Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Stimulus 2.0? Please no new Stimulus, the Effects Could Be Disastrous

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:59 PM
Original message
Stimulus 2.0? Please no new Stimulus, the Effects Could Be Disastrous
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Stimulus-2-0--Please-n...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 8, 2009

By Steven Leser

As Vice President Joe Biden pointed out in an ABC interview on Sunday July 5, the stimulus isn't working as quickly as one would like and the economy is probably even worse than the administration figured. I wrote an article two April's ago http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080402... that predicted:

... a Dow in the 7000-9000 range, the S&P 500 struggling to stay over the 1000 mark and a NASDAQ in the 1400-1600 range. I see unemployment and inflation both between fifteen to twenty five percent. I see many consumers defaulting on their credit cards and the major crisis in the banking and lending industry will be compounded by hordes of consumers defaulting on their credit cards
-------------------------------------------
My predictions regarding the stock markets turned out to be right on. The reason that inflation didn't get as high as I thought it would was that the other effects on the economy had such a dramatic impact on demand that they overcame the shortages in energy and food that I think still exist (I think these shortages will reassert themselves if the global economy turns around and demand returns to normal).

Unemployment is not going to get as high as I predicted because of the actions of two US Presidents to intervene in the crisis with bailouts and stimulus packages. Both Presidents Bush and Obama deserve credit for taking actions to prevent a greater collapse. Still, it seems like unemployment is going to hit 10%. While some people are angry and upset that it has gotten so high, and I feel for those people that are impacted, I am pleased it hasn't gone higher.

We have become a society and political culture that has no patience for anything. The talking heads criticizing the administration seem to have conveniently forgotten that during the last major economic crisis it took Ronald Reagan 18 months in office to make improvements in unemployment. I don't think it is possible for an administration to have a big impact on the economy in less than a year. Of course, the Obama administration deserves part of the blame here for not properly setting expectations. They should have said up front that we have to allow 12-24 months at a minimum to turn the economy around and they should have been out there regularly reinforcing that message.

The immediate problem that comes with the revelation that the Stimulus isn't working as quickly as some would like is that it has had an impact on the administration's polling in some states and this in turn has resulted in knee-jerk calls for a new stimulus package to accelerate economic recovery.

Besides the fact that we absolutely should not engage in any additional deficit spending out of principle alone, what those who are calling for this have not considered is whether a massive increase in debt may have the unintended impact of torpedoing the AAA rating of US Bonds.

The two main firms that are involved with determining Bond Credit ratings are Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's. I wrote to Standard & Poor's asking them for an interview regarding whether a new Stimulus might impact US Bonds' AAA rating. While they declined the request, they sent me two recent (June 2009) releases by Standard & Poor's that discuss the creditworthiness of US Bonds and how they think there is no short term likelihood that the AAA rating is at risk. However, those politicians considering a second stimulus should be aware of this portion of one of those publications (see http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/events/FIArtic... for the full article):

What Could Be Leading Indicators Of An Impending Rating Action On The U.S.?
.
.
.
Those implying degradation of the U.S. fiscal profile to a point where it would differ markedly from that of other 'AAA' sovereigns

Leading indicators could include:

A forward fiscal forecast of persistent deficits that result in a lasting and material rise in debt in terms of GDP.

Discontinuous and significant upward jumps in the U.S. general government debt burden, perhaps resulting from the cost of a second round of assisting distressed U.S. financial institutions or government-sponsored enterprises.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So, the AAA rating is not at risk unless we do something to massively and negatively affect government debt... like another stimulus.

What would happen if US Bonds were downgraded from AAA to AA? This April 15, 2008 article, http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:yaaqiof1FSkJ:bigpic... in the Wall Street Journal suggests that if this were to occur, "it would cost the U.S. government so much more in financing costs as to cause a depression -- estimates are for between 1-1.5 trillion dollars."

It is imperative that there be no new stimulus. The previous bailouts and stimulus packages did what was necessary to stabilize the economy and prevent a greater collapse. Most economists are predicting a robust recovery to start at the end of this year. The administration should issue a mea culpa at least to not being more clear with people how long it will take to get to a recovery and say we are on the right track for the stimulus to turn the economy around at the beginning of next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. You have to look at the mess that we inherited from Bush
it's a long road uphill to mend this large wound
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I agree. But I think everyone needs to understand what the risk is of another 500 Billion+ in debt
it seems like Standard & Poor's guidance is clear that this could cause a loss in the AAA rating and that would be catastrophic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. the government had no trouble funding the Iraq war with borrowed money?
when money is put to good use people complain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
704wipes Donating Member (966 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. That will lead to inflation at some point
always has, always will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #9
32. To groups like S&P and Moodys and Fitch, the why doesnt matter, its is the how much in aggregate
and how that compares to GDP. One more big hit will probably be the bridge too far, at least that is how I read S&P's recent guidance.

