Does anyone care to argue that the freeze idea will actually help the economy?

It's a fair question.

"Just because republicans like it doesn't mean it's bad."

"It's part of a larger plan."

"We won't know until it's tried."

You won't get arguments, but sound bites.

Yes, I guess this president has been reduced to hand-waving and gimmicks.

yeah or nay. If they are going to cut proven useless military planes.. freeze away.. But I do not know yet.. so I will wait and see.

.... pages 187-189.

I dont know how I could expound upon that.

Again, I dont know where the confusion is coming from, we had fair warning before we went into the voting booth.

The Audacity of Projection wherein what was said is compared to what too many people thought they heard.

"We" are absolutely as bad as Freepers when it comes to treating serious matters like a football game, employing "yay team" mentality where it should never be.

The issue is the governance of America, not whether some guy kept some promise or whether someone should have known how he thinks.

The election is long over. He is the President of the United States, not a candidate.

A bad policy is bad whether it was predictable or not.

Now, you're smart, no one questions that. If this is different than what Clinton did (causing us to end up with a budget surplus) how so?

If it's NOT different than what Clinton did, what's the problem?

The CBO is about to announce that the 2011 deficit will be slightly under one trillion dollars. I realize we're good Democrats and we believe in spending money, but if we cant recognize that this is a huge problem politically going into a mid-term election, then we have bigger problems than whether or not Martha Coakley hates baseball.

2/18/93 - CLINTON'S ECONOMIC PLAN: The Spending Cuts; A Wide Swath, on Earth and in the Sky
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/us/clinton-s-economic-plan-the-spending-cuts-a-wide-swath-on-earth-and-in-the-sky.html?pagewanted=1

9/27/00 - President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

The stock market, GDP and productivity exploded 1995-2000. Much bigger than the supposed Reagan boom.

If 2011-2016 is going to be like 1995-2000 then I'd say good on it all.

But I don't know of any economist who thinks were are in a similar circumstance to where Clinton was after 1994, so the right thing to do isn't the same at all.

As to whether someone should change their economic theories in office, I imagine many presidents have. Nixon lamented "we are all Keynesians now" when forced to change his thinking circa 1970.

If circumstances show that your first impression is faulty then you reassess.

The President has a special obligation to reassess his thinking because unlike all his advisors he cannot be summarily fired. He's there for the duration.

.... going into an election season?

I'll concede that times were better financially at the beginning of Clinton's terms but that doesn't address the other problem.

Just because *WE* dont have a problem with the deficit doesn't mean the rest of the electorate doesnt.

I don't see this as working at all.

As the defenders of the policy note (ironically), this policy is too small to affect the deficit.

All it does is prevent further stimulus.

So we get a worse economy from not doing stuff because we are being thrifty but no substantial deficit reduction... seems like political lose-lose to me.

Something to piss off everybody!

If it works politically then great. I honestly do not see how it could, though because no matter what happens the deficit will be huge. Accepting that reality, try to make the economy as much better as we can. That's my political approach.

.... "this will NOT effect further stimulus"?

Is that just total BS?

If this policy will not reduce total federal discretionary expenditures in 2011 then it's BS as "taking the deficit seriously"

And if it will reduce total expenditures then it will certainly interfere with further stimulus because the deficit itself is most of what makes stimulus stimulative--the very act of borrowing money and pumping it into the economy.

Bernstein was doing something he knows is a deception, which is to create an isolated category of stimulus spending.

Let's say we spend $50 billion on a jobs program while cutting $75 billion from medical research. (I am just picking a topic that's far from what we think of as stimulus... I am not saying medical research will be cut.)

To call the jobs program stimulus in the abstract while not calling the research stimulus is false. The net effect on the economy is negative... $25 billion less money pumped into the economy.

And a loss of research jobs, and medical equipment manufacturer jobs and guinea pig farm jobs, etc.

The point is that cutting over there while "stimulating" over here is mostly phony. Even wasted government spending is paying someone, buying something, etc..

There is something to be said for, "This $100 billion here is not being well spent. Let's cut it and move the $100 billion over there which is a better use of the money." But that doesn't reduce the deficit any.

Any attempt to decrease the total deficit in 2011 (even by eliminating waste) reduces GDP in 2011. No way around it. (Unless cutting some government program results in an even greater gain in the private sector somewhere, but nobody is claiming that.)

One can argue it as the right thing to do for other reasons, but it is counter-stimulative.

since that book was published.

I would expect Obama's thinking to change also...

We have nothing to discuss on this issue yet.

Thank God and the DU administration for "hide thread."

The only way to actually get deficits under control is to cut either entitlements or defense, neither of which this "spending freeze" actually touches.

I'm all for "increased efficiency" or whatever they're calling it. But you can squeeze a few million from this program, a few million from that program and still not make anything close to a dent in the deficit.

Crickets chirp as the "bold new plan" falls on tired, jaundiced ears.

He's handcuffing himself for the rest of his time in office, and Congressional Democrats along with him. He's only talking about spending cuts which is what Republicans want. Maybe he should try doing something Republicans don't want. I would like to see him say he will veto any measure that extends any part of the Bush tax cuts. Then let Republicans show us how much they are really concerned about deficits as if we didn't know already.

I wonder what else will be in the speech that the freeze will provide political cover for?

I'm wrung out, Grantcart.

As you may recall a discretionary spending freeze was my #1 biggest McCain outrage.

It's not the cuts, which will probably end up being non-existent.

It is making what amounts to a promise to not do anything for the economy going forward.

"I will stimulate no more forever."

You have consistently been a strong voice on getting jobs first, and you are right from a political, personal, and economic perspective. Also the best way to eliminate the debt is getting everyone working again.

I would agree that it is the stupidest thing that the White House has come out with and their explanation is hard to understand.

You have to assume that they were motivated to do it on the basis of polling data that threatens the House this year.

Again it makes me wonder if there aren't some other things in the SOTU that are going to inflame the right wing and it was necessary to add this.

edited to add

Given the fact that the freeze doesn't start until 2011 maybe they think that unemployment will be down by then,

If there ever was a good policy to have a "trigger" for - this is it. Have the freeze start when the unemployment rate goes under 7%.

I hope that's not prescient.

I think that turned out well for him. We don't yet know the details of this.. if the freeze causes some agencies to get rid of wasteful spending & duplication then I have no problem with it.

If it causes more American's to hurt then it sucks.. but again, i'm holding my judgement for the details. Fiscal Responsibility isn't a bad idea.

We are not in a boom of any size.

Thanks to Bush, our economy is dependant on a constant influx of foreign credit to finance our deficits.

Cutting spending in this fashion may keep the gravy train flowing a bit longer.

the economy at all. Nearly every economist said there is alot of spending in the stimulus bill that would have zero impact on the economy. If we'd, theoretically, left out that money would it have had a negative impact on the economy? NO.

money on something that isn't working or isn't a good program? Just because we can?