Hot Air Headlines » $775 billion in spending? That’s not nearly enough

Headlines

Paul Krugman

$775 billion in spending? That’s not nearly enough

Whatever the explanation, the Obama plan just doesn’t look adequate to the economy’s need. To be sure, a third of a loaf is better than none. But right now we seem to be facing two major economic gaps: the gap between the economy’s potential and its likely performance, and the gap between Mr. Obama’s stern economic rhetoric and his somewhat disappointing economic plan.

« Back

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hey Krugman, how about 775 TRILLION, is that large enough for you.

Lance Murdock on January 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM

I’m serious: Did Soros buy this guy his Nobel this year?

It just seems so… fortunate for Obama that his dreams of incredible spending are bolstered by this newly-crowed Nobel laureate.

MayBee on January 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Each household gets a $1,000 tax credit and then owes $10,000 to pay for it.

What a deal.

Obama will be sealing his fate for 2012 with these trillion dollar annual deficits during his presidency.

faraway on January 9, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Anybody else remember one of the complaints about the War on Terror being the price tag?

Let’s not “waste” money and go into debt for military spending, but please don’t fail to spend every billion you can for “economic recovery.”

Sheesh.

cs89 on January 9, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Krugman is pushing Koolade.

Count to 10 on January 9, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Lance Murdock on January 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM

If they had taken my advice in Oct and did a 70 trillion dollar stimulus, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.

But I like your number even better!

7.5 quadrillion dollar bailouts here we come!

lorien1973 on January 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM

7.5 quadrillion dollar bailouts here we come!

lorien1973 on January 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM

7.5 quadrillion dollar + 1.

At this rate we’ll become Zimbabwe in no time.

Lance Murdock on January 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM

I think I heard Peter Schiff on Wednesday say something to the effect that “if deficit spending was all that was required to strengthen an economy, there would be no poor nations in Africa.”

kc8ukw on January 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I think soon, I may be a millionaire. Of course, a million dollars might buy me one trip to the grocery store, but still, I’LL BE A MILLIONAIRE!

Kelligan on January 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Paul Krugman…. Hmmm…. I think I’ve heard his name somehwere before.

Oh, yeah. Paul Krugman, Enron financial advisor.

Vic on January 9, 2009 at 11:51 AM

If you think the unemployment numbers are scary, you should try reading the comments to Der Krugman’s column.

Samples:

Actually, Prof. Krugman, we’re facing a third very important gap beyond the two that you cited. It is the gap between an economy that operates with a reasonable degree of economic justice, and one where the rich reap the benefit of taxes, public spending, and general civic policies. Refocusing on economic justice is not only morally right, it is, ironically, good economic policy for these times. Money allocated to the poor either directly or indirectly can be spent with little delay — one need only look around to see the vast need. There are thousands of honest organizations across this land that would know how to appropriately spend a welcome influx of funds. Republicans want substantial tax cuts instead because, well, they are self-centered gimme “patriots”, as they have been since Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Ayn Rand called. She wants her character of Philip Rearden back.

2009 6:29 am

Link
Why are Obama and the Dems so timid? Why aren’t they seizing their majority status and converting it into action? They act as if there’s still a majority Republican Congress and Bush is in the White House (uhh well, I guess he still is, at the moment) and that they are standing tomorrow for election where the campaign mantra is “cut taxes.” THIS IS THE DREAM folks – USE IT!!! No time for being shy – the good will of the people will not last forever. Instead of being fearful of political backlash, let the Republicans block a rescue of the economy. Let them take the heat for stopping help from being delivered to everyman. Tax cuts are no way to go at the moment. We need an strong dose of Keynesian stimulus. And fast.

This economic crisis is “the dream,” to be “used?” Surreal. What the hell is a “Keynesian stimulus?” Is that anything like a “huge, unrepayable government deficit” or a “futile and destructive gesture of ignorance by the government” And we have to do it NOW, before the public firugres out what the actual cause of this problem is (government intrusion into every aspect of economic life)! DO IT NAU!

Got some real geniuses in those (bankrupt) NYT readers.
<blockquotePaul, you are so correct. And here’s what’s puzzled me about the Obama plan – given that luminaries such as Tim, Ben, and Larry have presumably weighed in on what has been proposed.

The effect of tax refunds will be a big fat goose egg. (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! -ed.)

Folks will be worried about their jobs (or unemployed), and less poor (or less in debt) by the amount of the rebate. (BWAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! -ed.)

The “circulation” of the rebates into the general economy will be zero, Nada. Zilch. (But the infusion of “a stimulus” and “bridges bridges bridges will be a TRILLION GAZILLION DOLLARS!@!@! -ed.)

The money has to be put into circulation such that it accomplishes two related things (which I will decide is right for people’s money to do -ed.):

1. It needs to create wealth (which infrastructure doesn’t do -ed).. If we build a bridge, it has to go somewhere. Not nowhere. Somebody has to be willing to pay a toll to cross it. (Apparently, all that has to be done to increase the wealth of an area and increase the tax base is to…build a bridge. Stupid businessmen! What are they thinking?

