Just weeks ago, economists and financial analysts were dismissing Washington as largely irrelevant to the economy’s course in coming months, if only because it chose to be. They are not dismissing it anymore.
The possibility of major parts of President Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill becoming law, and of further steps next week by the Federal Reserve, have forecasters saying that the decisions Washington makes in the weeks ahead could have a substantial effect on economic growth and unemployment. At a minimum, the stimulus could be insurance against the headwinds blowing from Europe’s debt crisis and the impact of the recent government spending cuts in this country.
The jobs package of tax cuts and spending initiatives could add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month over the next year, according to estimates from several of the country’s best-known forecasting firms; the potential Fed actions could add 15,000 more jobs a month over two years.
Salvation always lies in the next trillion spent.
My grandfather had a saying that seems to appropriately address this, and much other, Washington nonesence:
“fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame on me.”
The basic laws of real supply and effective demand can not be set aside anymore than arrogance can pass for ability.
You just have to smile over this breathless article from the NYT.
RE: “The possibility of major parts of President Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill becoming law, and of further steps next week by the Federal Reserve, have forecasters saying that the decisions Washington makes in the weeks ahead could have a substantial effect on economic growth and unemployment.”
Oh yes — it certainly *will* have a “substantial effect” on the economy — but rather in the same reverse effect as it had *the last time* they passed the same thing.
Simply amazing.
In other news, the election in NY of the first Repub representative since Hoover was president, was reported to have no bearing on President Obama as the election was about (unspecified) local issues only. In fact the story is so insignificant it isn’t even in the e-edition of the Times at all. Does the phrase “in the tank for Obama” mean anything to you?
I will say this for the President. He providing an excellent illustration of what the term “rigid socialist ideologue” means. But why should he change his stripes. The “crisis”, “we have to pass this bill now” has worked; how many times????
In some ways he would be foolish to change course. The NYT sure is on board. I’m sure Paul Krugman will have an article out any day now to say the new Obama jobs bill is too small. Providing excellent cover for when it doesn’t work and to do what it is claimed to be able to do.
Debbie Frizzy Hair Shultz already explained away that silly NY election. “Tough district for democrats”. I wonder if she meant, “today’s democrats”?
#5 Skipper Warren–I found out this morning that the “local issue” was President Obama’s hostility to Israel. I remain confused how US foreign policy only effects Queens. But I have fully recovered from the liberalism of my youth; so about all I can say is if I ever actually understood something Debbie Wasserman-Shutlz said, I’d check myself into a 28 day program!
David, and I would pray for your healing!
You da man! Thanks