But to your point, yes, if you build up a ton of debt doing bad or stupid things, then when you need to be able to spend money, you wont be able to do it. That is the lesson here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. well exactly, it is usually the poor who take the greatest hit
I don't know where our school system woulkd be without the stimulus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. The risk of "official" 15% unemployment (25% real)
is actually a much worse outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. No, if we lose the AAA rating, it is like a reverse stimulus times 3.
and the risk is real and it is spelled out in S&P's recent guidance on the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. Good point! Then lets fund this one by taxing the rich!
The source of the problem here is deficient demand. Private investors simply are not stimulating production due to the market condition, which reciprocally exacerbates the problem. If they won't spend the money (as the economy deflates), then by all means, the government should volunteer to spend it for them. In the mean time, in this deflationary period, they are gaining wealth by having it sit there. The only approach to fix this is to stabilize the economy and make it profitable to invest in again. That will not happen until production increases and more people on the bottom have a job and a paycheck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. That is a much more logical approach, BUT there is a problem with that as well...
we are already going to do that to fund Universal Healthcare.

If another Stimulus has to be done for some reason, it has to be done in a way that is revenue neutral. But try and find $500,000,000 Billion in new revenue or budget cuts. That is not so easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. No you are not going to have universal healthcare
Edited on Thu Jul-09-09 12:45 AM by Oregone
You aren't going to have Universal Healthcare. Its going to be 99.5%+ mandated private insurance (and 20-30 million will still be uncovered according to CBOs last scoring). 60% of per capita health expenditure is already funded by the government, so how much more money do you really need anyway?

There is simply no excuse not to have a real stimulus to replace the withdraw of private money from the economy, and there is simply not a reason to tax the withdrawing investors to do so. Under Reagan, the top marginal rate averaged 56%, and now it is around 39%, right? Before Reagan, it was 70%+ up to 90%, and America saw wonderful growth through many cycles. Readjust the top marginal rate a fund a real stimulus and healthcare and a real sane government (instead of the most barbaric industrialized nation).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. I'm not opposed to the idea... but... political realities? I dont think we get to
dip into that well twice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Being scared of using political capital is no reason to never attempt to use it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #14
39. I beg to differ.
25% unemployment are numbers we haven't seen since the great depression, if then. This current downturn may do to us what a combination of events did to the old Soviet empire. But to not attempt to address the unemployment issue adequately, well we will STILL end up with that bond rating problem... only a little bit later (as tax revenues fall off a cliff because no one is working), plus we will have the unanswered problem of unemployment.

So this isn't a choice between one or the other, it's a choice of "bad bond rating now, more interest in the future, but more employment to help with revenues" OR "massive unemployment AND bad bond rating 1 year from now"

I choose more debt now for more employment now. Increased taxes to help pay off that debt (we need to run surpluses for 2 decades at least, but not start for 5 years).

In fact, we should go ahead and finance another 1 trillion dollar program to come up with highly distributed green power generation and conversion of our auto and trucking fleet to electric. If nearly every house had generation capability, the grid would not need to be replaced or upgraded.

Yeah, it puts us in massive debt. But at least we will start climbing out of the hole after we dig it another 5 feet down. Not sending all of that money to other parts of the world for their oil would be a big help. Converting the auto fleet to newer cars that are electric would fix up Detroit too. Not to mention that we would be going "green" much faster than the current bullshit Cap and Trade stuff would have it. And building and installing all those micro wind turbines and solar panels would create 100s of thousands of jobs. And it's an investment that we pay for over 20 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. History and responsible economists say otherwise
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. About what? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. About the necessity of additional stimulus
to make up the spending gap and provide more revenue sharing to the states. Cutting back and worrying with the budget deficit too soon was the same mistake FDR made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Did you read about the Bond rating issue or just the title of the article? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Standard & poors is lucky that their executives and employees aren't in prison
Edited on Thu Jul-09-09 12:15 AM by depakid
where they belong.

If the Obama administration had an ounce of integrity, the ratings agencies would be in deep shit at the moment. And still could be, down the line- particularly is they pull something like this.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Pull something like this? They have already done so to other countries based on similar criteria...
and are threatening to do this to several more based on debt to GDP ratio and other issues. They also did this to Berkshire Hathaway and several other firms. It's not like we can say they are picking on US Bonds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Other countries don't have the means to prosecute them for fraud
and violations of multiple federal statutes for their role in the mortgage securities meltdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Now we are heading into the twilight zone. You want the US Govt to blackmail Moody's and S&P
to keep the AAA Bond rating. You realize that this would get out and then no one would trust the credit worthiness of US Bonds and the situation would be even worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Just sayin that if I were a ratings company I'd think twice about it
considering that they ought already to have been prosecuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
37. Show me a historical example
of a country printing more money with our current debt levels.