2. It needs to rattle around several times. If I get a job as a bridge-builder, I need to celebrate by buying a new truck, And taking my family to dinner. (EASY AS PIE! BUILD BRIDGES, BUY NEW TRUCKS, TAKE FAMILY TO APPLEBEES!)

So, we’re not only talking about the size of the fiscal dog in the economic fight – we’re talking about the size of the fiscal fight in the economic dog.

Let me propose something outlandish (the following is not just outlandish, it’s illegal and unconstitutional, BTW – ed.):

The feds should buy up select transportation infrastructure from the states, cities, and authorities. Own the land. And the roads. And the bridges. And the tracks.

And fix them up. And collect the fares and tolls.

No Amtrak – with near-empty passenger trains sharing track with freight lines.

We’re a competitive people – let’s get the juices flowing (SIMPLY BY BUILDING A TRILLION BRIDGES! YES WE CAN! IT’S THAT EASY! -ed.).

Let’s take on Europe’s trains and China’s maglev – and do something that makes your colleague Tom Friedman proud. >Summary:

1) BUILD LOTS AND LOTS OF BRIDGES, AND NATIONALIZE ALL MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION FOREVER
2) ????
3) PROFIT!

Brilliant, sir.

Good Lt on January 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Dang. Sorry for that loose tag. Here’s the third and perhaps most entertaining comment:

Paul, you are so correct. And here’s what’s puzzled me about the Obama plan – given that luminaries such as Tim, Ben, and Larry have presumably weighed in on what has been proposed.

The effect of tax refunds will be a big fat goose egg. (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! -ed.)

Folks will be worried about their jobs (or unemployed), and less poor (or less in debt) by the amount of the rebate. (BWAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! -ed.)

The “circulation” of the rebates into the general economy will be zero, Nada. Zilch. (But the infusion of “a stimulus” and “bridges bridges bridges will be a TRILLION GAZILLION DOLLARS!@!@! -ed.)

The money has to be put into circulation such that it accomplishes two related things (which I will decide is right for people’s money to do -ed.):

1. It needs to create wealth (which infrastructure doesn’t do -ed).. If we build a bridge, it has to go somewhere. Not nowhere. Somebody has to be willing to pay a toll to cross it. (Apparently, all that has to be done to increase the wealth of an area and increase the tax base is to…build a bridge. Stupid businessmen! What are they thinking?

2. It needs to rattle around several times. If I get a job as a bridge-builder, I need to celebrate by buying a new truck, And taking my family to dinner. (EASY AS PIE! BUILD BRIDGES, BUY NEW TRUCKS, TAKE FAMILY TO APPLEBEES!)

So, we’re not only talking about the size of the fiscal dog in the economic fight – we’re talking about the size of the fiscal fight in the economic dog.

Let me propose something outlandish (the following is not just outlandish, it’s illegal and unconstitutional, BTW – ed.):

The feds should buy up select transportation infrastructure from the states, cities, and authorities. Own the land. And the roads. And the bridges. And the tracks.

And fix them up. And collect the fares and tolls.

No Amtrak – with near-empty passenger trains sharing track with freight lines.

We’re a competitive people – let’s get the juices flowing (SIMPLY BY BUILDING A TRILLION BRIDGES! YES WE CAN! IT’S THAT EASY! -ed.).

Let’s take on Europe’s trains and China’s maglev – and do something that makes your colleague Tom Friedman proud.

Good Lt on January 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Shorter Obama plan:

1 – Build bridges/repair potholes
2 – ????
3 – PROFIT!

Good Lt on January 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM

What do you suppose this little pricks’ income level is? Somehow I can’t help but think he’s wealthy, hmmmm

what do you think??

Tim Zank on January 9, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Obama will be sealing his fate for 2012 with these trillion dollar annual deficits during his presidency.

…with a re-election guaranteed and an heir apparent ready to run in 2016?

Kelligan on January 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Trying to look cute by drawing parallels to Zimbabwe gets you nowhere.

sethstorm on January 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM

C’mon, everyone, the West spending itself rich in the ’70s worked, didn’t it?

andycanuck on January 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Krugman won’t be happy until the govt owns and runs the entire economy. For the children of course.

MarkTheGreat on January 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM

They told me the President would use a ginned-up “crisis” as an excuse to control every aspect of our lives and take away our (economic) freedom, and they were right!

misterpeasea on January 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM

One thing that I tried to explain to my liberal ‘friends’ is why I was against the last stimulus. Number one it was basically wealth redistribution, Number two, if you did the math, less than half of the money allocated for it was actually getting to the people. You could literally get grants from the government to go out and ‘recruit’ people and educate them on how to get their stimulus check.

The government is the most inefficient business in this country, and we keep buying what their selling.

cntrlfrk on January 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM