"half hearted?" The Size of the Stimulus Plan is MASSIVE and there's more to come

[Numba6]

Republicans attack President Obama as a communist taking over the private sectors. Uber-progressives join them and attack the bill as a "half-hearted measure". Facts are in short supply.

So far IN THE FIRST MONTH of his presidency, President Obama has gotten:

• Congress passed and Obama signed into law a record $787 billion jobs/stimulus plan with a mix of tax cuts, job-creating projects and aid to struggling states.


• The overall package is 35 percent tax cuts and 65 percent spending


• Analysts believe this spending will save or create more than 3.5 million jobs.


• Democrats said the bill's tax cuts would help 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. At the insistence of the White House, people who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.


• Also included were funds for an Obama initiative, the expansion of computerized information technology in the health care industry and
  
• Also included were funds for an Obama initiative, spending billions to create green jobs the administration says will begin reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil.

In addition to this ONE BILL PASSED IN THE FIRST MONTH of his administration,

• the president pledged up to $275 billion in federal aid to deal with home foreclosures.


• The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve announced financial-rescue steps that could send up to $2 trillion into the economy.


• IN ADDITION TO ALL THE ABOVE, President Barack Obama now starts rolling out his own far-reaching agenda with a summit on fiscal policy and the unveiling of his budget for 2010 which could/should restore many of the programs and stimulus spending cut from the first bill passed in this Congress.
  

The plans ALREADY PASSED raise the federal portion of the U.S. economy to some 31 percent, more than twice the level AFTER eight years of FDR's historic New Deal spending.

By contrast, government spending was 21 percent of GDP last year.

Before FDR's New Deal, federal outlays represented just 3.4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Roosevelt's government spending increased this to 10.3 percent of GDP by 1939 and to 12 percent by 1941 on the eve of U.S. involvement in World War II.

"The New Deal by today's standards involved a minuscule amount of spending," said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University. He said Obama is more of a "big spender" than was Roosevelt.

(much of this is cut & pasted from the AP stories on the bill)

Please, progressives, get a grip.

From http://www.recovery.gov/

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Your propaganda effort is noted

Don't you have anything better to do than post this kind of insulting tripe?

It is HALF HEARTED.

The fact that it is also massive is meaningless. Even a trivial effort would be massive.

The question is whether it is massive enough and it isn't.

[Numba6]

22. You are in fine company - Mark Sanford: Stimulus Supporters The "Real Fringe"

Mark Sanford: Stimulus Supporters The "Real Fringe"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/22/mark-sanford-stimulus-sup_n_168926.html?view=print

Some Democrats took a harder line at a press conference arranged by the Democratic Governors Association to praise Obama for his leadership on the stimulus. DGA Chairman Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley dismissed GOP detractors as "fringe" Republicans eager to score political points.

"All of us are committed to working with President Obama to pull our nation's economy out of the ditch that George W. Bush ran it into," O'Malley said. "If some of the fringe governors don't want to do that, they need to step aside and not stand in the way of the nation's interests."

The line drew a rebuke from Sanford, the Republican Governors Association chairman.

"I think in this instance I would humbly suggest that the real fringe are those that are supporting the stimulus," Sanford said. "It is not at all in keeping with the principles that made this country great, not at all in keeping with economic reality, not in keeping with a stable dollar, and not in keeping with the sentiments of most of this country."

[firedupdem]

2. Good start on a huge mess! n/t

[baldguy]

3. In 8 yrs the New Deal spent $500B.

But the Great Depression didn't really end until we spent the $2 Trillion for WWII.

In order to dig out of the mess the GOP has buried us in we'll need to spend $3-4 trillion over the next two years. And don't make the mistake of thinking we can't afford it. We can't afford not to! And we've been spending $1 trillion each year in Iraq with nothing to show for it.

[Numba6]

4. yes, more massive spending of WW II helped more, but don't buy the right wing tripe on the New Deal,

the facts are not on their side

Your point that more spending is needed is noteworthy, but I think I covered that -- THERE IS MORE TO COME in the normal budget process

GDP recovery during New Deal spending before WW II (& yes, especially in the last couple of years before WW II, US military spending was increased, I think):

[Runcible Spoon]

7. I am waiting to hear the meat on how he wants to reform "entitlements" and healthcare

But already my spidey sense is tingling...I'm not expecting him to buck corporate influence in either case.

