Comments on: WHAT THE SCOTT BROWN VICTORY SAYS ABOUT THE ECONOMY

By: ep3

ep3 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:01:46 +0000

I slightly disagree. People like Simon Johnson and Dean Baker say that the rise in health care costs is a massive time bomb that weighs heavily on all budgets. But, obviously, he went the wrong way about fixing.

By: MinnItMan

MinnItMan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:33:41 +0000

One thing did seem somewhat clear to me – Ms. Coakley was a more credible financial sector reformer than Sen.-elect Brown appears to be. I think these results are being over-interpretted. The only thing that clearly emerged was that there was a special election and the president and the Senate Democratic leadership’s job just got tougher.

Neither party has very reliable principles, except for the ones that are bad.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:59:24 +0000

Interesting to know.
I voted for McCain because I am certain he has some principles. Still not sure if Obama has any.

However, if at that time I had already known the history of McCain advisor Phil Gramm, I would likely have written Ron Paul’s name on my ballot.

By: Our Man in NYC

Our Man in NYC — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:45:32 +0000

Fair point; I’m guess I think (or am hoping) that the anti-incumbent feeling (and their survival instinct in an election year) may kick some sense into them.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:46:43 +0000

Our Man in NYC
I guess my main point is…I don’t believe anything will change until i see some ACTION from either party to curtail the deficit and CUT spending. All they do is spend spend spend. Fool on us for select those 2 whose proven track record was spend spend spend and expect different outcome.

By: Our Man in NYC

Our Man in NYC — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:42:30 +0000

Henry — I guess I read the MA vote as an anti-incumbent vote, NOT a Republican/Democrat thing or an Anti-Obama vote (he actually exit polled reasonably well in MA, and also in VA/NJ previously).

And because it’s an anti-incumbent vote AND an election year; I suspect you get a whole lot of nothing…

i). Healthcare: Something will be passed, it’ll either be the Senate bill (if the Dems are smart) or something very watered down and pointless.

ii). Stimulus II is dead because it’s not in anyone’s political interests to do it. Yes, they’ll get to fudge around the edges with things that are popular (extending unemployment benefits, again, etc).

iii). Budget Deficit/Spending Cuts
The Independent/Youth nos were terrible — also from the exit polls, deficit reduction was everywhere. I think given it’s an election year, we hear lots of talk/leaks over the summer about Rahm clamping down on spending…proposing cuts to budget, etc. but see no real action. I suppose that’s an incremental positive on the deficit side.

iv). Bailouts/FED/Geithner
The wild card — it’s clear people hate the Banks (rightly or wrongly) and blame them, and also seem to realize the FED’s printing press is working (I’m surprised by non-financial friends who say this!). I suspect the only impact is that QE will actually end in March/April. I do think Geithner goes (to be replaced by Bair) as the fall guy, in Q2 (so it doesn’t look knee jerk).

v). The second leg of the W will come (after end of QE, and no Stimulus II)…maybe Obama does it right this time. Probably not, but you never know.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:39:46 +0000

let’s hope so…Until I see some ACTION in that direction, all this talks is hope. But i highly doubt that this will change. This running deficit has been for the last 30 years by both party and both party are still in charge…
Doing the same thing and expect different result?? I’ll believe when I see it.

By: TPC

TPC — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:33:12 +0000

I never said we would stop printing money. There is no way we can afford to do that.

But this is hopefully a step in the right direction towards reigning in the banks and getting the deficit under control.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:30:41 +0000

TPC, like I said *watch the action*. I am just trying to prove a false expectation that because Scott Brown being elected that somehow we won’t be printing more money. That money printing problem was there during the Republicans and Democrats. So please, stop the idea that because a Republican got elected all that was going to change. This problem is beyond party line.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:26:18 +0000

btw, there are a lot of money printing was done in 2008…Maybe you could remind me what are the Republicans proposals to fix this crisis…curtail the banks? reinstate Glass Stegal Acts which they proposed to repeal??…Cut spending? Cut military spending? Reduce pensions? Please do tell me because I see them talk but NO action.