Krugman: "Obama jobs plan...significantly bolder and better than I expected"

[ProSense]

Setting Their Hair on Fire

By PAUL KRUGMAN

First things first: I was favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected. It’s not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world. But if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment.

Of course, it isn’t likely to become law, thanks to G.O.P. opposition. Nor is anything else likely to happen that will do much to help the 14 million Americans out of work. And that is both a tragedy and an outrage.

<...>

O.K., about the Obama plan: It calls for about $200 billion in new spending — much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs — and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the overhang of household debt from the bubble years are creating a roughly $1 trillion per year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which wouldn’t deliver all its benefits in the first year — would fill only part of that hole. And it’s unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending.

<...>

The good news in all this is that by going bigger and bolder than expected, Mr. Obama may finally have set the stage for a political debate about job creation. For, in the end, nothing will be done until the American people demand action.

[valerief]

1. How many billions (trillions?) do the war machines get every year?

Makes my blood boil.

[TheWraith]

8. The Department of Defense budget isn't a secret. It's $530 billion for FY2012.

Plus $118 billion cost for Iraq and Afghanistan.

[dsc]

9. actually some of it is a secret

though probably not a very significant part.

[TheWraith]

17. The appropriations themselves aren't secret--how they spend it is.

That's why "black projects" are typically covered over by other non-secret programs. For instance, you might see a $75 million dollar line item for modernizing housing at US military bases, but in reality only $35 million goes to that purpose; the other $40 million might be diverted off to research on newer generations of low-observable aircraft.

[Nevernose]

11. That's not the military budget, though

That's the defense department budget. Nuclear weapons are under the Department of Energy; the army of mercenaries are under the Dept. Of State; veteran's affairs are under the VA. And et cetera.

The REAL military budget is more like 1.2 trillion. (I'd post a link, but I'm on the phone. Google it and mother jones).

[TheWraith]

18. That's laughable on the face of it.

The annual budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs is about $90 billion. The Department of State, $50 billion. Department of Energy, $30 billion. Even all those put together you'd barely get a fifth of the way from the DOD budget to $1.2 trillion.

[Vattel]

23. But you are leaving out some big ones, e.g.,

Obama's budget request for Iraq and Afgahnistan (117 billion). What kicks it up to 1.2 trillion on some estimates is including debt on defense expenditures.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Vattel/3

[TheWraith]

30. No, I already included expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan.

1.2 trillion is simply a massively wrong figure. There's no other way to put it.

[Vattel]

31. well, just add up the figures in my link.

if you add the debt payments, it's not far off

[TheWraith]

32. You're also adding in the FBI, NASA, DHS, and it's still not even close. nt

[Vattel]

33. I'm only adding in the national security parts of FBI, NASA & DHS

and it is close. With debt thrown in it is over a trillion. Without the debt, it is roughly 900 billion.

[bhikkhu]

22. At least its going in the right direction

what helps me keep perspective is stating expectations - such as, what would make me happy re the defense budget this year? After so many years of expansion, a simple reduction would make me happy - what we got, in fact, is a large and long-term reduction, almost entirely out of Iraq, a draw-down in Afghanistan, an extremely limited and effective effort in Libya, and most importantly an overall plan for long-term decline. My blood has boiled over that issue from time to time, but its on the back-burner now.

[wakemewhenitsover]

2. Rec'd to 7 = 7

I know everyone says this on every thread, but... I can't believe someone would unrec this thread.

[Number23]

21. Rec #63 here!

:hi:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. Rec #73 here

:hi:

[MilesColtrane]

3. K&R

Nice to see Krugman say something positive.

[tomp]

16. you mean nice that he agrees with you this time. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Does "The Plan" exist on paper anywhere?

Has it been written and has Krugman seen an advance copy of it? Because if it hasn't, and he hasn't, how in the world can he say it "is significantly bigger and bolder than I expected"?

He keeps referring to "it". Where can we find "it"? I'd like to read it myself.

How the hell can someone describe something without having actually seen it?

[ProSense]

5. Here is a

fact sheet.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. Thank You. I'd looked and couldn't find this much information anywhere.

But just to be straight, it's not in the form of a bill that's ready to be submitted to Congress?

[TheWraith]

7. It hasn't yet been submitted to Congress.

That's apparently next week. No idea if the bill text is public yet.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logical]

10. So the GDP likes Krugman now! Horray!!

[progressoid]

12. Rec.

[Stuart G]

13. k and r

[ProSense]

14. Who disapproves of Krugman's comment? n/t

[JuniperLea]

19. Those who have been cheering him...

They've thrown him under the bus now.

Sadly, Krugman is more positive than a substantial portion of DU today.

Pathetic... effing pathetic.

[stillrockin]

15. More from Krugman's column:

O.K., about the Obama plan: It calls for about $200 billion in new spending — much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs — and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the overhang of household debt from the bubble years are creating a roughly $1 trillion per year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which wouldn’t deliver all its benefits in the first year — would fill only part of that hole. And it’s unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending.

[Scurrilous]

20. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

26. As Krugman says: Hooray for the best we can expect from this president.

This is your idea of a ringing endorsement?

Krugman, as usual, is right again. In this administration of constantly lowered expectations, this tiny effort is to be lauded as a good thing. The words and the passion were there. But in line with most of Krugman's thoughts about what comes from this administration - too little - too late.

Had the president decided to do something when he was elected - you know when he had a mandate and the support of the country - this would have been a walk. And he wouldn't have had to pander to the republicans with the medicare stuff.

Oh. Well. It's what we've got. it is the new normal.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

28. American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment

American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment

Economists: Obama’s plan would work (if it passes)