The conventional wisdom on the left-hand side of the mediasphere seems to be that Barack Obama should have asked for a larger stimulus package in the first place. Specifically, the argument is that:
1) Republican/centrist opposition to the bill was inevitable; they never had any incentive to compromise, and
2) Republican/centrist opposition to the bill was liable to be somewhat unrelated to the magnitude of the package. That is, if Obama had asked for $1 trillion, Republicans would find a bunch of stuff to complain about, and use their filibuster power in the Senate to reduce the package to, say, $900 billion. Conversely, if Obama had asked for $600 billion, Republicans would complain, and use their filibuster power in the Senate to reduce the package to, say, $500 billion.
3) Therefore, Obama should have asked for the $1 trillion, or whatever the economically correct number is.
I'm sympathetic to this argument, versions of which I've made myself. But, I think it may be overly simplistic. Specifically, there are probably diminishing marginal returns to every additional dollar of stimulus. With each additional dollar that you spend, the more likely you are to spend a dollar that: (i) isn't spent particularly well, i.e. has a lower multiplier, or (ii) is spent well, but facilitates long-run rather than short-run growth, or (iii) is spent well, but is politically infeasible, thereby undermining the chances for the remainder of the bill to pass. Although clearly many of the Republican objections to the bill were frivolous, and although just as clearly money seems to have been left on the table that could have been wisely spent in areas like science funding, it's not self-evident that you could have added, say, another $400 billion to the package without encountering one or more of these problems.
Perhaps the administration should have sold the bill more literally as a recovery and reinvestment package. That is, there is a recovery component, presumably the majority of the bill, which is money that is necessarily spent quickly and with an eye toward job creation, and then there is also a reinvestment component, which is money that is not necessarily spent immediately but consists of "down payments" in areas like education, infrastructure and clean energy and seeks to bolster long-term economic growth. Perhaps the reinvestment component would have come under attack, but because things like education, infrastructure and clean energy happen to be quite popular, Obama would have been on relatively firm ground.
2.08.2009
Should Obama Have Asked For More?
@ 7:50 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
101 comments
First
FIRST
I've been thinking about this myself. However I imagine that if Obama has asked for too much then Republicans could have done a better job at turning public opinion against the stimulus.
They would use facts like "...would reach all the way to the moon" or whatever it ammounted to.
Obama should have expected it to come down but if he had set his sights too high the whole plan could have been blocked.
TIE
The CBO predicts that, WITHOUT A STIMULUS PACKAGE, the recession will end during the second half of this year. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/cbo-predicts-recession-will-end-in-2009.html
It is clear that this so-called stimulus bill will actually extend the recession by depleting private capital. It will only be when the recession finally ends that we see just how much damage the Democrats have done.
This will not be the only bill. The economy will need another stimulus. This is effectively a test run. It won't revive the economy, but it will provide clear-cut empirical evidence that spending creates jobs.
Obama will then have to use that evidence to argue for a larger stimulus or, if that's not possible, to secure a super-super-majority in the Senate by 2011.
It is clear that this so-called stimulus bill will actually extend the recession by depleting private capital.
The CBO report does not conclude any such thing. You are not being truthful. With that said, the "end" of a recession does not constitute an economic "recovery." The entire point of the stimulus is to prevent an "L-shaped" recession where we level off and growth stagnates.
With that said, showing such basic ignorance of economics does not help the Republican case against the stimulus.
Also, CBO predictions aren't necessarily the word of god, and it is possible that unforeseen fallout could prolong the recession.
Leave_me_alone is not smart, merely a person content to lie, as s/he did in another thread, where s/he claimed FDR brought about the Great Depression.
A recession ends when GDP turns positive for two successive quarters. There will be no good way of telling whether the stimulus helped or hindered growth once recovery comes. But the quarter in which recovery does come will be known. And the more delayed it is beyond 3Q09 or 4Q09 will be strong evidence of the deleterious effect of the stimulus package.
