Without your help……

Shamit, I share your concerns. However the Democrats will probably lose seats in 2010 no matter what as the economy wouldn’t have recovered by then. If Obama was going to get anything done on health care and to a less extent climate change he had to go for it now when his popularity is at its peak.

Also, one of the reasons he’s been elected is to implement some of the policies he talked about on the campaign trail.

Finally, you have to be happy that he’s reducing subsidies to agribusiness right. I think thats a very positive step for the future if he can get it passed.

“Where’s the evidence it doesn’t?”

I am not going to dignify that with a response.

I helped elect this man – that feels good.

*bows*

Thank you, Sunny, for giving us the world’s first African-American president.

Where’s the evidence it doesn’t?

The focus on the infrastructure which would immediately create jobs and improve conditions in schools are definitely very important and do have immediate beneficial impact in jumpstarting the economy.

But everything else is a big wish list without any definitive answers.

In the US, top 5% of the Country pays 60% of the tax and top 1% pays around 40%. This would go up about 5-10% percentage points. So taxing them more would result in what? I dont think there would be much Cap Gains this or next fiscal year and the cap gains taxation would go up which would make investors (and most americans used to invest in the stock market) more wary about investing in equities market. At the end of the day, Government cannot create wealth and they never did. I can understand the argument about people like Buffet, Gates whose primary income is from Cap Gains but over 70% of US population invests in stock market.

Currently, there is a crisis of confidence — does the stimulus bill and this massive budget spending bill address the key question of restoring faith and confidence in the system?

I dont know and niether do I know how the money is going to be allocated to states. Also, there is a congressional election in 2010 and I wonder what happens to Obama’s goals if the Democrats lose majority in the US Congress especially the House.

So, the budget like Obama’s campaign has a lot of good ideas and lofty goals but the test would in delivery?

I hope President Obama succeeds not only for the US but his failure would mean a longer economic depression (yeah I use the D word — because in recession policy tools work) for the entire world.

So lets hope for the best

Similar with global warming. You need to spend money and implement some sort of cap and trade. One of these myths is that China has no interest in climate change. It does, but it needs to see America working on it as well.

He’s also taking steps to close the loopholes enjoyed by private equity and hedge fund managers. Will Gordon follow suit or can Britain not afford to?

My main concern is with the reliance on forecasts for things to eventually turn out rosy but we know our ability to forecast the future is extremely poor. Unless this programme, through some fluke of luck, is just right like Goldilocks third bowl of porridge, then the fiscal deterioration for the US could be extremely severe over the next decade. Or, on the other hand, if we consider that a lot of this spending doesn’t come on-line immediately, there is even the risk that if the economy gets started again, we could overheat – unlike monetary policy I can’t see the gvt stopping building projects half-way through.

I’m 100% for Obama vs Bush and the GOP, and I think Obama has an appreciation for the free mkt, but this budget simply puts too much power in the hands of the few, some of who will be scarily incompetent.

An evil hegemony is still an evil hegemony, whether it subsidises agriculture or not.

As for the rest, well, time will tell.
I’m not spitting blood but I’m not optimistic.

I think you mean “would spend a lot of money to no visible effect”, especially in the second case…