With the TeaBagger House of today Obama could not get a nickel.

excellent analysis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=756194

which have been proven time and time again to NOT stimulate economic growth. And most of the rest was either unemployment benefits or layoff preventions, which helped, but which don't have a big multiplier effect.

What was needed was a massive infrastructure spending program which would re-inflate the economy, and give us something we needed all along when it's over. Now we have neither.

Krugman was being too polite when he called it a "half-baked" stimulus plan. It was a HALF-ASSED stimulus, and he called it accurately. Now we have:

a) More debt.
b) a weak economy, and
c) a DISCREDITED economic model (Keynesianism) that actually WORKS if given a chance. (Which it probably never will again, now that all the Austrian and supply-side clowns can say 'we TRIED a Keynesian stimulus and it didn't work. Krugman was dead right when he predicted the half-assed stimulus wouldn't work for anything but to discredit the idea.)

Krugman is not some wild eyed radical. Quite the contrary. Krugman is the real deal. He is the mainstream and in fact his economics is the only real game in town.

Yet "conservatives" evade him with their pure unadulterated bullshit.

and half of that was not spending, but tax cuts... which have been repeatedly proven to do little economic stimulus.

It was only four months after TARP.

2008 will be a year for the history books like 1929.

With Democratic majorities in the House and Senate? Oh yeah, I forgot about the DLC... err, "new" democrats, who fail to uphold traditional democratic values and vote Rethug on economic issues.

Then it would have taken just 50 Senators' votes so Democrats alone could have passed it.

But Reid and the Democrats backed out of it even though they campaigned on changing them.

That's what happens when you don't fight back.

that $1.5 trillion is an extreme amount of money. Krugman glosses over it by saying we would pay it back later. How? When? Where was the extra $800 billion supposed to come from? What would not take place to make all those government jobs possible? And what would we do to keep the stimulus going after the $1.5 trillion ran out? All those government employees would be laid off again. How much would paying back $1.5 trillion hurt the economy?

After seeing what happened to Greece it should be obvious that there is a limit to how much money a government can borrow.

Allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Move forward infrastructure maintainence and replacement saves money in the future. Job creation saves money on unemployment and welfare. Rebuilding infrastructure creates a better economy and tax revenue in the future.

And whatever would be added for stimulus would be on top of the $1trillion+ deficit we have now.

Because Obama fought like a banshee for more and that's all he got?

and was stunned by economists saying 4x as much was needed. 800bn was settled on as being politically possible. The greater amount was not sought, let alone fought for. And of the 800bn, much was tax cuts which have very little stimulus effect; and some was extensions of unemployment benefits, which do act as economic stimulus but only temporarily... a band aid, not a cure. So,IMO, over half of the stimulus package was a dog and pony show that did little to stimulate the economy.

The very, very popular new president addresses the nation during the first week in office, with the nation in a panic about the economy which was, at the time, collapsing with no end in sight.

And he says this:

This economic crisis is the worst since the Great Depression and we need to make sure it does not become worse than the great depression.

We are losing several trillion dollars from the economy. Unless something is done right away all of your houses will continue to decrease in value and millions of you will be laid off from your jobs.

We need to inject two trillion dollars into this economy right now. This is an emergency and must be responded to fast.

That two trillion dollars will be in the form of $400 billion in tax cuts, $400 billion in repairs to our crumbling infrastructure, $400 billion is aid to states to prevent layoff of teachers and firefighters, $400 billion in government backed refinancing of mortgage and consumer debt at low rates and $400 billion in extension of unemployment insurance benefits and medicaid payments to states.

This will restart the economy, avoiding some of the worst of the damage that will otherwise eat away at everything we have accomplished.

As soon an GDP growth is over 3% for a full year and unemployment is below 7% we will increase income and capital gains taxes on amounts over $250,000/year to begin paying off the short-term cost of this desperately needed stimulus plan.

We will also enact a new approach to health insurance that will save the government trillions of dollars in the years to come.

Yes. And the Rethugs were still reeling from the rejection of Bushs failed policies by the voters. And Obama starts out by meeting the Rs half way, before negotiations even begin? WTF? Thats not how you negotiate.

Austerity

We're already austere!

and when asked...just point out the Cassandra theory

It made me sad. He has been consistently right, yet those in power consistently ignore him and do the wrong thing.

he said is correct and would do what he said it would do. It just isn't there agenda.

They want high unemployment to keep inflation down. They want a puffed up stock market to help their primary campaign backers. They want a fair amount of economic turmoil to keep the masses clear on how much they NEED them to protect them from ruin.

You can't sell a solution if there is no problem.

(joke)

But we don't have to guess what's in the Box - it's been open for quite a while. The GOP is just working on crushing that "Hope" thing.

if the economy had been allowed to crash, who would have suffered the most? What did we actually stave off? Everything seems to revolve around saving "too big to fail" institutions who continue to bend the rules to their own benefit. The poor and lower middle class workers were suffering before the debacle, and they're suffering now and will be in the future. The price they're paying is less social services available. But there is part of me that says "why keep trying to save us from the extremist agenda?" They have all the money, and can buy all the air time, further brainwashing simpletons. If you put an Obama in the White House again, and he can't create miracles due to Republican filibustering, you will still be listening to Right Wingers blasting his failed policies. So what happens if we just stop resisting, let them run the deck, then the suffering will be so wide spread and their won't be a Democrat to blame for the destruction.
And I'll just go quietly now and donate some more to Tom Barrett....

The poor. No possible question about it.

and broken them up.

Letting them fail would have punished the working class even more.

Krugman's prescription for what ails the economy is the most humane.

they take credit for the good and blame us for the bad. There can't ever be a result that proves one side right or wrong.

like with anyone in charge of constructing fiscal policy... hmm, wonder who that would be?

Especially democrats in power.

I want to start seeing some real victories and significant gains made against what's been happening in this country since 2000 (well, actually since 1980).

so they won't

"What we need to do, Krugman says, is simple: ditch austerity, kickstart the economy with ambitious government spending, and bring down the deficit when we're back above water again. Most importantly of all, we need to do it now."