He probably should have asked for more, but there's still the appropriations bill. It's not too late to take what got cut from the Stimulus and roll it into that one.
When does Appropriations come up for committee consideration?
"And the more delayed it is beyond 3Q09 or 4Q09 will be strong evidence of the deleterious effect of the stimulus package"
Your comment is completely absurd. Much of the stimulus will be spent in 2010. Get a clue.
There will be no good way of telling whether the stimulus helped or hindered growth once recovery comes.
Actually, there will be: if the measures implemented created jobs and if the growth exceeds CBO predictions of a non-stimulus scenario. You can't claim evidence "proves" an effect in one direction but not another... unless you're being deliberately obtuse.
Also, the CBO report explicitly says that the stimulus will significantly boost short-term growth. So which is it? Is the CBO gospel or is it not? If you take the CBO seriously, then you must conclude that the stimulus will boost short-term growth, directly contradicting your assertion that it will prolong the recession.
Perhaps you should rely on primary sources instead of trusting mendacious bloggers to do the intellectual heavy-lifting for you.
Michael, you are right that I claimed that FDR's policies extended the recession which turned into a depression in the US while Europe, without FDR's policies, recovered more quickly. I apologize for making that statement in an earlier thread without proper historical references. I learned a good leson and will not repeat that mistake..
Howver, I am certainly not stupid and I do not kniowingly lie. If you have an open mind I strongly suggestyou read the book "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes. It is especially well-researched and cited. And it debunks the myth that has arisen around FDR and the New Deal. Knowledge of what actually resulted from FDR's policies is critical to assessing our current situation.
Shorter LMA:
"If evidence contradicts my preconceived beliefs, it is to be disregarded!"
A convenient cognitive device, but not a sound basis for determining economic policy.
Ok, help me out here as I'm not well versed on the legislative process. I know that once the Senate passes the bill it moves to a joint committee for reconciliation and then back to the House and Senate for final votes. But what is the requirement for passage...will the Senate require 60 to pass?
Yes he should have asked for more. It's a simple political game, which the GOP is not afraid to use, called asking for much more than you want so that the final result is what you want.
Obama almost tripped up here. By doing his job in a reasonable way, i.e. asking for a stimulus package that would barely do the job, the GOP (and the mindless MSM) made him look stingy when he didn't immediately cut it to ribbons when the GOP complained. He should have asked for $1 trillion, then it would have been much easier to pare it back to a sensible amount.
OBama shoulda asked for $40 TRILLION dollars, including $300 Billion for condoms and then the republicans would have countered with $30 Trillion.
The tax cut portion of the bill is a complete waste.
There should be far more investment in those things that bring back >$5/dollar to the economy, such as NASA, DARPA, education, research & development, infrastructure--especially packet radio/tv/internet... transportation....
If I were in charge, I would do everything possible to lower the barriers to entry into the market for creative types who have major improvements to make but just can't get around whatever monopolies are in the way in their industry...
so i'd also put a lot of money into getting the brains back into the IRS to go after sneaky billionaires and huge corporations that have been getting away with out money. There is plenty of money in the economy. it has just all gravitated to the top, where its doing nothing.
The tax cut portion of the bill is a complete waste.
This is not true. While less than optimally effective, the tax cuts will have a positive, stimulative effect. Even Saint Krugman acknowledges this fact.
Someone over at TPM posted a long reference showing that yes, this bill requires 60 votes.
I think that what has happened so far is that the House threw everything but the kitchen sink in knowing it wouldn't all fly (and Obama knew about it all or even directed it), that the Senate then got as much as they could from the 3 Republicans who were essential, and that ultimately after conference the bill will look somewhat better than the Senate bill (how good will depend on getting the agreement of Specter, Collins, and Snowe.)
All right, Leave_me_alone, you've convinced me that you aren't lying, because you believe everything you say. That doesn't mean it's accurate, but it does mean I no longer think the falsehoods are intentional.
