Since Krugman keeps saying, no matter how much is spent on jobs packages and green jobs and alien invasions, that the amount of stimulus is far too little, I think we ought to discuss all such packages in Krugman units. So if we really need $30 trillion in stimulus, then let’s call that one Krugman. $3 trillion can be a mini-Krugman. And $300bln can be a micro-Krugman. So the latest jobs package is about 1.5 micro-Krugmans. Hardly seems worth it.
The micro prefix is already defined to be 10^-6 (one millionth.) So a micro-Krugman would be
10^-6*(1 Krugman)=10^-6*(30*10^12 dollars)=30*10^6 (dollars)=30000000=30 million dollars.
A 450 billion dollar stimulus package would be 15000 microKrugmans. There really shouldn't be a '-' just like there isn't a dash in 'micrometer', 'microamp', etc.
Treasury Secretary Geithner let slip the truth to the EU finance ministers. At least the last two presidents have been in the same position: Not in charge.
A new report prepared by Russian Deputy Finance Minister Tatyana Nesterenko about the Eurogroup meeting of the Informal Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) in Wroclaw Poland on the growing European debt crisis states that EU Finance Ministers were “left stunned” Friday after they were told by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner [photo top right] that President Obama was “not in charge.”
According to this report, the “uninvited” US Treasury Secretary showed up at the ECOFIN conference and engaged in what can only be described as a “temper tantrum” where he slammed Europe’s economic policy makers for their intransigence in provided further bailouts to Greece and when queried by European Central Bank (ECB) Chief Jean-Claude Trichet as to if this was “Obama’s position too” was told by Geithner, “He’s (Obama) not in charge, I am.”
ECB Chief Trichet, according to other news reports, rebuked Geithner and stated that the financial position of the 17-member Eurozone is better than that of other major economies, especially the United States.
So the douches on the right are claiming the President is playing class warfare with this new tax increase he will announce this week, my hope is that the Pres has grown a pair and for the next 14 months says "hell yes we are playing class warfare, the right has done it for 40 years and now it's our turn." Then the rally cry for his reelection campaign is "TAX THE RICH!!" I know it won't happen but wouldn't it be nice. It would mean instant reelection if he turned into a dick and just spent the next 14 months calling out the rich.
Sorry I'm fired up this morning, I still have a lot of political ties with my old job and my inbox this morning was lit up with party redirect.
btw about Geithner. If I were Obama I'd call him into the oval office this morning and ask him if he likes apples. Then say well you're fired! How do you like them apples douche!
IMADreamer wrote:
btw about Geithner. If I were Obama I'd call him into the oval office this morning and ask him if he likes apples. Then say well you're fired! How do you like them apples douche!
Except that Geithner has let slip that it is actually the opposite. He and the Goldman Sachs posse are in charge having bought off all branches of the government and now not even worrying about that being made public.
It is incredible what has happened to the US government in my lifetime.
I hate to do anything like defend Geithner since I think his deregulation while working at the fed is a large part of the economic mess were in now. But is it possible he is being taken out of context and was only talking about treasury policy when he said he was in charge. That's what it seems like to me from the snippet quoted above.
New Pagodi wrote:I hate to do anything like defend Geithner since I think his deregulation while working at the fed is a large part of the economic mess were in now. But is it possible he is being taken out of context and was only talking about treasury policy when he said he was in charge. That's what it seems like to me from the snippet quoted above.
New Pagodi wrote:I hate to do anything like defend Geithner since I think his deregulation while working at the fed is a large part of the economic mess were in now. But is it possible he is being taken out of context and was only talking about treasury policy when he said he was in charge. That's what it seems like to me from the snippet quoted above.
OK - let's assume this is the case.
Except that the power to legislate on that lies with Congress. And the power to execute that legislation lies with the President. And the power to implement the executive policy is in the hands of the Treasury Secretary. If the Constitution means anything.
The Treasury Secretary is not 'in charge'. No more than Alexander Haig was in charge after the Reagan assassinatino attempt.
It's class warfare when the richest people in our country pay the least percentage in Taxes? Sounds like a war that needs to be fought.
I can already hear the right crying about how an increase in taxes on the rich will cause the rich business owners to lay off workers and stifle the growth of new businesses.
wart57 wrote:It's class warfare when the richest people in our country pay the least percentage in Taxes? Sounds like a war that needs to be fought.
I can already hear the right crying about how an increase in taxes on the rich will cause the rich business owners to lay off workers and stifle the growth of new businesses.
It's funny, cause it'd probably do the opposite.
Do people think that Buffet is calling for taxes on rich is some sort of altruism? Some sort of 'Who cares if they raise income taxes since I make gazillions from Capital Gains it won't effect me and this will make them like me?' move? Or could it be that the reason we're laying off workers and stifling growth because consumers don't have enough money to...well consume.
wart57 wrote:It's class warfare when the richest people in our country pay the least percentage in Taxes? Sounds like a war that needs to be fought.
I can already hear the right crying about how an increase in taxes on the rich will cause the rich business owners to lay off workers and stifle the growth of new businesses.
They'll do their best to convince people that it will harm the poor mom and pop small business owners who "are the true job creators in this economy". Which it wouldn't affect them, but Republicans are really good at convincing people that it does.
And they'll of course bring up how the taxes just stiffle big businesses from hiring. You know, the big businesses who are sitting on the largest cash reserves in history, yet are not hiring.
