASURE anything. You tell me how valid it is to extrapolate from past events when you are trying to gauge the effects of a singular, extraordinary event. And again, they state that they used various mathematical models to make their estimates. Except their mathematical models almost certainly do not take into account singular, extraordinary events. In other words, the validity of their models is questionable.
Quoting from the appendix is no less valid than quoting from the body of any paper. Often times, the body is simply a summary of the analysis described or conducted in detail in the appendix. The validity of both is equal. The importance of carefully reading this appendix is that it discusses in detail the techniques used to make the estimate. I think that it would be fair to say that there is a considerable amount of uncertainty and guessing going on here, and the authors of the report even discuss some of these issues.
So actually, not at all more than an educated guess. I mean you're not going to actually claim that this report is indisputable truth that the stimulus "worked" as intended are you?
It is also important to point out that the CBO report did NOT rely upon REPORTING at all, as the snippet that you posted clearly states (and the report discusses):
"Estimating the law's overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients' reports provide."
But again, at least you actually read the CBO report. Reading it carefully may give you some indication on just how complicated and contentious (not just politically, but academically) economic models and forecasting are, and why therefore this report should be read with a degree of skepticism.
"What you derisively refer to as "cherry-picking" is the citation of primarily original and (hopefully) politically "acceptable" sources that present a legitimate rebuttal or refutation of liberal claims."
What "sources?" I was referencing the interview, specifically not attempting to "refute" conservative claims. I will gladly concede the point. I am neither prepared willing or able to debate you on that level.
What I meant by "cherry picking" is mentioning that Clinton admitted that the progress of the recovery was disappointing without mentioning his reference and comparison of the present situation to 1994, asserting that the Democrats lost control of congress because his own economic reforms had not fully taken effect, yet.
At no time did he disagree with Obama's approach to the economy, which your quote implies. That's what I mean, selective, misleading quotes out of context, as if you were writing a campaign ad.
And so what if the stimulus was disappointing or hasn't achieved it's goals in the time predicted? How is that absolute proof that an economic stimulus is a bad idea per se?
Reading with a "degree of skepticism" is fine. No problem with that.
But that's not how this started out. I was responding to your sweeping statement:
Actually, based upon the unemployment rate, Obama's stimulus plan was far worse than if there had been NO stimulus plan instead - ...
So unless I'm missing something, you extrapolate that the stimulus created a worse result than no stimulus based on a rising unemployment rate.
Your "educated guess?" Or are you basing it on something else that I overlook? Because in January of 2009 the U.S. was shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs per month, and had been losing jobs since the end of '07.
And now we're losing a net total of 50-60,000 jobs in a month, and gaining jobs in the private sector, though with the temporary census jobs winding down we're losing jobs overall.
I'll give you this: There's just no way to do a double-blind experiment on the U.S. economy and find out if NO stimulus would have made things better than an $800 million stimulus. I tend to doubt it, but there's no way of proving it conclusively since we only have what happened, not what would have happened if we'd done something else.
But a sizable majority of economists believe the stimulus was a help in stopping the jobs implosion. (Many University of Chicago economists wouldn't agree, I'm sure.)
So you're siding with a small minority in maintaining it made U.S. economic activity worse. You want to say that you're skeptical of the CBO report (as you do above), that's fine. But to declare -- assuming you were the one who declared it -- "Actually, based upon the unemployment rate, Obama's stimulus plan was far worse than if there had been NO stimulus plan..." kindly show you're work.
I did, after all, show mine. (And again, the CBO report was based on more than estimates.)
Next thing we know, you'll be declaring that the massive government stimulus that followed the attack on Pearl Harbor did nothing to kick us out of the Depression. It was just a coincidence.
"At no time did he disagree with Obama's approach to the economy, which your quote implies. That's what I mean, selective, misleading quotes out of context, as if you were writing a campaign ad."
Which quote are you referring to?
"And so what if the stimulus was disappointing or hasn't achieved it's goals in the time predicted? How is that absolute proof that an economic stimulus is a bad idea per se?"
Well, if the stimulus did not achieve it's goals in the time predicted how can you claim that it "worked"? If the economy improves significantly 10 years from now, in the theoretical absence of any other government action/interference, are you going to then claim that the stimulus finally "worked"? What I'm saying is, I'm judging success/failure of the stimulus using the Obama administration's own forecasts for unemployment rates, with and without the stimulus, versus the ACTUAL rates to date (http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif). Clearly, they got it wrong.
