|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
|
|
 The Beauty of Free MoneyPosted on Dec 5, 2008The concept of “found money” is delightful. We cherish the cash that turns up under the bed, in a coat pocket, or in a long-forgotten bank account. And found money may be key to the success of Barack Obama’s presidency. No, the federal government isn’t going to discover new billions under some rock in a national park. But with the economic downturn, the new president’s imperative will be to spend as fast as he can, to the tune of perhaps $500 billion, to keep the economy from going belly up. That’s a huge reversal of the normal pattern. Victorious candidates typically discover that their campaign promises are more expansive than government finances allow. Breaking pledges becomes a test of fiscal responsibility. No recent president suffered more from the fiscal squeeze than Bill Clinton. In 1992, candidate Clinton promised middle-class tax cuts, welfare reform and major spending on job training, education and other worthy programs. But as soon as he was elected, the green-eyeshade crowd was all over him. Deficits were raising interest rates and his priority had to be a balanced budget. So Clinton junked his tax cut, failed to put up new money that would have made welfare reform easier, and scaled back other pledges. Advertisement But the political costs of Clinton’s choices were high. By reneging on his middle-class tax cut, Clinton gave ammunition to Republicans, helping them take over Congress in 1994. And by failing to push through welfare reform when Democrats were in control, Clinton was later forced to acquiesce to a more tightfisted overhaul of public assistance with the new Republican majority. Obama’s luxury is that the economic demands of the moment almost perfectly coincide with his political interests. When even conservative economists are urging Obama not only to cut taxes but also to spend and spend and spend some more, he has the opportunity to keep a whole raft of political promises all at once. Middle-class tax cuts? Practically a done deal. New investments in green technologies? No problem. “Smart” meters to help households save on energy costs, plus a new electricity grid? A natural. Universal broadband? It’s about future growth. Investments in medical information technologies? Good for jobs now, good later for cost containment, better treatment and health insurance reform. Already, there is grumbling that Obama shouldn’t try to do anything special with the stimulus; only old-fashioned programs need apply. The critics are grousing: How dare Obama try to use the crisis to transform the country! But this view is shortsighted. If the government has to spend a lot of money, why not use it for programs that lift the economy now and have a long-term payoff later? Insisting on the same old approach to a stimulus means demanding only backward-looking investments that leave us with the same old problems once the spending spree stops. Of course, the stimulus should include some tried-and-true measures. There is nothing wrong with spending on roads, bridges and mass transit, along with school construction and rehabilitation. It’s a good time to make up for our longstanding underinvestment in infrastructure, that boring but hugely important word. State and local governments also need fiscal help if they are to avoid retrenchment that would only negate federal stimulus efforts. And as a recent report by Sharon Parrott of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warned, the downturn “is likely to cause significant increases both in the number of Americans who are poor and the number living in ‘deep poverty,’ with incomes below half of the poverty line.” The poor should have first call on the new spending. They need help—and they will spend the money quickly because they have to. What we should fear most is not that Obama will get to keep some of his campaign pledges but that the stimulus will fall victim to classic logrolling. With so much cash on the table, the temptation will be enormous to lard up the package with a slew of unproductive projects and all manner of narrow tax breaks for interests you probably never knew existed. In light of this danger, it would be far better if the new president started the debate with an imaginative proposal. Without a vision, the stimulus will perish in a pile of pork, and half a trillion dollars would be a terrible thing to waste. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group  TAGS:
|
Benghazi: Dissecting Congressional Follies, Media Coverage and ‘Cover-Up’ Charges
 . '/' . substr('9780981559391',-6,3) . '/' . '9780981559391' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Maani, December 9, 2008 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
For something TRULY different, you might be interested in this:
http://prorev.com:80/2008/12/local-currency-shows-up-in-milwaukee.html
Peace.
Report thisBy mud, December 9, 2008 at 9:50 am Link to this comment
500 billion! Wow. That’s almost as much as we spend on the glorious Iraq liberation in a year.
Report thisBy mud, December 8, 2008 at 9:10 am Link to this comment
http://tinyurl.com/699d5d
So much for that measly 500 billion est.
The trouble with these interesting estimates is that we, the US are in hawk for over 50 trillion. Can we all say INSOLVENCY? How about BROKE? Screwed?
500 billion! Dream on.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, December 8, 2008 at 6:15 am Link to this comment
Not necessarily. The government (or anyone else) could print money and then exchange it for actual production. In that case, the produced goods or services would balance the money created. Inflation occurs when the amount of money outruns production, not merely because there is more money around.
Report thisBy Paolo, December 8, 2008 at 5:54 am Link to this comment
“No, the federal government isn’t going to discover new billions under some rock in a national park.”
No, but it might as well. In our current, dishonest money system, the federal government can just elbow their corporate buddies at the federal reserve and have the money created out of thin air.
But “money” does not equal “wealth.” Creating new money will create a temporary euphoria, like a drug addict getting a fix. But then the crash has to come. You can delay the inevitable and make the final crash even worse, or you can do the really brave thing and call for honest money.
The only candidate who did this was Ron Paul.
