Democrats Have Their Economic Excuse Ready: Blame Rahm Emanuel!

Posted on Comments

Paul Krugman is the de facto leader of those neo-Keynesians who say the problem with Obamanomics is that the stimulus package wasn’t big enough. And he links to this interview with Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) who points the finger at Rahm:

The problem for Obama, he wasn’t as lucky as Roosevelt, because when Obama took over we were still in the middle of a free fall. So his Treasury people came in and his other economic people came in and said “Hey, we need a package of $1.4 trillion.” We started sending suggestions down to OMB waiting for a call back. After two and a half weeks, we started getting feedback. We put together a package that by then the target had been trimmed to $1.2 trillion. And then [White House Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel said to me, “Geez, do you really think we can afford to come in with a package that big, isn’t it going to scare people?” I said, “Rahm, you will need that shock value so that people understand just how serious this problem is.” They wanted to hold it to less than $1 trillion. Then [Pennsylvania Senator Arlen] Specter and the two crown princesses from Maine [Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins] took it down to less than $800 billion. Spread over two and a half years, that’s a hell of a lot of money, but spread over two and a half years in an economy this large, it doesn’t have a lot of fiscal power. . . .

This is another example of how liberals distort economic history by spreading self-serving mythology: The New Deal saved America, Reagan’s tax cuts caused the deficit, Clinton was a fiscal conservative, the Bush tax cuts only helped “the rich” and, now, Obamanomics failed because of that stingy penny-pincher Rahm Emanuel.

29 comments

  1. Krugman likes spending other people’s money. Stimuli not working–double down baby, double down.

    This is a questionable practice in Las Vegas. But it is worse when this idiot wants to do it for the whole country.

    If we cut entitlements and taxes, the economy would go into recovery. But chances of that happening? Not likely.

    Meanwhile some lefties are gloating over coming GOP primaries:

    I’m betting that the battle for the Republican nomination will be beyond nasty. Not only are we likely to have Sarah and Newt, but bungling Bobby Jindal; the devastatingly boring Mitt Romney; and Mike Huckabee, who reminds me of Floyd the barber from “The Andy Griffith Show.” He once told an N.R.A. group that he couldn’t wait to get to heaven for the duck hunting. It wasn’t enough that Jindal last week signed the Louisiana “gun-in-church” bill. Huckabee wants guns in heaven.

    I guess we will see. Is the scenerio above possible? Yeah. Is it predestined or even likely? No. Oh some of those characters will be involved (although I doubt Jindal is running and I am still very skeptical about Palin). But the primaries could be an opportunity to really focus on the important issues out there.

  2. Krugman likes spending other people’s money. Stimuli not working–double down baby, double down.

    This is a questionable practice in Las Vegas. But it is worse when this idiot wants to do it for the whole country.

    If we cut entitlements and taxes, the economy would go into recovery. But chances of that happening? Not likely.

    Meanwhile some lefties are gloating over coming GOP primaries:

    I’m betting that the battle for the Republican nomination will be beyond nasty. Not only are we likely to have Sarah and Newt, but bungling Bobby Jindal; the devastatingly boring Mitt Romney; and Mike Huckabee, who reminds me of Floyd the barber from “The Andy Griffith Show.” He once told an N.R.A. group that he couldn’t wait to get to heaven for the duck hunting. It wasn’t enough that Jindal last week signed the Louisiana “gun-in-church” bill. Huckabee wants guns in heaven.

    I guess we will see. Is the scenerio above possible? Yeah. Is it predestined or even likely? No. Oh some of those characters will be involved (although I doubt Jindal is running and I am still very skeptical about Palin). But the primaries could be an opportunity to really focus on the important issues out there.

  5. As for kicking Rahm? He was cautious about health care and other issues. He is not committed as some to the revolution. The Stalinlike purges are coming and Rahm will likely be labled a counter revolutionary.

    It is a Democratic Party thing.

