What's preventing faster economic recovery?

Who's keeping you from getting a job?

In a word, a group of elected representatives in Congress who believe that if you direct money to the stinkin' rich and starve the needy, everything will get better. 

I'm not kidding.  Paul Krugman is sensibly worried about this prevailing Congressional "wisdom."  Others among us are also very worried that so many nutcases hold so much power.

Here’s where we are: growing GDP, but mass unemployment still the law of the land, with only tiny progress so far. What can be done? Well, we could have more fiscal stimulus — but Congress is balking even at the idea of extending aid for the ever-growing ranks of the long-term unemployed. Fiscal responsibility, you see — hey, and let’s make sure estate taxes stay low! ...

...Shibboleths and conventional wisdom are blocking all routes out of this slump. And I worry that policy makers will just sit there, for years and years, all the while congratulating themselves on the soundness of their policies. ...Krugman blog

More to the point:

What’s the greatest threat to our still-fragile economic recovery? Dangers abound, of course. But what I currently find most ominous is the spread of a destructive idea: the view that now, less than a year into a weak recovery from the worst slump since World War II, is the time for policy makers to stop helping the jobless and start inflicting pain....Krugman column

You'd think they enjoy inflicting pain on the most afflicted.  Well, okay, I do think  that.  Yessir, I think they enjoy inflicting pain on the most afflicted.  Wouldn't it be crazy to draw any other conclusion?

Stimulus making things better?  Quick!  Cut off the stimulus! 

Take that, you pathetic, jobless jerk.

Comments

[Eric]

This post perfectly encapsulates the moral vanity of the Left. What an ego stroke. Don't you feel better about yourself insisting that Washington shovel out more money for stimulus (since the last one was so awesome) and unemployment benefits? Hooray, I'm defending the downtrodden!

Here in Massachusetts, between state and federal benefits, unemployment benefits run for TWO years. At what point - if ever - do you cut off those benefits? I'm guessing you'll say "never" and then boo and hiss at Paris Hilton and Halliburton.

Hey, the national debt is $13 trillion! How did THAT happen?

[PW]

Gee, Eric, that's easy. Just look at the run of presidents from Reagan on (actually, from back further)and you'll see that every Republican administration left the country in debt greater than any Democratic administration, and Clinton (for example) left the country with a surplus. "W" was the worst offender, by far.

I don't waste my breath on Paris Hilton. If we got back the graft we've paid to Halliburton and kin, the jobless could probably retire multi-millionaires.

Turn of the TV, radio. You've been Foxed, pal. The effect has been to cut your IQ by about three-quarters.

[lambert strether]

The "national debt" has little relevance to this policy discussion. The US has run deficits for most of its history, and the powers that be were perfectly willing to do so for the banksters -- just not for people. Since no nation that is sovereign in its own currency has ever defaulted on the national debt, it should not be our primary policy concern. The government is not a household, as Eric seems to think. Look around, and you'll see work to be done everywhere, especially on infrastructure. If nobody's doing that work, that's a market failure, and the government can and should step in.

[PW]

You've been checking out Galbraith or Auerbach, but it's not a truth that many are willing to accept. The household budget parallel lives on even though it makes no sense.

As I write, I'm listening to out-of-work people calling a talk show about the "99's". Your final sentence is exactly right.