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. I can't believe that's what he wants to address. He needs to look at the other

extreme of the economic spectrum, the welfare queens of the kleptocracy - the people on whom he's scared of lowering the boom, but will nevertheless have to, via taxation or move over for a fascist take-over.

[Runcible Spoon]

18. THANK YOU for actually responding to my ORIGINAL POINT

as opposed to flaming me for "Obama hatred". Sheesh. I would say at this point, Obama has learned that bipartisanship is only effective if you can strong-arm the opposition; if not, you might as well push forward with the agenda you intended because republicans are NOT going to sign off and sing kumbaya with us.

I'm HOPING that this "adressing entitlement" stuff is really just about political maneuvering and NOT truly part of Obama's vision.

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. My pleasure. Please give my regards to the Owl and the Pussy Cat. It was their spoon, wasn't it?

[Runcible Spoon]

27. Yes it was!

:)

[Numba6]

5. As I pointed out in the OP - Obama to Unveil an Ambitious Budget Plan

Obama to Unveil an Ambitious Budget Plan
February 21, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911_pf.html

President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on business and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said.

In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation's economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that Obama hopes to enact later this year.

A summary of Obama's budget request for the fiscal year that begins in October will be delivered to Congress on Thursday, with the complete, multi-hundred-page document to follow in April. But Obama plans to unveil his goals for scaling back record deficits and rebuilding the nation's costly and inefficient health care system Monday, when he addresses more than 100 lawmakers and budget experts at a White House summit on restoring "fiscal responsibility" to Washington.

...

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes that the nation will continue to spend money on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is significantly lower than the nearly $190 billion the nation budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, primarily by making good on his promise to eliminate the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 for wealthy taxpayers, whom Obama defined during the campaign as those earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule for the 2011 tax year, when the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to more than 39 percent.

Obama also proposes to maintain the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million, instead of letting it expire next year. And he proposes "a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement" that would target tax havens and corporate loopholes, among other provisions, the official said.

...

Republicans, who are already painting Obama as a profligate spender, are laying plans to attack him on taxes as well. Even some non-partisan observers question the wisdom of announcing a plan to raise taxes in the midst of a recession. But senior White House adviser David Axelrod said in an interview that the tax proposals reflect the ideas that won the election last fall.

"This is consistent with what the president talked about throughout the campaign," and "restores some balance to the tax code in a way that protects the middle class," Axelrod said. "Most Americans will come out very well here."

The budget also puts in place the building blocks of what administration officials say will be a broad restructuring of the U.S. health system, an effort aimed at covering some of the 46 million Americans who lack insurance while controlling costs and improving quality. Many lawmakers said they had expected a health care overhaul to be pushed off while Obama deals with the economic crisis, but administration officials stressed they intend to forge ahead with comprehensive reform.

"The budget will kick off or facilitate a focus on getting health care done this year," the senior official said, adding that the White House is planning a summit on health care. The event has been delayed by former senator Tom Daschle's decision to withdraw from consideration as health secretary because of tax problems, a move that left Obama without key member of his health team.
...

Administration officials also are debating whether to permit people as young as 55 to purchase coverage through Medicare. That age group is particularly vulnerable in today's weakened economy, as many have lost jobs or seen insurance premiums rise rapidly. The cost would depend on whether recipients were offered a discount or required to pay the full price of coverage.
MORE

[Runcible Spoon]

6. It's half-hearted AND massive...not mutually exclusive.

The tax "relief" is going to do fuck-all for those who are truly struggling and are the biggest chunk of the stimulus. Looking at the rest of it, the resulting funds broken up are not where they need to be. Tax cuts are squandering money that could be put into development projects that get bigger bang for the buck.

[Numba6]

8. I can see the facts of therecent bill, of what's just been released on Obama's budget plan,

which completely counters your concerns in #7 above has had no effect whatsoever on your concerns, your ideological preconceptions, or your objections to President Obama's plans

I await your first budget when you become president

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

9. That infrastructure spending is no more than 10% of what is really needed

Spending 20 times the current allocation wouldn't be close to too much.

I accept that this is about all that could be swallowed in one bite, as far as the total cost of the package but the feeling that this has to just be a start is totally legit.

[Numba6]

10. more to come... that's entirely my point, & see WaPo article info eom

[leftstreet]

12. Your pastel bubbles are kinda cute n/t

[stillcool]

13. I don't know why you are catching..

heat for your post. Maybe someone will explain?