The reason this bill requires a 3/5 vote of the Senate is that it involves deficit spending (I think the pertinent legislation is called the "Budget Act").
Even if you're right --
How big a dif is an $800 billion bill gonna be from a $900 billion bill for stimulus?
Especially when we can assume Dems are gonna get at least some of the stuff cut in the normal budget process?
As disappointed as I am for the Dems refusing to come out & press for their bill -- ceding the airwaves to the obstructionists -- I still like an earlier analysis that Obama's bipartisanship, even if it doesn't produce much GOP support for bills, is gonna box the GOP into a corner of being malcontents & Dittoheads.
Regardless if this is a long term Obama plan, or not.
liberal_defender_of_freedom: identical in the sense of 'what Lincoln carried, Obama also carried,' but Obama carried three of the Confederate states that never voted for Lincoln.
LDF, I'm sure Lincoln didn't win Virginia, North Carolina, or Florida.
Under the Budget Act of 1974, a point of order can be made regarding any bill that introduces deficit spending. This effectively means that a 3/5ths vote is needed to pass the bill.
Consequently, the growing cries on the left to implement the "nuclear option" are completely misguided. Even if cloture was done away with, 60 votes would still be needed to pass the stimulus.
So, it may be important for the eventual health plan to be revenue neutral, because it'll be hard to get 60 votes for it. If Obama and his advisors can manage that, they'll be geniuses.
loomisnews,
The bigger concern for progressives should be the fact that fiscal restraint will be needed to optimize the long-term impact of the stimulus. The greater the size of the bill, the more steps we'll need to take in the long term to reduce the debt in order to keep GDP growth steady.
In the outrage-of-the-week culture of the liberal blogosphere, shortsightedness and affirmations of pride reign supreme, but a truly massive stimulus will have a severely negative impact on social services down the line. Progressives need the balance the needs of the moment with the needs of the following generation.
Check out my blog:http://emmasfashionfoodandfun.blogspot.com !
Under the Budget Act of 1974, a point of order can be made regarding any bill that introduces deficit spending.
Given the 10 or 11 trillion dollar deficit, isn't all legislation with funding attached deficit spending by definition?
Want to know the tax cuts that would have the biggest impact on spending WHILE AT THE SAME TIME help out those that make the least?
Have a "Floor" on payroll taxes. Not income tax, but FICA and unemployment tax.
There are many people that work and pay little or no income tax, because they do not make much money in the first place. But they DO pay payroll taxes from the first dollar they earn.
There is a ceiling on payroll taxes. Therefore, the poorest pay the largest percentage of their income towards payroll taxes.
Of course, this is a silly suggestion to conservatives to listen to, because if they truly had their way, there would be no minimum wage and no safety net (which is paid for by payroll taxes).
Under the Budget Act of 1974, a point of order can be made regarding any bill that introduces deficit spending. This effectively means that a 3/5ths vote is needed to pass the bill.
Well there's one for the trivia hounds then --when was the last time we got a money bill thru both houses without a three-fifths vote --or the necessity of it, at any rate-- in the upper?
Fetch!
@ Loomis: Dude, I used to work with you @ the SSRI lol
Leave_me_alone said...
. . . Europe, without FDR's policies, recovered more quickly.
And why did Europe (as you say) recover more quickly?
Maybe it was because many of the countries were actually doing a lot of spending - spending on preparations for a war that many saw coming.
France spent a tremendous amount to build the Maginot Line and it's military forces, among other things;
Germany spent a tremendous amount in building up it's military, but also used financial schemes that hid the true cost of that spending;
Great Britain spent a tremendous amount in building up it's Navy, and did a lot of research into air planes, which it then converted into production of fighter planes and bombers, along with other military spending.
Notice a pattern there? Spending pulled the nations out of recession/depression.
Spain? Involved in a civil war, so no accurate records were kept.
Italy? False economic indications because of Fascist accounting, not real world accounting.
Russia (or as it was known then, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)? Who knows what the real economics were.
