home

What The Bloggers Think

National Journal's weekly Washington Insiders and Bloggers Poll asked the following questions:

Do you expect another economic stimulus plan will be necessary in the next year?

How concerned are you that federal economic recovery aid has gone or will go to people and businesses that don't deserve it?

I'll ask the second one here in a poll below.

< Slouching Towards A "Temporary Takeover" Of Citibank | Morganthau To End Tenure As Manhattan DA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The second question (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:22:57 AM EST
    really hearkens back to some of the old welfare debates.

    I think everyone agrees that whenever you have a government program, some number of people are going to receive the benefits even though they're not truly deserving.  Liberals generally figure we should do what we can to eliminate waste and fraud, and past that point, you can't allow the inevitability of a few bad apples to screw up a worthwhile program.

    Whereas for conservatives, the fact that there will be undeserving recipients is proof positive that we shouldn't have the program at all.  Period, the end.  The idea that some people will wrongfully take advantage is just infuriating to them.

    Two different mindsets, that's all.

    The minute the government (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Fabian on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    money becomes available, opportunists of all types will be scrambling to get some.

    There will always be some money that is used in ways it was never intended.  There should always be strings attached and record keeping enforced, even if some people whine about the "burden".  Accountability and transparency are good things.

    Parent

    Accountability (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    That's the part I don't get. I work for a non profit, our burdens are strenuous to keep our records and spending in order. We are audited, etc. Sometimes it feels like too much work for the thousands we get, but we do it anyway and rely heavily on local, State and Federal funds. Then I hear about billions unaccounted for in bail out money and do not undertand why there is resistance to making those recipients be ultra transparent. They should be forced to jump through as many, if not more hoops, to prove they are on the up and up, as we do. What am I missing?

    Parent
    Don't see it as part of the old welfare debate (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by DFLer on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    I see it as part of the more current Halliburton/KRB/Blackwater...oops, I mean Xe debate re undeserving recipients

    Parent
    That's not a fair representation. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:05:58 AM EST
    The reasoned argument against welfare has been one on the effectiveness of subsidization - supported by empiricism.  

    The "bad apples" argument is used by the right but should not be considered the counter-argument to the welfare debate.    

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    Your libertarian argument that less than 5% of the people care about is not really what I'm talking about here.

    Parent
    I can understand that. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:32:22 AM EST
    I was just indicating that your representation was by no means comprehensive and omitted a highly evidenced criticism.

    Parent
    Bureacracy (none / 0) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:20:02 AM EST
    Have to balance whether weeding out the "undeserving" is worth the massive bureaucracy and the big slowdown in implementation it takes to do the weeding.

    In the current situation, I say target the $$ as clearly as you can and then don't worry about it.  When the objective is to prime the economic pump, it almost doesn't matter.  Personally, I couldn't care less if some of Santelli's undeserving home owners get relief along with the deserving ones.  Imagine the bureacracy, the paperwork, and the time it would take to, as some have suggested, examine each mortgage holder's finances and make a determination whether or not they "knowingly took on more house than they could afford" to begin with.  Bleeeacchhh.

    The people who whine about "undeserving" recipients are the same ones who go ballistic over the burden of paperwork.


    Parent

    You have a point (none / 0) (#12)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:28:04 AM EST
    However, there should be some simple steps, like requiring the applicants to produce their tax returns for the 3 years prior to purchase, and their credit score at the time of purchase to see if they were at least within the ballpark of qualification.

    People depend on being more trouble than they are worth. Many small business owners get away without paying their employees for hours worked because they know they are too small to be interesting, or worth gov't time. And, they are right...I wasn't even able to write off my loss.

    These cheats add up, and people get hurt.


    Parent

    Love it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    let's hire vast armies of tax accountants to pore over those three years' worth of tax returns and pronounce judgment, then an army of lawyers to beat back the inevitable appeals.

    Shouldn't take more than 5 or 6 years to get the money out into the economy, eh?

    The vast, vast, vast majority of these people were bamboozled and cheated by immoral mortgage brokers who misrepresented loan terms and everything else about the transaction.

    "You should have known" isn't a useful concept in the current situation.

    Parent

    I tihink there was a confluence of (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 06:16:08 PM EST
    the mortgage brokers going hell-bent for leather to make oceans of money on the housing market, abandoning all the old benchmarks for who could and could not afford these mortgages, including all the old verifications that used to be the norm, and people who (1) wanted to get a big check from the equity the market had artifically given them or (2) were first-time buyers who banked on values continuing to go up and planning to re-fi in pretty short order.

