Republicans Propose Job Creation Bill

Totally agree with you CaptainMidnight. Until we get rid of the single party system (if you believe we have two parties, you live in lalaland), the structural changes required for the country to move forward won't be resolved. I personally believe we're at the point of no return and well on our way to becoming the next Greece regardless if the GOP sweeps in the next election or Obama gets re-elected. The reason I would like the GOP take over the White House and both chambers of Congress in the next election is to prove that it doesn't matter who's in control, the status quo will continue. Herman Cain speaks nice and mostly all Conservatives do, I mean who can argue with smaller government, less taxes and a functioning government. The problem is the GOP has had its chance over the last 30 years and has blown it every single time. What assurances do we have that this time they really mean it and are a born-again party that will actually do what's right for the country.

Both parties are only about POWER. If you think either of them have your best interest at heart, you are delusional. The system is designed to obtain and maintain power. The illusion of two parties gives the appearance of having a choice. We MUST get out of this habit of only supporting "electable" Republicans or Democrats. If they are "electable" they have sold out to the elites.

The idea promoted by Romer, Summers, Goolsbee, and others was that the spending would "prime the pump", as they said in the old days, or "kick start" the economy, and that then the private sector would take over. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If it had been big enough, it would have come much closer to doing that.

Yes, there are serious structural issues in the economy. But we need to get closer to the full employment we had in 2007 before we can adequately address them.

As for your article, it is for subscribers only, apparently.

Let me get this straight. We need to spend more money, which we need to borrow from China, among others, in order to improve the economy and reduce the debt. Also, in order for companies to be more innovative, hire more people, and feel confident about the economy, we need government to tell them more what to do.

I need to write this down. I don't want to forget this!

Originally Posted by BigLouie

The truth is that we're in this mess because we have long concentrated on scattershooting bad regulation everywhere, while failing at almost every turn to create smart, transparent regulation. Just take a look at Dodd-Frank, for example. It's little more than hundreds of pages of bureaucratic wheel-spinning that will do far more harm that good and does little to solve the most fundamental problems. Of course, in Krugman's world, everything is all about blind partisanship. All the bad stuff was done by the party he hates, and his beloved party is never responsible for anything.

Smarter or less biased individuals such as thehobbydude and CuteOldGuy acknowledge that both political parties are train wrecks (see posts 16 and 17).

Of course, Krugman's hypocrisy is legendary. Take a look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/op...ain-wreck.html

See what I mean? In 2003, he was panicked about 10-year deficit projections in the $3 trillion range. Of course, he was correct at the time inasmuch as we were already engaging in fiscal irresponsibilty to a significant degree.

But then when his party began putting fiscal recklessness on steroids, he apparently decided that 10-year deficit projections several times those of 2003 are nothing to worry about!

As for your article, it is for subscribers only, apparently. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Sorry 'bout that! I didn't realize access was limited to subscribers.

But it's also on yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/keynes-221201285.html

Yes, there are serious structural issues in the economy. But we need to get closer to the full employment we had in 2007 before we can adequately address them. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I think you have that exactly backwards. We need to demonstrate at least some modicum of credibility that we're making progress toward meaningfully addressing structural issues before there will be much of a chance that we'll see much in the way of recovery or job creation.

If it had been big enough, it would have come much closer to doing that. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Good grief!

It was about $850 billion, far more than any other fiscal stimulus attempt in the nation's history. How big do you think it should have been?

What if we had doubled down and made it $1.7 trillion? Since it did very little good, what's 2X very little good? "Still not a whole lot" is probably the best answer.

My basic point is that we should have at least spent the money on something we need, or that we will eventually have to spend money on anyway. We do have significant infrastructure needs that should be addressed in ways other than allowing political hacks to pass out money to favored constituents (as in cases like Solyndra). We would be much better off if we had spent a fraction of $860 billion, but wisely rather than ineffectively.

A much better way to spend a few hundred billion would be to convert several million 18-wheelers to natural gas. I understand that the cost would be roughly $60K per truck. The conversions would be done by domestic engine plants, so Americans would be put to work directly. This, together with building the requisite natural gas fueling infrastructure would also be a far better "jobs program" than anything being discussed by any of today's political hacks.

This investment would also save the trucking firms big money over time, since the cost of CNG is a fraction of the cost of diesel. Therefore, they would have big incentives to participate in any such conversion programs by investing some of their own capital. With recent discoveries of shale gas, we have several times more reserves than we thought just a few years ago. Gas prices lately have dropped to well below $4/mcf.

This would also significantly reduce the demand for imported oil, thus taking a step toward addressing one of the structural issues to which I alluded earlier.

Let me get this straight. We need to spend more money, which we need to borrow from China, among others, in order to improve the economy and reduce the debt... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And what if the Chinese (and others) lose their appetite for U.S. Treasury notes, bills, and bonds? No worries! We'll just have the Fed increase its balance sheet by a few trillion more dollars and monetize endlessly. We've already had QE and QE2. How about QE3, QE4, QE5, and QE6?

What could possibly go wrong?