I'm not going to say carte blanche that an economic stimulus is a bad idea. Stimulus can take many forms. Tax cuts are a form of stimulus for example. From an economics standpoint, the government does not create wealth, it only can take it via taxation and redirect it to other parts of the economy. Every dollar that the government takes means one less dollar used somewhere else in the economy. This is Econ 101.
Now of course, the government can do all sorts of quantitative and monetary easing (like printing more money and/or deficit spending) but I think we can all agree that such things actually lower the value of the dollar. Spending more money to get out of debt is pretty foolish don't you think?
And let's mention the inefficiency of government interference shall we. For example: http://controller.lacity.org/stellent/groups/ElectedOfficials/@CTR_Contributor/documents/Contributor_Web_Content/LACITYP_011644.pdf
"CITY CONTROLLER RELEASES AUDITS OF HOW LOS ANGELES HAS USED FEDERAL STIMULUS MONEY
$111 Million in ARRA Funds Has Only Created 55 Jobs So Far"
That's $2million per job created so far. Not. Too. Efficient.
Your "educated guess?" Or are you basing it on something else that I overlook?
Yes, you overlook that I am basing my statement on the OBAMA administration's projections of stimulus/no stimulus versus ACTUAL unemployment rate to date. It's not MY educated guess - it's THEIRS. They projected that WITHOUT the stimulus, the unemployment rate right about now would be about 9%. But as it turned out, WITH the stimulus the unemployment rate is actually about 9.6%. You call that success?
"I'll give you this: There's just no way to do a double-blind experiment on the U.S. economy..."
I totally agree. But, again, I'm basing success/failure on Obama's own projections vs reality, not mine.
"But a sizable majority of economists believe..."
It doesn't matter what a sizable majority of economists "believe", what matters is what is actually correct. That is clearly open to debate. The Keynesian excuse for the stimulus not producing the "expected" bang will always be that we didn't spend enough. Again, no way to prove or disprove that unless you actually spend the money. In which case, you can always claim that spending more is STILL not enough. Come on, at some point you have to admit that spending MORE money to get out of debt is pretty foolish.
"(And again, the CBO report was based on more than estimates.)"
And again, you are incorrect. It is based primarily on estimates. From the report:
"Therefore, looking at recorded spending to date along with estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects
of previous similar policies and drawing on various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy."
"Next thing we know, you'll be declaring..."
Oh sure, one way to reduce unemployment would be to draft a few million men into the armed forces, let the government establish wage and price controls, rationing on goods, and basically control all production in the country. And of course, we'll "pay" for all this by running a massive debt which we will then pay down in the ensuing years when the rest of the industrial world is destroyed and we are the dominant economic force in the world. Only problem is, the rest of industrial world is not lying in a heap of smoking rubble and we are not so clearly the only one left standing economically. Besides, the primary purpose of all that government spending was not to end the Depression, it was to destroy German and Japanese imperialism and fascism. What are we going to do, spend $30 trillion filling-in potholes and installing solar panels? Ain't going to happen.
Your claim that massive government spending in World War 2 caused the end of the Great Depression and so therefore we can just spend our way of this current economic hole is overly simplistic and ignorant of the historical context of then vs now.
Basically you're saying, "Well it worked in World War 2!" Well only problem is, we ain't got no World War 2 today. The GWOT is but a pimple on the ass of World War 2 by almost every measurable statistic.
... you overlook that I am basing my statement on the OBAMA administration's projections of stimulus/no stimulus versus ACTUAL unemployment rate to date. It's not MY educated guess - it's THEIRS.
Welll... It's easy to overlook when that wasn't what you originally said. Your words were these:
Actually, based upon the unemployment rate, Obama's stimulus plan was far worse than if there had been NO stimulus plan instead - ...
I wouldn';t have argued the point if you had stated: "Based on the Obama Administration's own projections, the stimulus has made things worse. ..."
Did you say that? Uh, no.
Or did you say: "Based on Christina Romer's projections for the unemployment rate after the stimulus, the stimulus has made things worse ..."?
Nope. You didn't say that, either.
Stupid me, I argue with your original statement, and then you go and change the premise. You can see how I'm confused, can't you?
And like I say, we don't have an alternate universe to try out competing ways to address the economy. We've only got what we've got. (The Big Banks have their teams up in the government wheelhouse no matter which party is in charge.)
Maybe McCain and Palin would have done better. We'll never know. But I'll tell you this. Goldman Sachs would have had a seat at the table either way.