[pecwae]

14. His low post count,

he hasn't established credibility or a reputation or a following or a fan club - all the usual reasons. Plus many just find it so much fun to join in a pile on which enhances their post count, credibility, reputation and following. :shrug:

[Numba6]

15. So the snarky posters like to denounce facts as "propoganda" & rely on "spidey sense" rather than

actual announcements and actions and plans in deciding to denounce anything Obama -- by virtue of their high post counts?

[Cha]

17. Yeah, and it doesn't

speak well for them.

[Runcible Spoon]

19. Look here. My FIRST response to you in this thread was neutral and about the actual topic at hand.

You chose to spew off and broadbrush me and throw sinister accusations at me, which indicated you had been stalking me around, which is quite frankly creepy. I never made fun of your low post count, but I am laughing at your woefully lacking reading comprehension.

[Runcible Spoon]

20. I responded, twice, neutrally, discussing the topic at hand. The OP jumped on me and accused me of

Obama hatred, and continued to berate my "ideology". I got defensive, sue me.

I invite you to look at the posting history of this thread. Just because you may have sympathies for the OP's perspectives does NOT mean it's fair for you to dismiss the fact that he started the flaming. It's entirely frustrating; I defend people whose opinions are not like mine quite often if I perceive they are being treated unfairly.

Thereis a contingency here that takes any feedback of the administration that is not 100% shining as a personal attack on their emotions. That's unfortunate.

[Numba6]

21. Just trying to counter ur "spidey sense" w/ facts & actual events is ATTACKING you?

I can see why you have such a big fan club here.

Return to planet earth, please;

I saw no one attacking you for "Obama hatred" while you throw around derision about sock puppets, deride people for being new here, and purposefully mis-characterize points to make snark

I do see you ignoring what the stimulus bill is all about, what it actually means, and what it is in context of past gov't spending. And your rage & hatred at pointing out the facts of the bill.

While you seem to know thru mental telepathy the secret plans of Obama that run counter to everything Obama's said, that his fulfilling of his public campaign platform, and the actual plans he's proposed and legislation he's signed into law.

You're better than Karnak the Magnificent

And I have no clue how to search out someone's "posting history" on this board, I don't see that feature, & have no desire to look at any of your other posts

given the level of discourse you've chosen on this thread

[Runcible Spoon]

23. THIS is fact? Let me repost your first reply to me:

"has had no effect whatsoever on your concerns, your ideological preconceptions, or your objections to President Obama's plans

I await your first budget when you become president"

So telling me that my concerns are ideologically biased and that I am not entitled to this opinion because I am not president is FACT? It's your (nasty) opinion. I made no references to your ideological shortcomings; I merely voiced my concern about the nature of the fund allocations. I called you a sock puppet because you seem to think you know an awful lot about me for someone who has been here for 150 posts and two weeks. I retract that; if you actually knew anything about me you would know I defend low-count posters who get shit on. What made me suspicious was all your broadbrush attacks about my ideological leanings. I now see that is just your shallow and cheap rhetorical strategy to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with your perspectives on the matter.

I am quite versed in Obama's economic policy, I was an early critic of his Cabinet appointments who were some of the architects of this mess. I don't get all googly and emotional about it, nor do I think it's treason to speak out.

[Numba6]

24. I await your defense of me for you shitting on me, then

After claiming you've been called an "Obama hater" in this thread, now you claim I've called you a "traitor"?

:rofl:

Again, there's a bright, beautiful world out there outside the basement, You might want to see it sometime.

& I still have no desire to see your other threads, even if there was a way to do that

+++

I always let rude people have the last word, they seem to need it so much. I won't respond to your flames and antagonisms again, so go ahead, flame on to your audience of one (urself)

[Runcible Spoon]

26. Excuse me? Here's how it works:

You post an OP. People respond to it. DU is NOT here to butter your muffin.

History of our exchange on this thread:

You post OP.

I post opinion of piece in OP which points out a logical inconsistency. NOWHERE do I say anything about you personally; I am merely addressing the piece you provided in your OP.

You shit on me and deride me for my "ideology", make broadbrush attacks on me and provide a snarky non-answer about not being president.

I get defensive and quite frankly a little creeped out that you believe you know so much about my posting history so I call you a sock puppet; I'm still on the fence about that one.

Discourse degrades....

[stillcool]

28. Well, the first response is indicative...

of what "I" was referring to. But since you've responded I will go through your words more carefully.