Austria? Very culturally and economically tied to Germany, so whatever happened in Germany was reflected in Austria.
Poland? Hungary? Czechoslovakia? Greece? Romania? Bulgaria? Who knows, as adequate records were not kept.
The only nations that recovered without spending for an impending war were those that spent themselves out of the depression - Sweden, Norway (although it also was preparing for war), Switzerland. The economies of the rest (The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, etc.,) were too small and/or too intertwined with their neighbors' economies for any action on their own part to have an effect on the domestic economy.
thatmarvelousape:
You're right about the need to pay down the debt in the medium-to-long term, but remember who's been most responsible for the ballooning of the national debt: Reagan and GW Bush, and their collaborators. Without Clinton's budgetary responsibility, we'd be in even worse shape.
And remember the Book of Ecclesiastes: There's a time to be born and a time to die, a time to mourn and a time to dance. Right now is not a time to pay down the debt. This is not merely a rainy day, but a time of flooding that could become apocalyptic without a finger in the dike. This is a time to spend, and since our unwise politicians have left no funds for a rainy day, the only alternative is to borrow now and pay later. Unless you want to bring the deluge by raising tariffs or taxes to a large degree at a time of economic weakness.
Given the 10 or 11 trillion dollar deficit, isn't all legislation with funding attached deficit spending by definition?
I believe the way it works is that, even if it technically is deficit spending, you can still avoid the requirement by balancing it out with other spending cuts.
With English being my second language, I have a linguistic question. Is it really a “compromise”?
Does anybody see any irony in the fact that 4 "centrist" senators were negotiating an acceptable to both parties "compromise" on a democratically crafted bill? Normally, at least everywhere else in the world, a compromise would mean a middle point between two radically different original plans. Here, a group of 4 senators, each of whom was very much to the right of the original bill, were negotiating their own solution, because the original plan was too "left" for any one of them.
Why, from now on, just not allow these four conducting the entire business of the Senate?
Exactly Mike, LMA is equivocating with the phrase "without FDR's policies."
Yes, technically, since FDR was not the head of government, they weren't his policies, but they were massive spending projects nonetheless.
Right. Krugman and Delong: ninnies. Thank heavens for your sophistication and expertise. The New Republic has left its mark on you.
Okay, political deathmatch:
Howard Dean vs Ron Paul
Both doctors-they both know where the body is weakest, and what will kill it fastest. Both short-so they can sneak under things more easily. Both hated by the media.
Who will win?
Post your answers below.
former_covansian said...
Normally, at least everywhere else in the world, a compromise would mean a middle point
Incorrect.
According to Dictionary.com:
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
At the end of a war, if one side offers an unconditional surrender to the vanquished foe, is a surrender with SOME conditions a meeting in the middle?
No.
Is it a compromise?
Yes.
Example - At the end of World War II, the US initially wanted the Japanese to agree to an unconditional surrender, including the abdication of the Emperor, and the abolition of the Japanese Imperial Throne. The US conceded to the Japanese on that point.
A compromise?
Yes.
A meeting in the middle; a splitting of the difference?
No, as the Japanese DID unconditionally surrender with the small detail that they kept their Emperor.
Great comment Mike.
Leave_me_alone,
I forgot to add about Germany - a lot of the spending that the Germans did in the 1930s was for infrastructure - infrastructure that was meant for the military, but also have had civilian benefits TO THIS DAY, but not intended for such by the Nazis.
Examples:
The Autobahn - the purpose was to make it easier to move the army across Germany quickly. The design of the Autobahn was the basis for the Interstate highway system (technically titled the "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways") in the US;
Airports - Templehof was the most modern airport in the world when it opened. It was created to give the Luftewaffe a presence in Berlin, where it could send up planes to defend the city. It was invaluable after the war, when it was the focal point of the Berlin Air Lift, and later as an important International airport until demand overcame Templehof's ability to carry that demand.
Rocketry and jet engine development: Totally aimed for war by the Germans. After the war benefits to civilians? Anything need to be stated here?