    But, here's the thing.  People knew how much income they had - or didn't have.  And regardless of some slimy mortgage broker telling them that yes, they could afford the mortgage, all these potential borrowers needed to do was sit down with a calculator and a list of all their monthly expenses to see the truth of their situation - it ought to have given them really cold feet.

    When you sign on for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt, you don't bite off so much more than you can chew on a gamble that (1) your house will appreciate like it's on steroids, and (2) your income will do the same.  Sure, we probably all stretched a little when we bought our homes, but not like that.

    And when someone is selling you the equivalent of a free lunch, the hairs on the back of your neck ought to be standing on end.  "OK, so, let's say I take the option not to make a payment one month - what does that meam?"  "Tell me what the payment will be if my interest rate re-sets at the maximum it can go."

    There is no question that mortgage brokers broke all the rules and came up with all kinds of products to benefit their own pockets, and some of them ought to be in jail for doing it, but the borrowers have to take some responsibility, too.

    My understanding is that this housing plan will look at the borrowers' financial situation; it won't be as simple as being underwater.  They aren't going to make any effort to help anyone whose total debt is 55% of their income, because they are so over their heads that, help or no, they will be defaulting eventually - and the only way to verify that is to verify the information.

    Parent

    You sound (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:56:46 AM EST
    like a very pragmatic Clintonite to me.

    Parent
    I hope that was meant (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:35:38 AM EST
    approvingly.  Dunno about the "Clintonite" part particularly, but I'm certainly more interested in what works than anything else.  Maybe that makes me an Obamanite at this point?

    I honestly don't think we have the luxury at this point of fussing about "what's fair" or even about "moral hazard."  It's an emergency.  Let's do what will produce some overall economic results as fast as possible or we won't have a system worth fussing over for many years.

    Parent

    I am just saying (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:52:13 AM EST
    that Bill Clinton was the most visible adherent of the "do what works" theory of governance.

    If something sounds like a great liberal idea in theory, but it's too expensive or complicated or time-consuming to implement in the real world, then just forget about it.  I am with you on this.

    Parent

    To Obama's credit (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    it does seem to me that his administration is going farther than most to identify and prevent waste and abuse. I think he knows his reputation will depend on that in the long run. I think it might be the case that Dems are extra-sensitive to these charges that have been thrown at them forever (sometimes with merit), and will do a better job of managing the money than the Republicans did.

    I hope so anyway.

    Parent

    I have to disagree (none / 0) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    on this:

    his administration is going farther than most to identify and prevent waste and abuse. I think he knows his reputation will depend on that in the long run

    His reputation in the long and short run will be whether or not the economy recovers, whether or not people get jobs.

    Deficits,waste, etc. are NOT winner political points. When people are out of work or fear being out of work or have had wage cuts they could care less about how it's done only if it's done.  If the economy recovers in a reasonable time frame and suffering is minimized his legacy will be made.

    For the better part of four plus decades Republicans complained interminably about deficits, waste, etc. and lost election after election.  People got results during that period, the standard of living improved more than two fold. The nation became stronger, etc. all the while the GOP guys wearing green visors complained and complained and lost and lost.

    Parent

    I agree, but... (none / 0) (#37)
    by pluege on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    Whereas for conservatives, the fact that there will be undeserving recipients is proof positive that we shouldn't have the program at all.  Period, the end.  The idea that some people will wrongfully take advantage is just infuriating to them

    I think this a partially true characterization of conservatives, but not all. There is also their racist assumption that all people receiving assistance are minorities and therefore inferior and undeserving of any help. The mere fact of their needing assistance is proof they shouldn't get it.

    Then there is there are the excuses they invent to mask their true reasons for being against assistance (their greed and feelings of superiority). The excuses include:

    • that assistance discourages responsibility and an individuals desire to help themselves
    • under the false precept that conservatives earned all their wealth and advantage without any help, that providing assistance is unjust
    • that government can't do anything right (regardless of all the facts to the contrary. Of course it is true that republican government can't do anything right, so they project that onto all government)


    Parent
    Somewhat different though.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    than the old debates, which were more about emergency sustenance welfare....I'm not gonna worry about a con-artist double-dipping on food stamps as long as the hungry have access to food, though of course we should do our best to limit any fraud.

    Otoh, I am worried about homeowner relief going to irresponisble McMansion owners...you don't need a 4 bedroom 2 bath to live...and we're not talking about a couple hundred dollars worth of food stamps...we're talking five and six figures.  And don't me started on the corporate welfare.

