Shit that don't make sense:

Think about what we're saying here as a party:

1. The economy is depressed, and unemployment is high. We say that means we need a stimulus.

2. Stimulus works, growth comes back a little, unemployment goes down.

3. None of that matters, we lose the debate and seats in 2010, so no more stimulus is possible. Fine--say it was enough and we don't need more.

4. The economy is depressed, and unemployment gets higher. We say we need an anti-stimulus.

5. We make some cuts, we (hopefully) raise some taxes.

Now what? Times were shit before and we said stimulus is the solution. We were right, but we get beat. Times are shit now, and we say anti-stimulus is the solution? Were we wrong before or are we wrong now? Does this make sense to anybody? Who comes up with this? We either look timid or stupid. Timid if we believe stimulus is right because we are afraid to go to the mat with it. Stupid if we believe austerity is right because the GOP has wanted that forever and we spent a year and a half telling people they were wrong.

What's the upside?

I know you're not that naive.

Obama, in effect, stopped the GOP from having the "anti-stimulus" they really wanted.


They wanted 4.0 trillion... they got 0.9 trillion... with a "promise" of 1.2 trillion more by the supercommittee.


The reality of the situation is that the GOP controls the House... and the House, constitutionally, controls the pursestrings. The best Obama can do at this point is to blunt their impact.

We have a crisis that demands a response. You have the GOP saying austerity all the way from the beginning. You have us saying stimulus at first, then after we get beat in 2010 we switch, we start saying austerity most of the way. To voters, it didn't matter that we were right and the GOP was wrong on the stimulus. Now we're saying we want to lower spending by cutting first, taxing later, and that's the right response to the crisis.

So why the switch? How will it look to people? Like we learned our lesson late, but are now right like the GOP in going austere? Or are we chumps, forced to pretend what's wrong is right after losing some seats? If we're still saying the stimulus worked (it did), the GOP were wrong then and wrong now. Trouble is, we're also wrong now, because we're on board for austerity.

You and I do, yes, but the vast majority of American voters, I bet, really don't. No, it doesn't make sense. It is hypocritical and weak and wrong. I think the best way to sum it up is POLITICS. Somebody thinks this will help Democrats in the next election. And the prolonged recession? That's the sacrifice to the Greater Good of the right election outcome.

It's getting cut no matter what now. The only choice left is where the cuts come from via super congress.

My first thought was, the deficit cuts will come from the same groups most in need of stimulus.......the poor and working poor, so how is that supposed to work?

Even if you boil it straight down and talk health care costs, someone is going to come in and shift it to Medicare. Nobody bothers to mention Medicare beats private insurance hands down in the bang-for-buck department, and always will. Its overhead is a fraction of private insurers'. The stimulus was designed to operate for a short time, and for that short time it worked, but someone is going to come in and cite the current shit as proof it failed. There is no consistent debunking out there for those guys that are always found to come in and muddle things up.

backlash. There are ordinary people who really panic over "big gubmint spending", even when it's for a good reason (like preventing recession).

Are we going to win when things get worse because we agreed to some of the wrong thing?

...and everyone else -- as they always do in a mid-term -- stayed home.

Old people in the '06 mid-term hated Bush -- he was going to privatize their SS, and no amount of bribery via Medicare part D could disguise that. They turned out then. But they were still +0 R in House voting.

It is also worth noting that in 2008, the 65+ vote was +10 R -- the first time in at least 40 years the +65 vote didn't go to the ultimate winner of the presidential election.

So, what was different about the 2008 ultimate winner of the presidential election, do you think?

:think:

And slashes you probably didn't hear about not happening isn't exactly something to make inspire you about a stimulus package (note, if the stimulus had been extended and states weren't currently cutting payrolls the jobs picture would be much better right now). And states don't put up signs saying "Bobby still has a teacher thanks to the recovery & reinvestment act!"; the only signs you see are the ones reminding you that you're in a traffic jam because the government is paying for this road construction ahead.

...has a multiplier far greater than tax cuts, and not far behind UI. I know why they did it, even if it was invisible. And that was before the NBER discovered the initial plunge in GDP was 2x what we thought in '09