I like your idea Fake Virginia Joe, and I'll up the ante.
• Create a floor for payroll taxes - it's absurd to tax poor people to pay for the elderly and disabled
• Lower the rate of payroll taxes
• Make payroll taxes an income tax - why should working people contribute to the safety net for the old and infirm, but not people who make their money without labor?
• Remove the cap on payroll taxes. Charge a small percentage of all income for SS and Medicare.
• Allow employers to reflect the entire cost of Fica/medicare on the paycheck (i.e. show the real gross).
All the steps above could be arranged to be revenue neutral or revenue increasing, depending on the rate. Of course the burden would shift to those who can afford it, so it will take a major rearrangement of our politics to pass it.
Mr. Silver -- tear down that reagan photo!!!!
seriously, reagan makes me sick to my stomach.
Nate,
The Republicans aren't negotiating via filibuster; the Pay-Go rule stipulates that deficit spending requires a 3/5 vote majority.
http://www.congressmatters.com/story/2009/2/7/161443/9275/436/583
Back to the topic for a second (although I'm enjoying the history discussion - anyone want to guess why Japan's economy was booming in the 1930s, and China's went to heck?)
Do any of the folks suggesting Obama should have asked for more (ie over a trillion) remember how crazy the media was going back in Nov-Dec over rumors of how big the plan could get? They would have had kittens and probably poisoned the well with some centrist Dems, much less the GOP if the T word had been floated officially. More than anything else, I'm personally hacked at the complete lack of realism in much of the GOP. I mean, 31 of 41 actually voted to strip all spending out of the bill. That they think that's even a good symbolic gesture is nutty - it makes as much sense as a D voting against the final bill because it includes any tax cuts.
In terms of the success of this process, I suspect if you'd known going in Obama'd get the number he asked for most of you would have been pretty happy. Negotiation and compromise at this level is a tricky thing. Obama tried an approach that respected the stated goals of the GOP of including strong tax cuts balanced with spending. Maybe he should have just assumed they were virtually all idiots, but at least this way he's set the table for the Dems to be the party of adults who try to see other points of view and the GOP as the party of spoiled children who want to take their ball and go home. That's how I think it will ultimately be seen everywhere outside of hardcore GOP strongholds (and Rush Limbaugh's cranium).
sarasota joe
That is old-school progressive economic policy. As a country, we have moved away from those that COULD afford to pay more actually doing so.
Instead, loopholes and tax shelters are given to people that really do not need it. Those people that can take advantage of the loopholes give large donations to political powers to block things like unions.
Why is it that only workers need to unionize? Because the people that own the companies already have a union, it is called the United States Senate.
Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...
. . . anyone want to guess why Japan's economy was booming in the 1930s, and China's went to heck?
Maybe because Japan was spending like crazy on war (without the destruction of war occurring on the home islands), and China was being devastated by a three-way war (Nationalists vs. Communists vs. Japan)?
VBG
Even the Senate version contains more than Obama initially asked for. He expected the legislative process to add more to the bill, not less. It did, but probably not as much as he expected.
Should he have asked for more? Probably. Does it really matter? No. Did he learn a lot from this experience? Yes.
Mostly I see it as a practice run for a rookie president. It did do a couple of positive things for him, even though he underestimated GOP opposition. His bipartisan idea was tested and needs serious "revision."
The GOP has no intention of cooperation. They have put themselves in a corner. There is no longer a need to bring the GOP into anything.
There is a need to bring the 3 moderate Republican Senators into the Democratic caucus. How that can be done, I have no idea.
Is it really 60 votes or 60% of those voting? Currently there are only 99 Senators with Minnesota missing one. There are only 97 voting with one being nominated to the cabinet and one spending most of his time in the hospital. Isn't the number really 59?
Finally, the only desperately urgent thing missing from the package is massive aid to the states to cover their loss of revenue due to the recession. If that can't be restored in the final bill, it needs to be passed in a separate bill ASAP. This bill would have a lot of Republican support, but all of it would be governors, who unfortunately don't have a vote in the Senate.
