Liberal Economists Say Bailout $$ Not Enough (seriously)

It didn't work, but maybe it will if we do it BIGGER. That seems to be the logic behind the push for EVEN MORE government intervention into the economy, being championed by a group of economists including the Center for American Progress.

One thing everyone seems to be able to agree on is that FDR's New Deal didn't work. That makes it extra-ironic that they think the solution to a failed New Deal is to try a New Deal squared.

Unemployment, they argue, could top 10 percent if the government doesn't step in aggressively. And if the situation cascades out of control — which they fear it could — we could face unemployment levels not seen since the figure reached a horrific 25 percent during the Great Depression. In that crisis, total government spending as a percentage of the economy was just below 20 percent. Today, that figure is already above 35 percent, and may go higher still with the stimulus effort. Some economists argue that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was never fully able to truly turn the Depression-era economy around until the advent of massive government spending during World War II. That's why they say more spending is needed now.

That kind of a mindset is dangerous. I wonder if the economists pushing this fiasco have ever actually STUDIED any post-Marx economics.

Among those who say government needs to spend more, not less, there’s a consensus figure for exactly how much more: $400 billion over two years, for a total package of about $1.2 trillion.

“The stimulus does not need to be timely, targeted and temporary,” argues Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect. “It needs to be adequate to do the job.” He runs some quick back of the envelope math. “Eight hundred and twenty billion is about 2.5% of GDP. But the economy is sinking at the rate of five to six percent. So they may find out they have to come back and ask for more.”

He's serious, folks. Presumably we need to spend another $400 Billion on abortion funding and tree planting and ACORN payoffs. Yeah, that'll do the trick.

I wonder why the economists don't just argue that the bill should lower taxes for small businesses so that they can hire more people and create new jobs? Or why don't they argue that the expenditures be used more wisely?

The funny thing is that the government just basically LOST $350 Billion it gave to Wall Street, and the new "stimulus" package has more than 25% that won;t be available until election year 2012... when Dems can buy off votes with tax dollars. I wonder why the report seemed so concerned with the need for more government spending, and shows no concern at all for oversight.

Remember the damage that Chuck Schumer caused this summer with his verbal drive-by shooting of IndyMac Bank? Remember the damage caused to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Obama's buddies? Imagine the damage those morons could cause with an extra half-trillion dollars?
Subscribe to Evil Conservative Radio by Email

or

Subscribe to Evil Conservative Radio in a reader