I asked an administration official for a definition. A 5% decline in real GDP over the course of a year? Persistent unemployment, with rates above 10%? I didn't get a good answer...
he question was meant to provoke a deeper thought, which is that the D
word, as it descends upon us, will curve political space as we drag it
into common use. When the frame is "deep recession," we think
differently than when the frame is "depression." Today, President
Obama travels from a relatively prosperous Washington D.C. to Elkhart,
Indiana, a city that is, by most measures, suffering from a depression.
It has the most unemployment per capita of any city in the
country. It's still ayptical, but becoming more typical. There are
many cities in the upper midwest that will see their unemployment rate
exceed 10% and their contraction rate grow to above 5 percent. There
will be a deep and persistent depression for certain parts of the
country; others, like Northeastern cities, cities with service
economies, will be able to escape the economic duress by surviving a
recession only, so deep is the social safety network in our urban
areas. The Senate slashed health and education spending and aid to
states from the stimulus package before passing it; these cuts will
hurt the poor and middle class in urban areas, but they're going to be
more trouble for lower middle class whites across the Midwest.
"I asked an administration official for a definition"
And what was the answer? Was there an answer?
It is pretty scary to think that while a place like D.C. (or Atlanta, where I live) might not be particularly hard hit by the current "deep recession," that a place like Elkhart, IN. is already in a depression. It strikes me two ways: 1) it is our responsibility as those who are NOT yet in that deep, to help pull them out, or 2) we're ****ed because that's where we're headed - every man for himself! Would it help if we took our nation's political and financial leaders and made them live and look for a job in Elkhart for a week?
The way George Bush and the GOP spent our money will be characterized by an Era of Irresponsibility and Neglect, while Obama wants to spend our money wisely and on rebuillding Americsa, if the GOP lets him. The awful truth is that One Party has destroyed America while the other Party the Democratic Party wants to restore it.
For instance: If you have a home in which you used your money to spend on alcohol, good times and neglected your roof, your bills, and now your roof is in danger of collapsing because you used your money on good times instead of the upkeep of your home and now the Argument is you are unable to borrow money to fix your roof before it caves in because you used your money foolishly in the past is also recklesslness and neglect on the part of the lender, so they let the roof collapse.
In the Bush years 30 billion was spent in Afghanistan -- 50 billion in Iraq and now Congress wants to say we cannot spend necessary money at home which has so long been neglected? States were given no money in the Bush years and now they still want to keep money out of the States on a fraudulent theory.
It is now time to for Congress to put money back in to the United States and to spend money wisely and not fraudulently, irresponsibly and in the dark as in the Bush years. Obama believes in transparancey, hence you can find the Stimulus package on line for all to see.
GOP say this money will be more of the same. It will not be more of the same. This money will be used for Americans, for jobs, to rebuild for improvement and innovations to improve life not on wars and countries which have nothing to do with American people or on big business who do not need the money.
Bush and the Republicans inherited a Surplus from the Democrats and yet the GOP has created the worst economic crisis ever. The GOP should stop hijacking the Stimulus and do the right thing and let money flow back into America again, instead of holding the Democrats hostage from their quest of bringing help to the people and restoring American again.
Marc, nu? What did you learn from the Administration offical?
(And, just as interesting as the answer, please let us know whether this is someone at Treasury or the Council of Economic Advisors, or whether it's someone in the WH Communications shop -- big difference in their answers, I'd bet.)
Watching the republicans discuss the stimulus bill, a funny personal story plays repeatedly in my head. While playing a competitive game of "Deal or No Deal" on the TV with my mother-in-law, my nephew, who had been in the lead, shouted "I hope she loses !". My nephew up to this point was intense but quiet. His outburst took us by surprise. We laughed and for the rest of the game repeated his mantra, "I hope she loses !".
If the republicans vote 'No' on the stimulus plan, don't they have to hope the stimulus plan fails ? And, if they hope the stimulus plan fails, aren't they hoping that the "American people lose!" ? This is the political gamble the republicans are taking. Aren't they betting against the home team ?
If the republicans continue with 'No' votes, refusing to compromise, they will be the ones to lose in 2010. And I for one am hoping the American people win. This is not a game.
By the way, my nephew did lose, but if he won, he thought the money would come out of either A.) the tv, or B.) the computer in the office.
Marc:
Two things. First, as for the change in the new website design, I think you've gone a bit too far in terms of content packaging. Some have noted that Drudge's success is due, in part, to the simplicity of his design. (I am by no means endorsing anything else done by Matt Drudge.) I tend to agree that less is more when it comes to content presentation for a political blog such as this. Accordingly, whatever can be done to simplify the page, I think would be a big plus.
Second, and this is a comment related to this post only in that it involves you "asking an admnistration official" a question. Can you please (if you so choose) clarify what "save or create" means as used, repeatedly, by Obama and others when describing the force and effect of the pending stimulus bill in terms of job creation. My assumption is that the phrase is purposely vague, so that the administration cannot be held to future specific numbers. That being said, the phrase seems excessively vague, in that "saving" a job is hard to prove or demonstrate. I presume the adminstration, at some point, will be able to show a chart detailing the current downward trajectory of the economy (losing roughly 500,000 jobs a month), and then, hopefully, a future leveling off, whereby the economy begins to stop shedding jobs at this pace. But I would think that the administration would be able to forecast such numbers with a bit more precision. (Was there not talk of having each spending proposal in the stimulus paralleled with a job creation target?) Perhaps not, though.
Thanks, and cheers.
Patrick