"While some economists consulted by Obama's team recommended spending of up to $1 trillion over two years, a more likely figure seems to be $850 billion. There is concern that a package that looks too large could worry financial markets, and the incoming economic team also wants to signal fiscal restraint." (Emphasis added.)
I generally agree with the majority of economists on this issue that very heavy federal spending is warranted, but I think it is worth taking a moment to step back and realize what things have come to: $850 billion in new spending without any concurrent tax increase is now considered a sign of fiscal restraint! Oh, how the tables have turned. This is going to be a bumpy ride.
Posted by
honeyspider on December 18, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Well well well. Actual policy is soooooo boring this post only has a few comments.
Loads of comments about Obama celeb news, drama over minutiae of the primary for months and months, all the time.
But on policy, who gives a shit?
Thus proving it's been mainly a fan club of aficionados rooting for a celeb, not a serious movement for political change, that has been built. (I hope not).
I listen to these economists like Paul Krugman saying the federal government urgently needs to spend, spend, spend. And I don't discount what they say. But boy, we're in a brave new world. It's like we've gotten into this untenable, unsustainable economic situation, and the answer is to do something that is itself untenable and unsustainable.
I'll tell you this. If the projects we're spending on don't have a real long-term benefit to the economy and the environment, they're going to end up doing more harm than good.
Posted by
cressona on December 18, 2008 at 9:25 AM
We don't have any money to spend! Keynesian economics works when you have a nation of saver and producers (like in the 30s) not a nation of spendthrifts that are already overburdened with debt!...say goodbye to the dollar. Get into gold.
Comments (8) RSS