You will note that the House Republicans are now campaigning against the Bank Bailout they earlier voted for, but that's politics, eh?
It's fun discussing this. I guess if you want to change your thesis mid-flight, you can do that. It just makes the topic harder to discuss.
Have a neat day.
"Did you say that? Uh, no."
Well, uh, actually I DID say precisely that. You left that part out of your snippet. Here's my full statement:
"Actually, based upon the unemployment rate, Obama's stimulus plan was far worse than if there had been NO stimulus plan instead - based upon projections created by Obama's economic team itself"
"Stupid me, I argue with your original statement, and then you go and change the premise. You can see how I'm confused, can't you?"
Well I won't say that you're stupid. But I do agree that you are confused, since you clearly missed the full quote.
Let me jump in here.
I think the Administration was way too rosy about where the economy was going and it'll cost them lots of congressional seats. (Economist Paul Krugman said a year and a half ago that the stimulus the Obama Administration came up with wasn't going to pull the country out of recession. At the time, the administration wasn't pleased with Krugman's negativity but he was on the money.)
Presidents and their staffs are often way too optimistic about the future. I remember the Kennedy administration saying how well the Bay of Pigs was going ... for about a day. I recall the bright light at the end of the lengthy Vietnam tunnel, right up until around the time I was discharged from the Navy and things fell apart.
Then there was Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" and Paul Wolfowitz's $60 billion price tag for the war in Iraq.
The future doesn't always turn out the way chief executives expect.
"(Economist Paul Krugman said a year and a half ago that the stimulus the Obama Administration came up with wasn't going to pull the country out of recession..."
Here is what Krugman said on November 10, 2008:
"When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion."
(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/stimulus-math-wonkish/)
And this is what he said on November 14, 2008:
"All indications are that the new administration will offer a major stimulus package. My own back-of-the-envelope calculations say that the package should be huge, on the order of $600 billion."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14krugman.html)
The Stimulus (ARRA) of 2009 ended up being worth about $787 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARRA), 30% MORE than what Krugman suggested was big enough.
But now that the Stimulus didn't have the expected effect on unemployment figures, proponents of the Stimulus are playing CYA:
Here's Romer in a recent farewell interview:
JUDY WOODRUFF: In that speech that you gave this week, Dr. Romer, you said, among other things, that you failed to anticipate just how violent this recession would be.
It was a pretty searing self-indictment that you delivered. Are you taking full responsibility for what went wrong with this administration's forecasts?
CHRISTINA ROMER: You know, I -- really, what I was talking about is both my own failures, but, of course, I think one of the things I emphasized is that analysts across the ideological spectrum failed to anticipate how severe the crisis would be.
You know, I think one of the things I tried to describe is, we were in unchartered territory. This is not a typical postwar recession. It was caused by a financial crisis in the biggest economy, the center of the world economy, something we haven't seen since the Great Depression.
And I certainly was very frank that there were things that I got wrong, that none of us really knew or anticipated. You know, what I do feel good about is, one, that we have learned, that we certainly -- you know, we gave it our best shot. We very much told the president that this was a serious crisis, we should do all that we could.
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec10/romer_09-03.html)
So much for the "experts" and their economic modeling and extrapolations from past data.
And here's Krugman now saying that he really meant $600 billion PER YEAR: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/600-billion/
Oh, okay Paul. Not $600 billion TOTAL. You meant per YEAR. Glad you cleared that up - almost 2 years later.
So of course now Krugman says that we need to spend even MORE, like World War 2 more:
"From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Over the course of the war the federal government borrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of G.D.P. in 1940 — the equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
Ain't gonna happen Paul. You get this instead:
"President Barack Obama spent last week rolling out new plans to help America's struggling economy -- $50 billion in infrastructure spending and about $200 billion in tax cuts for companies' investments in research and development."
(http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/goolsbee-refuses-jobs-obamas-stimulus-create/story?id=11615894)
$200 billion in tax cuts for business.
Hope and change.
Ah, the battling Krugmans.
Anon said directly above: Oh, okay Paul. Not $600 billion TOTAL. You meant per YEAR. Glad you cleared that up - almost 2 years later.
Not correct. Here's Krugman on Jan. 6 2009 in the NYT
This really does look like a plan [referring to Obama's stimulus plan] that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan’s perceived failure, if it’s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats.