    Parent

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 02:25:29 PM EST
    believe me, there's not much of a debate about whether a starving person can have a crust of bread.  Those old debates were very much about "undeserving" people, otherwise known as "people who just don't want to work."  And do we have any hard evidence that the proverbial McMansion owner is any more of a real issue than Reagan's welfare queen?  I do not, but it's easy to deal in caricatures.

    Parent
    There was that guy... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    in the Daily News begging for Obama's help we discussed.  

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 03:22:21 PM EST
    and does he qualify for help under Obama's housing plan?  I suspect neither of us knows.

    Parent
    I don't think Obama knows....n/t (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 03:57:16 PM EST
    I didn't see it that way (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    Although I see where you're coming from.  I was never worried about the so-called "welfare queen" (so you can see where I fit in your spectrum).  I am, however, concerned about contributing to a welfare empire.  

    Both of your view points are focussed on the "have-nots" and how they are perceived and what should be done.  I read the poll question with "have-mores" in mind.  

    And yes, I'm concerned that they'll find a way to siphon off the life-blood.  Once again.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    it would be easy to eliminate the anger many feel over the mortgage bailout.

    All you would have to do is add some sort of payback provision into it.  The govt should put a lien on any mortgage that they help bailout.  They certainly should be able to assign a monetary value to the assistance they are giving to the home buyer.  Just put a lien in that amount on the mortgage.  If the home buyer sells the property (or transfers the property into someone else's name) for a profit in the future, the tax payers get their money back from that profit.

    Everyone is assuming that housing will go back up in the future.  And home buyers who get an assist to keep their homes should not be able to realize a huge gain without paying the taxpayers back.  After all, without the assist from the taxpayers, that future gain would not be possible.

    Provisions like that have been in (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    all the proposals I have seen. Also, isn't the government only into each house for a maximum of about 10k (1k per year for 5 years to both the lender and the borrower?) If you are deeply underwater on your loan, that may be enough to keep you from walking away, but is not enough for any real abuse to occur.

    Parent
    i heard one explanation (none / 0) (#23)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    that said there was no payback provision at all on the mortgage bailout plan.

    The other explanation I heard for one part of the plan is that people will be able to have their mortgage rate lowered for five years down to something along the lines of 2% or even less.  And, at the end of the five years the rate would go back to the current rate available at the time of the bailout.  Say 5.5%.  That sounds like more than $10,000 in value to me.

    If I am in a home that was valued at 800,000 and I had a 500,000 mortgage and the house is now valued at 400,000.  I have a sub prime mortgage with the rate currently at 10% and can't afford to pay it.  I'm now under water and I assistance through a lower rate so I can afford to stay in my home.

    Years from now the home's value rises to 1,200,000.  I sell it and make a HUGE profit because the taxpayers bailed me out.  Should I get to keep all that profit?  Or, pay back the taxpayers?

    The tax payers are eating half the difference with the mortgage company between the lowered rate they enjoy for 5 years and the actual rate.

    The tax payers should get their investment back.

    Parent

    I liked your answer on Q2. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:05:16 AM EST


    Me, too (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    I was delighted to see his response was a pithy version of my overly wordy one here. (Give me a break, I work nights, so I'm just two sips into my first cup of coffee of the morning...)


    Parent
    I guess I'm somewhere in between (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    For example, on the housing problem. I don't have any problem at all with helping those on the brink of foreclosure - and I also see why it's necessary for everyone else to do this.

    I want the poor to be helped as well.

    But I do wish there was also some help for those of us in the middle class during this crisis - those of us who live in modest homes, live paycheck to paycheck, aren't on the brink of foreclosure but have seen their equity plummet, their 401Ks disappear, their college funds gone, everything they have worked for go away. We are basically starting over.

    Oh well.

    You mean your $8 per paycheck tax break (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:30:40 AM EST
    isn't enough to replace your 401k losses?

    I know what you mean - I'm not going to get any direct help with anything, but if I keep my job and there are fewer foreclosures on my block I'll be happy.

    Parent

    On the mortgage foreclosure bailout (none / 0) (#15)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    deal. The current deal in Washington requires that the note holder be Fannie Mae or Fannie Mac... They are also not thrilled at the concept of self employed.

    Parent
    The tax break is silly (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    And I didn't have much 401k to lose to begin with.

    I am grateful, though, that I seem to have a stable job (for now anyway).