Report thisBy free1, December 8, 2008 at 3:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Politics and more politics.
Don’t be fooled ... this is nothing but a trap for you as a Common Person to get stuck in.
Government’s thinking is to give you something to play with while they rip off your money, property, happiness, blood, kids and anything they can get. They abuse, kill, jail, torture, mane, rape and anything else they can get away with. Worse than any Mafia on Earth. They actually gave themselves the license to do so.
More eloquently explained by “stefbot” on youtube. It’s the stuff they don’t teach you about at school on purpose, and which you MUST know to be free as a Human Being. Till now, 14 episodes but worth every minute of it.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0629B97DDFA9C7DB&playnext=1
Watch and learn how your government, any government, screws you and how to get out of it.
Enjoy
Report thisBy Anarcissie, December 7, 2008 at 11:47 am Link to this comment
I am sorry to see putative (and probably nonexistent) opposition to the Israeli government identified with anti-Semitism. I thought we had all gotten beyond that.
Report thisBy KDelphi, December 7, 2008 at 10:37 am Link to this comment
JFK Liberal—Obama’s “anti-semitism”
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1117964.aspx
“...The Israeli press, on the other hand, welcomed Obama’s seemingly full-throated support. Ma’ariv, a popular Hebrew daily newspaper in Israel, ran a frontpage headline calling Obama’s speech an “embrace” of Israel…..
...And Israel’s Channel 2 broadcast noted that Obama’s statement that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided,” even exceeds what most current Israeli leaders would say. The statement is something “reminiscent of the days of Menachem Begin’s Likud!” said Channel 2’s anchor, referring to one of the founding fathers of the state of Israel…”
You should check stuff like this before you call someone anti-semitic. It means alot of different things to alot of different people, but, to those hoping for more recognition of Palestine, he seem to be pretty pro-Israel, as every US Persidetn has been for a half century.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, December 7, 2008 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
When Obama first appeared on the scene as a viable presidential candidate, I carefully read through such material on his views as I was able to obtain. I saw nothing to indicate that he was a “progressive” in the way that word is usually used now (by people who are afraid to call themselves “leftist” or “liberal” but mean something along those lines) or that he was a “liberal” except in the imperial Wilsonian sense. The fact that “progressives” were so agog about him struck me as curious, and I am equally surprised that they are now so disappointed in his appointments. But I suppose there is nothing more disappointing than the failure of the figments of one’s own imagination to live up to their advertising in the real world. In any case I don’t see that Obama lied about himself to anyone.
If “progressives” wanted a “progressive” candidate they should have voted for one.
I myself was quite pleased with Obama’s election since it delivered a stern rebuke to the country’s racists and Religious Right, and let them know that they are very much in the minority—one which I hope will now crawl back under the rock from which they emerged. But as for policy, we can hardly be surprised at finding ourselves back on the Clinton highway with Clinton retreads on every wheel.
Report thisBy JFKliberal, December 7, 2008 at 12:24 am Link to this comment
Why bother; he lied about being a progressive/liberal—everything else must be a lie as well.
I don’t know that much about AIPAC; but I do support a one state Israel policy; with a city called Palestine, to practically resolve the Middle East conflict.
____________________________
I.F. Stone
Now, governments lie. But they don’t like to lie literally, because a literal, flat, obvious lie tends to be caught.
Report thisBy KDelphi, December 6, 2008 at 11:51 pm Link to this comment
JFK Liberal—You read Obama’s AIPAC speech?
Report thisBy JFKliberal, December 6, 2008 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment
By KDelphi, December 6 at 9:00 pm #
JFK"Liberal” (oxynmoron). Well, that is one way to look at it!
Lemme guess..Ron Paul?
______________________________________
I did not vote for Obama or McCain. I gave money to the Hillary campaign in 2008; and I did not support Ron Paul
I voted for the local/state Democrats, however.
Obama, and his ” cult followers” are to anti-semitic for me to in conscience vote for him.
Report thisBy KDelphi, December 6, 2008 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment
JFK"Liberal” (oxynmoron). Well, that is one way to look at it!
Lemme guess..Ron Paul?
Report thisBy JFKliberal, December 6, 2008 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment
This is not the depression era; the New Deal would not work today. What may work—and what would be more practical—is to just have the US forgive all debts, both domestic and International.
And, outlaw the CIA, Federal Reserve, corporations, and cut the military budget by 95%.
Americans are to self reliant to deal with all the current —Obama cult magic hocus-pocus.
Report thisBy KDelphi, December 6, 2008 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment
“My vision is “Green” Jobs.”
You know, I love this idea—could someone be a little more specific? Would these include “Clean Coal”? The “Nuclear Renaissance”? I am not being confrontational—I just dont exactly understand how it woudl work.
If it means giving more rich people more money to do what they should be morally obligated to do, then…
“People need a hand UP not a HAND OUT!” Please explain what that means..I mean, I know what you THINK it means. But, think about it..isnt it like “a rising tide lifts all boats”(it assumes you have a boat), or “up by your bootstraps” (assumes you have boots). I guess “hand up” assumes you have a hand!? I dunno, I just always wonder if people think about things that they say over and over again. No, this is not Andy Rooney! lol..I just would like to know.
