No second stimulus outrages me more than Afghanistan escalation

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I am not for the Afghanistan policy and I am not against it. I cannot argue any compelling US interests served by doubling down in Afghanistan so I'm not for it, but I don't know that pulling out is without terrible humanitarian consequences. And I cannot see that maintaining the status quo has any upside.

My instinct is to oppose any escalation but I am just having a hard time attaching my usual passion-of-opinion. Either way it goes, we are talking about the lives and circumstances of a lot of people I don't know, so I fear being glib on the topic on either side of the question.

The fact that people are being blown to bits is an intense moral problem which makes me wish for certainty. But I don't have certainty.

What I want, most of all, is to believe that this Afghanistan business is not just domestic politics. If Obama actually thinks there are compelling US interests and/or humanitarian considerations involved then at least it's not just blowing people up out of jaded cynicism and political self-interest. (Or, even worse, out of a pathological desire to appear "serious" or curry favor with Republicans.)

I want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. And knowing that Hillary (who I supported) would have been even more of an Afghanistan hawk had she become President gives me pause since that means we are talking about a broad Dem-Centrist position rather than a personal quirk of the President.


On the other hand, I am pissed off in stereo about the general economic approach. It is cowardly, short-sighted, bad for America and absolute poison for the prospects of the Democratic Party down the road. (For brevity I cited a second stimulus in the headline as a symbol of an attitude, but it's the whole approach that grinds me. The failure to see this as a demand crisis from day one has been tough to take.)

The failure of imagination and bizarre continual underestimation of the problem hurts millions of people and I know it is just self-interested domestic politics.

Some think me an Obama hater. I am not. I am an Obama-economic-policy hater.

[backscatter712]

1. It looks like they're gonna call it a jobs bill.

It's in the planning stages already, and will hit Congress early next year.

They're not going to call it a stimulus, even though it will stimulate the economy. They'll call it a jobs bill, and dare the Rethugs to vote against fighting unemployment...

[HughMoran]

4. This seems to be the approach

It might just work...

[Cha]

11. Thanks for that backscatter..some real

information.

[bluestateguy]

2. They will not call it a "second stimulus"

Fact is that the first one, while helpful, was not big enough. A series of smaller bills will likely follow, and to some extent already have: we have extended unemployment benefits and the $8000 homebuyer tax credit and passed cash for clunkers and extended it yet again. Next year there will be some kind of "jobs bill" and possibly aid to the states.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Are you that anal?

It has to be called what you have decided,
or else it will not exist?

IT will be called a job bills.
I would think this would please you,
but of course, it will always be too little too late
for your taste.
So, what else is new?

[AllentownJake]

5. You honestly think Congress has the political courage to pass another bill?

Shit, they couldn't take the advice of economist on the first bill and had to insert a whole bunch of non-effective wasteful shit and take out good things.

Look what these idiots did to the Health Care bill.

Worthless, is what they all are. FUCKING WORTHLESS.

I'm not that mad at the President over this. His political capital has waned and really till 2011 he can't drive much.

[backscatter712]

6. They'll find a way to do a jobs bill.

Realistically, they can't do another $700B across-the-board stimulus, but they do an unemployment extension here, a jobs bill there, for $50B - $100B each, that way, they can more easily overcome the Rethug hissy-fits and get them through.

[AllentownJake]

9. Yes and when they do it

Half the bill will be worthless shit because everyone is going to try to stick their hand in the till right before re-election. So a 50 billion bill will have the stimulative effect of a 25 billion dollar bill.

The President will sign it because it will be the best he can get out of the clowns.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. a reply of sorts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x20984

[AllentownJake]

8. The Federal Reserve and White House Economist were projecting an 8%

high of unemployment back than. They asked for the amount they thought they needed...their models were just wrong.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. A blast from the Past > > >

Wed Feb-25-09 by Kurt_and_Hunter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8228463&mesg_id=8228463

I posted something about the just-released bank stress-test criteria earlier, but it was probably confusing and inaccessible. (I did not paraphrase it from Paul Krugman, BTW. I don't think he had commented on the stress metrics yet at the time of that post, though he has since.)

We are beginning a process of examining the banks in light of down-side scenarios to see how well they could handle a crisis. The stress test was described to the NYT a few days ago as: "The stress tests will use computer-run “what if” situations to estimate what would happen to each bank under Depression-like conditions, with unemployment surging to 10 or 12 percent, for example, or home prices dropping 20 percent further, Treasury and Federal Reserve officials said. Fed officials emphasized that these hypothetical events were “highly unlikely” to occur."

But the test metrics published don't include what most of us would call "Depression-like conditions" or "highly unlikely" scenarios.

For instance, here is a chart of the stress-test housing projections. The green line is what the government says is likely. The red line is the stressful "depression-like" case.



But I don't know anyone who thinks the green line is very realistic and most of us would be somewhat relieved if the red line was as bad as it got.

This isn't to say the government is stupid. It points to something more systemic: Economic forecasts are conservative and consensus/average forecasts even more so. Economists in aggregate almost NEVER predict anything very dramatic, yet dramatic things happen all the time. (downside and upside)

[AllentownJake]

14. A lot of people were saying that

Paul Krugman being the most prolific. Paul gets to do the I was right tour right now.

The President would be politically wise for Larry Summers to have family issues and bring him aboard...oh and put a muzzle rule on him with the media.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Yes, a lot of folks were saying it.

I am not saying I am uniquely prescient. I am saying, as you say, that a lot of people were saying that.

If I am saying something about the economy it's usually pretty obvious stuff. I have no expertise on the topic.

That said, my observation (theory?) that consensus forecasts cannot be used in a crisis is a sharp one. In a crisis you know that the real outcome will be a lot worse or a lot better than the consensus because consensus levels while crisises exaggerate.

So you have to pick a side and go with it.

Even if the situation was unknowable I felt that picking the gloomy side was a forced move because the $$$ down-side of doing too much is trivial compared to the downside of doing too little.

what if the crisis was overblown and over-reaction caused a little inflation? The Fed can hammer inflation pretty much any time it wants.

But if the crisis was under-estimated then by the time the data rolled in to demonstrate that fact it would be too late. The cost of delayed intervention is vastly higher than the cost of prophylactic intervention.

[AllentownJake]

16. See my post on his character flaw in the other thread

I've been observing the guy for 2 years now, read his books, it is consistent thing he does in life.

He's human, we all have character flaws.

[Speck Tater]

10. Second Stimulus = MORE money for the incompetent banksters. -> Riots in the streets. nt

[depakid]

12. K & R

Much of this administration's economic (and health) policy involves pandering to the sources of the problems, as if they will sort themselves out on their own- as opposed to designing and fighting for solutions that credible economists and others (you know, the ones with track records of getting it right) have set forth.

Sadly, at this point it seems to me that this approach represented a missed opportunity that the United States may never get back again.