  7. As for kicking Rahm? He was cautious about health care and other issues. He is not committed as some to the revolution. The Stalinlike purges are coming and Rahm will likely be labled a counter revolutionary.

    It is a Democratic Party thing.

  9. Maybe Rahm was thinking that you don’t want to just pull the whole package out right at the beginning, it’s too big, you’ll scare ’em. You give the people a little of the package and get them used to the idea of it.

  10. Maybe Rahm was thinking that you don’t want to just pull the whole package out right at the beginning, it’s too big, you’ll scare ’em. You give the people a little of the package and get them used to the idea of it.

  14. Yep,now we know why Obie kept the Jew around the White House: “Hey everybody! Look what this ‘friend of Israel’ did!”

    Wonder if this is being coordinated with King Shabby’s “the Jew owes the black man” shtick and Farrakhan’s shake-down letter?

  15. Yep,now we know why Obie kept the Jew around the White House: “Hey everybody! Look what this ‘friend of Israel’ did!”

    Wonder if this is being coordinated with King Shabby’s “the Jew owes the black man” shtick and Farrakhan’s shake-down letter?

  18. The Democrats are spear heading the investigation into the Lockerbie bomber deal.

    Guess what it leads back to Chicago AMOCO which BP acquired. That’s why they don’t go by British Petroleum after there acquisition of AMOCO. To sum up AMOCO which is in Chicago, which was acquired by BP is the entity that made the deal that got the Lockerbie Bomber released.

    Isn’t Rahm part of the Chicago Political Machine, how does one separate him for the rest of his Chicago Buddies…The answer is you can’t.

    http://spiderlegsworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/bp-admits-lobbying-to-free-lockerbie.html

  19. The Democrats are spear heading the investigation into the Lockerbie bomber deal.

    Guess what it leads back to Chicago AMOCO which BP acquired. That’s why they don’t go by British Petroleum after there acquisition of AMOCO. To sum up AMOCO which is in Chicago, which was acquired by BP is the entity that made the deal that got the Lockerbie Bomber released.

    Isn’t Rahm part of the Chicago Political Machine, how does one separate him for the rest of his Chicago Buddies…The answer is you can’t.

    http://spiderlegsworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/bp-admits-lobbying-to-free-lockerbie.html

  24. That people still seriously contend government spending is a “stimulus” to the economy amazes.

    It’s been tried, here and around the world, countless times, and has never worked for long – and usually not even in the shorter term. Yet, they spend $100 billion and it does nothing, so they spend $200 bil with the same result, so they spend $500B, and now $1.5 trillion, again with nothing to show for it, but still they believe the problem is they just didn’t spend ENOUGH.

    You have to be an economic illiterate to be a leftist.

  25. That people still seriously contend government spending is a “stimulus” to the economy amazes.

    It’s been tried, here and around the world, countless times, and has never worked for long – and usually not even in the shorter term. Yet, they spend $100 billion and it does nothing, so they spend $200 bil with the same result, so they spend $500B, and now $1.5 trillion, again with nothing to show for it, but still they believe the problem is they just didn’t spend ENOUGH.

    You have to be an economic illiterate to be a leftist.

  26. Joe @ #1 ~ Doubling down isn’t necessarily a bad strategy in Vegas. (I presume you mean the practice of trying to recoup losses by doubling the bet, not the Blackjack tactic). The problem with this system always turns out to be the amount of money it takes for the next bet. As long as you can cover, you’re in the game.

    Running out of money thwarts the gambler – and this is what’s happened to the Democrats now.

  27. Joe @ #1 ~ Doubling down isn’t necessarily a bad strategy in Vegas. (I presume you mean the practice of trying to recoup losses by doubling the bet, not the Blackjack tactic). The problem with this system always turns out to be the amount of money it takes for the next bet. As long as you can cover, you’re in the game.

    Running out of money thwarts the gambler – and this is what’s happened to the Democrats now.

Comments are closed.