Don't forget to include the consumer and Mortgage Debt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. Because you say so? No. I'll read a bit more. But thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Nope, I never ask my readers to take my word for anything. But thanks.
There are links that back up my points. Did you read them? Do you understand what will happen if the AAA rating goes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. But aren't the facts in your links changing daily? As for AAA,
no, I don't know. I'm not worried about AAA. Should I be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. Yes, you should be worried about the AAA rating and so should everyone else
The loss of AAA would cause immense damage to the point of taking 1-1.5 Trillion dollars out of the economy. So it would wipe out the effect of any new stimulus and reverse the good effects from the last one as well. And that is only the damage from the first year or two. If we didnt cause conditions to change such that we got the AAA rating back (which would involve paying back the debt), it would keep costing us massive amounts of money well into the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. I'm not a member of AAA. I could be but I'm not. And you seem
too attached to it. :shrug: I think you think it's more important than it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Don't take my word for it. See what happens to firms and governments when their Bonds are rated down
Do the research so you can see what the impact is. The WSJ says it would take 1 Trillion to 1.5 Trillion dollars out of the economy.

See how anxious other countries get at the mere suggestion this may happen to them and the impact on their currencies, etc. Here are a few articles to get you started:

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-business/bond-m...

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20090702/tbs-markets-euro...

http://www.realtor.org/research/economists_outlook/quic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
7. I'm more likely to go along with what Krugman says on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. In this case, it matters more what Standard & Poor's says they may do as a result
Krugman can theorise all he wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
12. Its too soon when not all of the money has even been spent.
And Steven, you are correct that we have very little patience, it took Reagan a long time (something Faux news would never say) and he probably made it worse by starting disastrous economic policies for short term gain but long term damage. Obama has done the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
16. I would rebrand it and call it something else... but we will need a second injection
I'd certainly wait for a while. And I'd use the Frank Luntz Playbook on rebranding Stimulus 2.0 into calling it something else. Since it should be some kind of tax deductions for supporting Stimulus programs, it should be called the Citizen's Rescue Act or something to that effect.

Again... nothing until 18 months or so into the Obama administration, which would be after the 2010 election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
27. I don't recall anyone mentioning a 2nd stimulus except for
the media. Do they "do" policy too? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. Hi Frenchy, it looks like Steny Hoyer was the originator...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090707/pl_cq_politics/poli...

He and Baucus seem to be the ones who say all the things that get the right wingers all up in arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Steny Hoyer didn't propose a 2nd stimulus package......
He just didn't say that he opposed one.

Read this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #36
47. The problem with when people like Hoyer and Baucus say things like this is...
... there is speculation as to whether they are "floating" the idea to see if there is any real objection to it. That may not be the case, but talking heads will all assume that this is what is happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
29. K/R see below
emilyg (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-09-09 03:27 AM
Original message
CNN poll re second stimulus
Quick Vote
Should Congress pass an additional stimulus bill to boost the economy?
Yes 28% 5712
No 72% 14533
Total Votes: 20245


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
31. Not only am I against a second "stimulus" package, I say cancel the unspent portions of the first.
It isn't working, and we don't need any more debt. Bush dug us a huge hole, let's not have Obama grab a shovel too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. That would be perfect now
wouldn't it, yeah, cancel everything and lets just sit and hope
for miracle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. No, what would be perfect would be
Edited on Thu Jul-09-09 09:07 PM by Zavulon
to piss away more money and create even more debt on an idea which hasn't worked. How much money would you toss into repairing a '64 Rambler which hasn't shown any improvement after a series of repairs?

The administration misread everything and admitted as much. They don't know how to fix the economy, so why should we throw good money after bad?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
38. Steve
I'll disagree with you on the robust recovery, however I will agree with you a second stimulus would be bad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #38
48. I think we will have to be content with the fact that the complete collapse was averted...
it is unfortunate that Bush wasted so much money. Had he not, had he been fiscally responsible, then we could consider the idea of a second stimulus to jumpstart the economy. Mind you, piling on debt if it isnt necessary is irresponsible any way you look at it, but it is a conversation we could have if conditions were different. With the AAA rating at risk, it isnt anywhere near worth it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
42. Steven, I always watch your appearances when you are on tv (only because you tell us about them)
It's shitty that your thread is (-) on the recommends.


Keep up the good fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. Thanks, I appreciate it. I understand the - in recommends. People are shooting the messenger because
they dont like the reality of where we find ourselves and I am with them in that respect at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
43. A second stimulus is a dagger aimed directly at health care reform

Beyond the rating question is the question whether creditors have an unending patience for American Debt.

Germany, Japan and China have all indicated that their patience is wearing thin.


We probably have enough credit for one major program and if we accept the stimulus we could find it impossible to fund additional debt needed for implementing health care reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. I've never agreed with anything you've posted on DU before...but I DO agree on this one....
It's a "head fake" to put Obama in a position where the PTB shoot down Health Care for ALL and any regulation for environment or ending the Wars!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. That is another excellent point that I hadnt considered
If people think we can do a second stimulus AND fund Universal Healthcare, they are really living in fantasyland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
50. Another stimulus would help the Republicans
It would just lead us into more debt and not help the economy. Voters will quickly change their minds and start
caring about the deficits and Democrats would start getting the boot.

Only 10% of the stimulus has been spent, it's way to early for more.

It's nice to hear other Dems thinking along these lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC