FDR Spent Too Little: Obama

[Annie]

Perhaps some diffused transparency on what is in store?

Obama Explains FDR's Folly? [Guy Benson]
Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK) offered KNID radio an illuminating glimpse into President Obama's much-discussed stimulus pep talk with House Republicans. According to Lucas, Obama expressed his belief during the meeting that a major problem with FDR's New Deal is that it didn't spend enough money in the early going. Here's a partial transcript of the congressman's interview:

“The president offered a comment in the conference the other day. He said that the spending program that President Roosevelt used in the beginning of the depression – the real problem was that Roosevelt slowed down on public spending in the first two years. If he’d just kept on spending that money, we’d have gotten out of the depression quicker…

I think [that’s] an indication of what’s coming. Maybe not just an $825 Billion increase in the national debt for additional spending this year, but if the economy continues to sag over the course of the year, don’t be surprised—based on his comment about the 1930s—if President Obama [proposes] another increase in the national debt and another big spending package after this.”​

In other words, Obama thinks FDR's plan was a laudable start, but ultimately faltered because it didn't spend more money, sooner. I haven't seen similar accounts of Obama's remarks reported elsewhere, but if Lucas' recollection is accurate, shouldn't these comments be alarming to skeptics of the current stimulus package? ...

Certainly others are making the same argument, as this one about Sweden and US in 30's.

Really it seems that there are real differences between the liberals and conservatives, which should not necessarily be confused with Democrats and Republicans...

...

With that in mind, lawmakers and pundits everywhere would do well to commit these January 17-18th Rasmussen Poll numbers to memory. They explain why liberal Democrats seem so happy to sign on to nearly a trilion dollars (it's actually $953.3 billion in new spending plus interest) in new spending without missing a beat. Their constituents want it!

Overall, given the choice between more government services and higher taxes, or fewer services and lower taxes, likely voters opt for the limited government/low tax option by the comfortable margin of 61% to 25%. That’s pretty much where Americans have been for some time now.

But the story is dramatically different when you break down the electorate by ideology and partisan affiliation. We all know these divides exist, but I, for one, was surprised at the extent of the chasm.

Ideologically, the breakdown looks like this:


Conservatives Moderates Liberals

More gov’t/higher taxes 7% 28% 53%

Less gov’t/lower taxes 83% 54% 34%

And the partisan breakdown is similarly revealing:

Republicans Democrats

More Gov’t/higher taxes 7% 42%

Less Gov’t/lower taxes 83% 39%

These are dramatic differences that go a long way toward explaining why so many policy debates get so heated so quickly—partisanship and ideology are aligned so that your political enemies and your ideological opposites tend to be one and the same. It also explains why so many GOP members report near unanimous opposition among their constituents to the debt bill—and why 177 House Republicans exuded such supreme self-confidence in opposing the bill on final passage....

 

[editec]

I don't think Obama is spending enough, neither do I think that the money spent is really going into the system in the right way.

It's looking more and more to me like the economic stimulus package isn't well thought out.

And of course since a huge amount of our spending from the stimulus will inevitably end up in China and elsewherer the multiplier effect which it REALLY takes to get the economy going again will be lost.

 

[Truthmatters]

I wish we would do what works

Moodys has studied what works and its NOT tax cuts.