I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/
And the $600 billion per year? That you claim he "cleared up two years later? There's this from the Portland Business Journal, Jan 26, 2009
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said during a press conference Friday at Willamette University that investment in universal health care and infrastructure, along with temporary nationalization of the country's banks, are the most viable paths to economic recovery ...
The $819 billion spending package passed by the House of Representatives this week is about $1 trillion short of what's needed, Krugman said. Achieving sustained recovery will probably require spending $600 billion per year for three years on projects that put people to work while building a lasting infrastructure to support ongoing economic growth.
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/01/26/daily68.html
So, actually anon., you misrepresent Paul Krugman. He made it clear prior to the stimulus's enactment that he wanted $600 bill./yr.
I'm not arguing whether he's right or not. Just what he said and when he said it. And you're welcome.
Luv,
Biz Rep Hulett
"So, actually anon., you misrepresent Paul Krugman. He made it clear prior to the stimulus's enactment that he wanted $600 bill./yr."
A comment on Krugman's blog summarizes the problem succinctly
(http://community.nytimes.com/comments/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/600-billion/?permid=49#comment49):
"What is amazing is how much material they will have to ignore so as to cherry pick this quote out of context. I remember from your blog posts at the time that you wanted a package of about £1.3 trillion"
"Not true at all. Those posts came only later. Krugman did not talk anything about a package larger than $600 billion or a two-year program until Obama annouced that the stimulus was going to be a two-year program in his weekly address on November 21, 2008.
Only after this declaration did Krugman start proposing a two-year stimulus package and figures larger than $600 billion. I challenge anyone to find a reference where Krugman is proposing either a two-year stimulus package or a package larger than $600 billion before that date. You won't find any. Not in his blog posts, not in his op-ed columns, not anywhere. You can always say 'I told you so' when you flim-flam what you actually said like this."
Another commenter (#51) posts his suspected reason for Krugman's clarification of what he meant:
"I need to be higher so I can point the finger and say it wasn't enough". When the government program exceeded your figure, you had to make the next jump so you could cling to your "I told you so" position."
The point isn't that it took Krugman 2 months or 2 years to adjust his numbers on how big the stimulus should be. The point is that no number will ever be big enough for him. Sure, let's spend over a trillion - and really, what with TARP, ARRA, the bailouts for GM and Chrysler, HAMP, etc. haven't we really spent well over a trillion in the past year? - and see what happens. I bet you that if that don't work, Krugman will be right there telling us all that it STILL was not enough.
We are now WAY off topic from the original post - I'm posting COMMENTS on COMMENTS from ANOTHER blog to respond to COMMENTS from the author of THIS blog on COMMENTS on COMMENTS on COMMENTS blah blah blah. At this point who's actually still following this thread?
Two of us. Maybe three.
I simply responded with a news story that reported Krugman's position as of January 2009.
$600 billion over three years, clearly stated in public, recorded by a news person.
There's really no problem.
You'll also note that I initally posted about a half-hour tv-show ad, and then it became the usual Bush-hate, Obama-hate, and then you or somebody else brought in the stimulus, how it wasn't working, how Obama and co. are idiots, etc. etc.
And somewhere further down, I brought up the fact that administrations, Republican and Democrat, usually put happy spins on things. It's what politicians do.
Then you attack Krugman as being inconsistent (and throw in Christina Romer for good measure). I point out P.K.'s consistency, then you respond with the above, and now say:
The point isn't that it took Krugman 2 months or 2 years to adjust his numbers on how big the stimulus should be. The point is that no number will ever be big enough for him.
Okay. Then why bring up the two-year thing in the first place? Because I see now it isn't Krugman's timing you have issue with, it's his philosophy.
Neat.
But look, I don't really care. I simply noted (originally): "Paul Krugman said a year and a half ago [March-April 2009] that the stimulus was too small to pull us out of recession, and he was on the money."
In passing.
What I wrote. In support of a larger point of administrations' public relations. My reference to Krugman happens to be correct. He was saying things like that ["stimulus too small"] in January 2009, and after.
And you're now citing commenters on Krugman's blog to bolster your argument. And I'm pointing to news reports that quote him as saying what I said he said.
But look, since it's just the two of us, why don't we agree that
A) Obama's a disaster and his team is moronic.
B) Krugman is a deceitful, double-talking academic who cherry picks his facts.
C) I'm a socialist hack who wants to destroy the country and bring it under a fascist dictatorship like they have in Sweden.
Then we can all stop with this nonsense. Because, hard as it is to believe, I've about exhausted my interest in this thread.
Post a Comment