    Parent

    Try being retired and seeing your (none / 0) (#54)
    by suzieg on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 08:25:27 AM EST
    pension indexed to the company's stock, dropping close to half it's original value and your personal IRA paying 1% in interest therefore will have to eat into the principal even though we lived within our means, invested conservatively for years, driving an 11yr old car and now being forced to bail out all who didn't, is a hard pill to swallow!

    Parent
    Not addressed (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    by anybody so far is what's going to happen to folks in my demographic-- on the verge not so much of retirement per se but the end of our ability to earn an income.  The modest investments that were intended to couple with SS to make up a near poverty-level income have been decimated.  Even when the economy turns around, with no "bubbles" likely to fuel a rapid rise in their value, there's no chance of regaining more than a tiny fraction of that lost ground.

    It's a pretty frightening prospect individually, and a looming problem societally.  There's going to be a big wave of us elderly Boomers in a few years without enough income to survive.  Assuming, I hope, that American society will not permit us to be forced to live on the streets, somebody's going to have to figure out what to do about us.

    Parent

    Your not alone (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    At this point I hope I just drop dead suddenly before it all runs out. Bop till you drop appears to be the future.

    Parent
    Completely agree (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    I feel lucky that I have a few more years than you, gyrfalcon (but not that many), but I've also realized that I won't be retiring anywhere near the expected age.

    I'm still luckier than a lot of others.

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:46:02 AM EST
    you have kids...

    Honestly, I fully expect to be on the hook for my parents in about a decade.

    It's gonne be an interesting social shift.  I doubt either my parents or I will love it.

    Parent

    Only fair CST... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    I also expect to have to help my moms out at some point...she did for me for 18 years, I can do for her for 18, or hopefully more.  Though she might not dig all the smoke in the house, it will be a switch to say to her "my roof, my rules":)

    The people with young kids and old parents are really gonna get the squeeze...but that's what family is all about.  I always kinda admired how other cultures put more emphasis on the multi-generational family unit...living togther, working together, getting by together. We may see that become more of a part of our culture by necessity.

    Parent

    Totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CST on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 01:16:42 PM EST
    To be honest, I would love to have my parents around once I start having kids, to help out.  I am not sure how thrilled they would be with that idea though :)

    I wouldn't be surprised to see our country moving in that direction at all.

    Parent

    Nope, no kids (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    You are the people getting the help (none / 0) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    those of us who live in modest homes, live paycheck to paycheck, aren't on the brink of foreclosure but have seen their equity plummet,

    If you are underwater, have jobs that qualify you for the loan, and are current on your mortgage, you are the people being helped. Those loans will be extended, or have interest rates lowered in order to lower the payments.

    Being underwater in a mortgage is not new. Unless you absolutely MUST sell your home today, your underwater state is immaterial. It has always been that way. The value of your home will fluctuate up and down throughout the natural life of ownership if you stay in one place 10+ years. No one ever got so panic-stricken over this in the past, and they sure didn't get special treatment from all the rest of the taxpayers.

    Everyone, absolutely everyone who has a 401K or any money in the stock market saw a decline in their perceived worth. What about the people who were never able to put away a dime for college? Can't get ahead enough to buy a home, or even rent a decent apt? I'm not on any list for assistance, yet I have been every bit as much, or more, a victim of this country's economic acrobatics over the past decade. I figure I just need to get creative because no one is going to care more about my well-being than me.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    not everything is black and white.

    We need to move now (actually needed to move last year) and can't because we can't sell. Even if we could sell, by now it would be pointless because of the equity loss. There are lots of people in this situation. I guess we'll try to become landlords, I don't know.

    I had a very modest 401K because I couldn't afford to start contributing until pretty late. That was pointless turns out.

    There there are those like gyrfalcon who are close to retirement and have lost much and won't be helped much.

    All I'm saying is that, with a little more thought, the middle class could also have been helped a bit along with the poor and the rich CEO's.

    Parent

    You are eligible for some assistance (none / 0) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:55:28 AM EST
    with your home. The only equity that ever exists in a home is the difference between the mortgage balance and the sales price (less real estate selling costs), and it's only real on the day you buy and the day you sell.

    I'm turning 60 this summer. Never was able to afford a 401K, or any retirement plan because I had to raise 2 kids on my own. My situation is much worse than yours or gyrfalcon's, Dr M. I'm just really glad I'm not trying to hold onto a house right now. Rent is due on Sunday, right now I'm $65 short, and looking at what I might have to sell. You're so right about things not being black and white.

     

    Parent

    What do you mean exactly (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    when you say I'm eligible for some assistance with my home? Are you referring to lower interest rates and refinancing or something else?