I agree on using the "investment" word Nate, though if I were the Prez, I'd put it in terms of a one-time rebalancing the budget's lack of long term infrastructure spending over the past decade... an imbalance that has been part of the recession story.
Plus, I'm still much less interested in where the stimulus price-tag falls between 700 and 1000 BN, but I am interested that it all ends up actually being "stimulative", and not almost 50% tax cuts.
I agree with Jenny. That pic of Reagan is really annoying.
Berkeley Bear, I'm happy with the bill only if it works. If it doesn't work, the spending and tax cuts are bad, because they increase the national debt. Now, I will definitely assume that half a loaf is far less bad than none, so I don't believe this money will go into a rathole, where much of the TARP money seems to have gone. But I don't see the mere amount of money as anything to celebrate if, say, spending $300 billion more would have made a huge difference.
Vidya said...
Even the Senate version contains more than Obama initially asked for. He expected the legislative process to add more to the bill, not less. It did, but probably not as much as he expected.
Remember, we now have a House-passed version and a Senate-passed version, but not a final version, which will be the version that comes out of conference. Will the House insist on putting back a lot of the items the Senate took out, such as aid to states? Aid to repair schools? Money for higher education?
Depending on what comes from the conference determines the final total in the bill. I suspect that it will be about $50 Billion higher than currently - the House will insist on about $75 Billion being added to the Senate version, and accede on about $25 Billion being cut from the Senate version.
I say 'Senate version' above, as it has more R votes than the House version, thus will most likely be the one most discussed, and worked from, in conference.
Wow. Amazing.
All you have to do is print money to achieve prosperity.
Bush launched two wars and didn't pay for it..then asked for TARP spending, hundreds of billions of dollars to save the banks...now, just a few months later, Obama wants another $1 Trillion dollars more and the fivethirtyeight crowd is asking if this is "enough".
When this House of Cards called the United States of America comes crashing down in an inflationary pile of crushed 401Ks and double-digit unemployement, maybe we will finally have a smidgeon of respect for common sense?
There's a transient (time dependent) analysis that also has to be considered. The Republican party seems to get hot and bothered about programs that last longer than one year, preferring the impulse function instead, (hit it hard for an exceptionally short duration and see what happens).
The problem is, IMO, the economic system is big and complex and has its own time constants embedded within itself. So hit hard it with a sharp stimulus, which shuts itself off before anything really takes hold, and it will respond with a somewhat bigger, somewhat longer increase in GDP, but one which will mimic its input: it will also peter out, but it will take slightly longer to do so than the impulse function which originally stimulated it.
Hence, a blend of stimuli, with time constants varying from six months to three or more years, were present in the mix which the administration outlined to congress. But it seems to be those with the long time constants which in particular the Republicans are trying to carve out of the bill, saying they are spending programs instead of stimuli. The want to pass something closer to a short impulse function, lasting a year at most. It's like trying to start your car, but releasing the starter key before the first piston gets a chance to fire!
IMO that's what the tax reduction programs they favor will do. We saw what happened to those last spring and summer. They dissipated into silence by last Fall. They were not given time to take hold.
In fact I think we proved that a persistent supply side stimulus alone does not work either. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were about as large each year as the tax cuts in this stimulus bill will be, and they were of long duration as well. In fact, integrating over the seven years since their inception they were at least four or five times as big as the tax cuts contemplated here in the Obama stimulus bill. But the Bush tax cuts seem also to have collapsed on their own, some time in early 2008 or late 2007.
I think they simply flooded the nation's economic engine with too much gas. Too much of those tax cuts were wasted as investments which went overseas for want of finding a market for that money here. And the rest actually contributed to an over-investment in the United States. We invested beyond the limits of domestic demand, and we put our economy out of balance.
"Build It And They Will Come" only works when "they" also have money; enough to buy their own admission tickets without beggaring their neighbors. The middle class was/is starved and in debt for much of the current decade.
