Where are the threads bashing Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, Nouriel Roubini along w/ Krugman

[merbex]

And you can add Dean Baker, Sterling Newberry,the Head of the Fed in St Louis.....

This really isn't that hard you know:economists agree that the stimulus package needed to be bigger; it comes down to, for politicians - are you willing to ask for what is necessary and be up front and warn people that settling for a lower number will result in a weak recovery and perhaps coming back for more money?

[camera obscura]

1. A lot of people hate Krugman for style rather than substance - while he bugged me in the primaries

I think his current writing is important, and it's unfortunate that people are writing it off because of how he acted back then. If I had a NY Times column, I probably would have written some pretty "shrill" pro-Obama stuff myself.

[TBF]

2. It depends upon what they want to use that money for. If they are going to

bankrupt my children's future to give more money to billionaire bankers, no I'm not for it. You'll have to be much more specific in exactly which parts needed to be bigger.

Right now I'm much more concerned about health care, and the obvious desire of some in the administration to keep single-payer off the table. I think about the 48 million people without any health care in our country, and how Obama handles it will be a defining moment. We'll see how it comes out. I haven't given up yet because he at least let our reps in the door last week. That's much more than Bush would've done.

[Zynx]

4. The stimulus bill has positively nothing to do with banks.

Find me the part of the stimulus bill that pertains to helping banks.

[TBF]

5. I didn't say it did. I asked what the additional money would be used for.

Excuse me for questioning how my tax money is spent.

[vaberella]

6. Uh more infrastructure building.

More job creation. My whole is not money. They could take as much money out on my future as necessary as long as we have a future. I just want to see the legislation putting in the rules and how things are being spent. That's what I want to see. When he gives money to the banks...there is no autonomy like those assholes had in the past. They need to break down how they spend it, they need to show me what htey're doing and they better not outsource jobs like Chase is doing. I'm boycotting chase because they just outsources thousands of jobs to India when people are dying for job now in the US. JP Morgan Chase is fucking us.

[merbex]

7. Emphasis on MORE JOB creation because nearly ALL economists agree

that government spending HAS TO replace the sinking demand brought about by a sinking economy: which is WHY the higher number of government stimulus was advocated because they predicted the higher unemployment number....now the number is even higher than tought as Krugman's latest column points out.

This required a stronh political will,and an honest approach and clearly laying forth that if the trillion+ of STIMULUS( not bailout) isn't passed it is INEVITABLE that another requrst for MORE $ is coming

[TBF]

9. Yeah, I'm good with that. As long as it's going to ordinary people.

I've had it with billionaires living the high life on our dime. If we're talking job creation, re-training, education overall, infrastructure I'm all for it. Especially things like mass transit, renewable energy sources and the like.

[Zynx]

3. The stimulus bill should have been 1.5 trillion at least. However, there was not a chance

Congress would have passed it. Economic arguments do not sway political ideologues.

[merbex]

8. It could have been presented in such a way as:

THIS ( trillion+) is actually NEEDED to be truly effective....that's the true size of the MESS they left us and IF YOU DO NOT FULLY FUND IT in this bill YOU CAN COUNT ON another request because it will be apparent VERY SOON that ONCE AGAIN those that GOT US INTO THIS MESS have NO CLUE about basic economics

[depakid]

10. You won't see them- because the folks doing the bashing tend not to have a good grasp of economics

The reason why the stimulus needed to be bigger based on the figures available at the time-(which have worsened) has been expounded and basically agreed on by all of these folks. Same with the temporary nationalization of some of the big banks.

It's a matter of ideology and lack of political fortitude- in other words- doing what it takes, rather than letting the crisis go on and on.

That will eventually translate into very bad policits for Obama and the Dems.