There will never be a Trump stimulus package.

Trump promises to spend 1 trillion on infrastructure.

Will never happen.

Even the Dems, in response to the greatest crisis since the depression, could only come up with 700 billion.

It's laughable that the present crew of Congressional Republicans could/would do better.

So enjoy the show as he pretends it might happen. You know, after health care and tax "reform".

This thread was inspired by this Dean Baker post, which explains why the Obama economy was not as good as it should/could have been, given an adequate, non-austerian response. So, instead of a normal recovery out of a recession, we got sh!t, pissing off white America, and giving us Trump.

WaPo Gets It Wrong: An $800 Billion Stimulus Following the Collapse of the Housing Bubble Was Not "Big"

Beat the Press
by dean.baker1@verizon.net (Dean Baker)

In fact, it wasn't even $800 billion, but the Washington Post has never been very good with numbers. The issue came up in a column by Paul Kane telling Republicans that they don't have to just focus on really big items. The second paragraph refers to the Democrat's big agenda after President Obama took office:

"Everyone knows the big agenda they pursued — an $800 billion economic stimulus, a sweeping health-care law and an overhaul of Wall Street regulations."

The stimulus was actually closer to $700 billion since around $70 billion of the "stimulus" involved extensions of tax breaks that would have been extended in almost any circumstances. This was actually a very small response to the collapse of a housing bubble that cost the economy close to $1,200 billion dollars in annual demand (6-7 percent of GDP).

The Obama administration tried to counteract this huge loss of demand with a stimulus that was roughly 2 percent of GDP for two years and then trailed off to almost nothing. This was way too small as some of us argued at the time.

The country has paid an enormous price for this inadequate stimulus with the economy now more than 10 percent below the level that had been projected by the Congressional Budget Office for 2017 before the crash. This gap is close to $2 trillion a year or $6,000 for every person in the country. This is known as the "austerity tax," the cost the country pays because folks like Peter Peterson and the Washington Post (both the opinion and news section) endlessly yelled about debt and deficits at a time when they clearly were not a problem.

It is also worth noting that the overhaul of Wall Street was not especially ambitious. It left the big banks largely intact and did not involve prosecuting any Wall Street executives for crimes they may have committed during the bubble years, such as knowingly passing on fraudulent mortgages in mortgage backed securities.

Investment in our infrastructure is desperately needed.  Trump is correct on this.

However, his plan on how to approach it is stupid and will never happen. 

I hope Dean Baker has a backup email address.

Why is he dredging this debate up again?  In relation to something Trump might do?  Given it's apples to oranges in terms of the market environment than vs now, what other reason is there?

I seem to remember that it was a major accomplishment to get that amount of stimulus funding passed given Republican opposition. Was that not the case?

ctrzaska said:

Why is he dredging this debate up again?  In relation to something Trump might do?  Given it's apples to oranges in terms of the market environment than vs now, what other reason is there?

Heh, orange. 

Right. Let's not talk about one of Trump's biggest campaign promises because ... reasons.

ctrzaska said:

Why is he dredging this debate up again?  In relation to something Trump might do?  Given it's apples to oranges in terms of the market environment than vs now, what other reason is there?

Yes it was a huge accomplishment, though I think the Dems were in control at the time.  Opposition for a larger and more effective stimulus also came from Dems, which is why the thing was inadequate as a whole.

kthnry said:

I seem to remember that it was a major accomplishment to get that amount of stimulus funding passed given Republican opposition. Was that not the case?

drummerboy said:

Right. Let's not talk about one of Trump's biggest campaign promises because ... reasons.

ctrzaska said:

Why is he dredging this debate up again?  In relation to something Trump might do?  Given it's apples to oranges in terms of the market environment than vs now, what other reason is there?

I'm talking about the additional context afforded by a comparison to the crisis stimulus.  Different circumstances, different environment, different urgency, different goals. 

the crisis now is a slow motion one.  the eventual decay of the infrastructure.  Dean Baker shouldn't be writing about a Trump "stimulus" that will never happen.  More correct to write that Trump's infrastructure plan will be the thing that never happens. 

People seem to be missing the point. The point being that in the face of the biggest financial crisis since the depression, a Democratic Congress and President could only come up with an inadequate, 700 billion dollar stimulus.

So, today, in the face of no such immediate crisis, and with Republicans in control, it is ludicrous to pretend that any kind of substantial, federally funded, infrastructure plan will ever be enacted, much less a trillion dollar one.

I mean....that's not even the plan. At least, not the one I've read about. He wants to pay private firms something like $150B to take on public infrastructure, which they'll then improve to the tune of $1T. For tolls or something.

People in Flint probably think the crisis is immediate.  Or perhaps people that live and commute in Atlanta, or maybe the folks that live below that dam in California, or maybe the residents of New Orleans that still live with substandard levees.

drummerboy said:

People seem to be missing the point. The point being that in the face of the biggest financial crisis since the depression, a Democratic Congress and President could only come up with an inadequate, 700 billion dollar stimulus.

So, today, in the face of no such immediate crisis, and with Republicans in control, it is ludicrous to pretend that any kind of substantial, federally funded, infrastructure plan will ever be enacted, much less a trillion dollar one.

well, you're right, to the extent any details on the "plan" have even been leaked.

But, that's not what people think when they hear "infrastructure plan". They think of massive government spending - not selling off roads to private companies or giving companies tax breaks. Another con meant for the Trump rubes.

Which is why many Dems resisted saying that infrastructure was something they could work with Trump on, as much as the media tried to push the "possible cooperation" story.

RobB said:

I mean....that's not even the plan. At least, not the one I've read about. He wants to pay private firms something like $150B to take on public infrastructure, which they'll then improve to the tune of $1T. For tolls or something.