By John Lowell, December 5 at 3:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Here’s an “imaginative proposal” for you, E.J.: Finding something new in the persons of Summers, Rubin and Geithner.
Now, there is the rub!
Report thisBy coloradokarl, December 5, 2008 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment
To your second point, Create demand for “Green” Industry through tax credits. The “Infrastructure” spending should be for energy efficiency. and renewable energy. New businesses require tools,trucks workers,Etc. Stimulus !
Report thisBy coloradokarl, December 5, 2008 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment
Anarcissie, Installing solar panels,Insulating buildings, Home care for the sea of baby boomers, Etc., etc. Many people have visions but can’t realize them ’ You can’t get a S.B.A loan without 5 years of proven track record and good credit. I’m not saying just give any Tom, Dick or Hariet a check. It requires oversight and planning. My vision is “Green” Jobs. Even if half fail the long term payback is tremendous.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, December 5, 2008 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
coloradokarl—What small businesses? Usually, one has to make something or do something (a service) and sell it to someone. Some services (computer programming, prostitution) require little capital. All of them require paying customers, however. In the midst of a depression, there is little demand because people either do not have money or are unwilling to part with what they have because they don’t know where more is going to come from. Hence the idea of creating demand by handing out money—versus the problem that you can’t hand out very much without causing its value to deteriorate.
Report thisBy Alan, December 5, 2008 at 10:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
A rigorous set of requirements should be
Report thisapplied. Detroit, in exchange for federal assistance,
should be required to move immediately to next generation
technologies. This means the immediate abandonment
of the internal combustion engine, it means getting
Detroit involved in new light, medium, and heavy rail
systems (not just laggard re-implementations of
Japanese technology from the 1970s). It means getting
Detroit involved in optimizing, variable route
public transit systems, it means getting Detroit
involved in new transit motility projects.
But Congress won’t do that, will they? No,
both Obama and McCain were bought by the
“clean coal” (sic!) oxymoron and Obama will
probably agree to have Detroit build coal powered
cars!
By Ham-Archy, December 5, 2008 at 10:42 am Link to this comment
What no money under the rocks? But the Fed has been getting most of it’s money from the ‘TONTO’ National Forest haven’t they?
Annarcissie: You figured it out, COOL!
Purple Girl: With hundreds of thousands of hungry people in the street, head rolling could become a new national passtime.
Report thisBy coloradokarl, December 5, 2008 at 10:31 am Link to this comment
Micro loans for New Businesses. People need a hand UP not a HAND OUT! $200 Billion equals $100,000 for 2 million small businesses. Add $10 Billion for business planning and accounting oversight. Being LOANS the money would be payed back with interest. How many jobs would this create????
Report thisBy Anarcissie, December 5, 2008 at 8:24 am Link to this comment
Mr. O will be given a license to spend a lot of money as long as the rich get most of it. However, it remains to be seen whether it will be worth anything. Money has to represent labor or the things that labor produces. Printing it without real production to correspond to it will just mean there will be a lot of worthless paper around.
Report thisBy Paul_GA, December 5, 2008 at 7:56 am Link to this comment
Fiat money will be one of the things which bring bankruptcy and ruin to this country, I fear, along with imperial overstretch.
Report thisBy Purple Girl, December 5, 2008 at 6:42 am Link to this comment
Lop a Few Heads off…Starting with Paulson and Berneke…Ya think they might get the message after their heads roll?
Report thisI had to laugh (titilated) by the thought that Paulson couldn’t attend the Big 3 hearings yesterday since he was in China. China seems to have a stronger resolve when it comes to those who screw them- Loved the quick retribution on the Export minister- One week later, his head was separated from his shoulders, now that’s ‘a speedy trial’!
I betting the Chinese are not too happy with the financial situation caused by Paulson & Berneke’s Buddies on Wall Street. Americans are Now so poor and in debt we can’t even afford to buy the Chinese Shit! We are losing our jobs at a rate of Thousands a day, thus not making any money to repay the Loans these Assholes took out with them (I don’t recall Co signing any of these Loans).
Now This Organized Crime syndicate want to assure we will never repay those loans by knecapping the Big 3 Workers…that can’t bode well with the Chinese Either…No Jobs No shopping No debt repayment from about 3 Million americans.
Honestly I would open the Door and Take the Coats of a Chinese Envoy who came here to settle the Debt with Wall Streeters.I think the Saudis aren’t burdened with the notion of ‘Humane’ or ‘just’ either. In fact I think they take that phrase ‘A pound of Flesh’ Literally.And they thought the Mafia was Ruthless! Dont Dance with the Devil if You can’t pay the Dime boys!LOL
By John Lowell, December 5, 2008 at 4:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Here’s an “imaginative proposal” for you, E.J.: Finding something new in the persons of Summers, Rubin and Geithner. When it comes to substance, your dear savior is going to demonstrate in the next several weeks that there just ain’t a cough in a carload. In the mean time, change your diaper, you’re losing control.
Report this