    I hear you on the rest of your comment. I'm wondering now why we every bought - could have just rented and saved the cash.

    Parent

    If you are current but underwater (none / 0) (#46)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    on your mortgage, and employed you are the people the housing bill is targeted to help. It is intended to incent the people who might want to walk away from their homes who they are trying to help.


    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    Well, we're no underwater (not yet). We're just watching it go down there.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#1)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:09:41 AM EST
    Grand Delusion

    Thank you. I was worrying (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    about how my tax dollar is being spent, but--no more.

    You snark (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    But I assume you understand my point.

    Parent
    I do. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    There are several kinds ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by pluege on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    of people that have been bandied about as undeserving. To me they solicit different responses:

     1) I am enormously concerned and angry about wealthy bankers and Wall Street executives and managers using taxpayer money to reward themselves and their criminally unworthy brethren. This is rewarding greed, corruption, and incompetence and it is infuriating.

     2) I am concerned about housing speculators and people that used inflated home equity to live beyond their means getting tax payer money.

     3) I am concerned about non-wealthy people who acquired mortgages under false pretenses and could not pay a fixed rate mortgage at today's value.

    To those who would wring their hands about non-wealthy people getting support to stay in houses in which they could pay a reasonable mortgage, I don't consider them undeserving and am not concerned about them getting help.
     

    Second Stimulus (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    Looking back at comparable recessions for example 1982  deficit spending and cutting of interest rates were successful at pulling us out.  Same with the 1990-1992 recession.

    Interest rates cannot be cut any further so that kills that option.

    In the 1980's we created deficit spending through defense which accounted for 30% of the budget and 4.2% of GNP.  Not including resource allocations of approximately 6% in the Interior budget.  Republicans saw no issue with rapid increases in defense which armed Bin Laden and the Contras.

    In the 1990's we had the technology revolution which increased employment and subsequently vacancy rates which drove wages higher creating greater consumption and a healthier economy.  There was some stimulus spending but we did not have such a severe contraction in GDP and unemployment.

    So which industry is going to fuel the economy?  There are no industries projecting growth let alone dynamic growth over the next 3-5 years. There is some promise in green tech but eight years of science denial crippled innovation and left us well behind the curve.

    Deficit spending was the rage in the 80's because it was spent on defense and what has that netted us?  Ideology was right-center then and it served the nation well economically.  

    Ideology is left-center currently and one can make the argument that health reform has the potential for serious job creation but I think that remains to be seen.

    As predicted last September, spending is freezing, unemployment is skyrocketing and credit is locked.  The "stress test" for banks as I see it requires banks to maintain a certain level of liquidity or reserves which will lead to less lending as banks protect capital and ride out the storm.

    With a lack of lending, dangerous levels of UE and consumption distress there is no choice other than a second stimulus.  This quarter and the next are going to be disastrous not only for the US but globally.  It is not fear that has our citizens dramatically reducing consumption, it is the loss of jobs, available credit and underwater mortgages.  We spent on the value of our assets which have declined in value significantly creating an untenable situation without job creation.  Americans are notorious for overspending and taking a second job to  bail themselves out.  Unfortunately in this economy, the second job (usually part time) has become the primary income which is not enough to support current financial obligations.

    I am throwing up as I type this but let's remember the most important thing Dick Cheney ever said "deficits don't matter". Unless of course your party is no longer in charge and you cannot stand the thought of kids attending schools that are not covered with a tarp to keep the rain out because you cannot afford a new roof. Or if you reside in any number of cities that are teaching kids in trailers........

    I really thought (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    that increasingly sophisticated financial instruments were going to be the long-term engines of economic growth in this country, to the point where we'd look back in 100 years and hail the inventor of the credit-default swap as the Henry Ford of the 21st century.  I can't tell you how shocked I am that it didn't work out that way.

    Parent
    I don't think this is anything like the welfare (none / 0) (#40)
    by esmense on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 12:28:21 PM EST
    debate -- where you had people with power deciding what to distribute, or not, to people without any power in the decision at all.

    In the current situation those pleading for government largesse are often the most powerful players in our economy and society. Politics is a game, crisis or not, that is always most consistently played for their benefit. So the question in this situation is whether policy that benefits them will do so excessively -- and in doing so fail to sufficiently benefit the rest of us (the victims of their greed and irresponsibility)?

    There is no way to fashion a flawless policy that can or will not be abused by some individuals. I accept that. What I question in this instance is whether those individuals intent on abusing the policy are those who have had the most say, in fact too much say, in designing the policy.