The same kind of time constants will apply to demand side stimuli also. Those Keynsean, (demand side), stimulation efforts also need time to develop and also need some additional time to take hold. FDR shut down his demand side stimuli too soon. In 1937, thinking the economy was humming on all four cylinders, he dropped the stimulus and turned on the breaks abruptly, with a tax increase designed to "cure" the burgeoning debt. This happened just at the time his economy was about to take hold. It had already reduced unemployment from 25% to 10%. But that was not quite enough.
The economy was not yet to the point where its engine of growth was able to keep turning. So we had a relapse! The economy reverted to a second slowdown: actually a recession inside the orbit of a gradually recovering depression whose embers were still flickering.
Has anyone talked about the credit/banking crises that Japan faced in the mid-90's and their uber-Keynesian response?
Think we have some lessons to learn folks?
Seriously, isn't anyone concerned about public debt and inflation?
I want a roll call, right now, of folks on this post string. Come out in favor of this bill. In six months time we will calculate the "misery index". If its worse than what it is right now (~7.29%), I will but you all official, limited edition HopeNChange key chains.
Any takers??
FDR's postwar policies...
FDR wanted an agrarian Germany that was banned from industrializing ever again. He said, in effect, "Two World Wars started by an industrialized Germany are enough." This is fact was the US postwar policy until Truman realized that a strong West Germany was necessary for a strong Western Europe. In 1947 a memorandum was issued through the State Department allowing Marshall Plan funds to go to Germany to reindustrialize the Ruhr valley, to begin with.
@ Walker
I'll be happy to oblige you if the final (passed by both housers) bill is better than the emasculated current Senate bill.
By better,I mean bigger and with a lower than 42% rate of the total for tax reduction.
Walker
First, thanks for playing tonight's concern troll. If you COMPETELY read the articles about Japan's crisis, you will realize that they got ONE portion of Keynes correct, the stimulus portion, without paying any mind to the OTHER part, fiscal stimulus. What would fiscal stimulus consist of? Lowering interest rates.
By only using ONE tool in the economics tool box, they did not fix the other cause of the problem, which was declining property values and tightened credit. I am not sure if any of this sounds familiar to the current crisis in the United States.
Too bad the United States does not have an economic board that could lower interest rates simply by having a meeting and announcing what the Federal Government would charge for banks to borrow short-term.
If it turns out that the debt is too high, blame 85% of that on Bush, (5 trillion) and 15% of that on Obama (0.8 trillion or so).
But remember that Japan only came out of their decade long stagnation after building up their debt to about twice their GDP. That's about the level the US would reach if (relatively speaking), our federal debt reached 25 to 30 trillion dollars. Of course they always had a trade surplus and we have a trade deficit to boot. All the more reason to stimulate now, while we still have some power to do so.
But aim it at our export industries. Give certain industries some government help and encouragement -- do that in preference to the kind of industries that can manufacture and then export their goods. That's what Japan, India and China have been doing. Don't give more than absolutely necessary to those industries which can't export product without hiring labor here. Those would be financiers for example -- such companies can do business overseas but when they do they must use almost 100 percent of that labor in situ, rather than here in the good old USA.
We need to export, and by and large the largest industry we use for exporting product overseas nowadays is based in Hollywood, I think. Second largest is probably Aircraft. Even our agricultural products have recently tipped over to become a net import industry, not export -- or so I read a few days ago.
Hey, I am not a concern troll in that I am not an Obama voter (or Democrat in general). My concern comes from a sincere place. I voted for McCain, whom I judged would be a bad POTUS, verus Obama, whom I judged would be excrementally bad.
No, Joe, what Japan faced in 1995 is the closest basket of unique economic circumstances that occured in recent times that we are facing now.
We could learn a lot from it, fiscal policy included, although I think we're in a much worse shape, mostly due to our saving rate and debt.
Why are we putting so mucn faith in economists anyway?
The problem in Japan was that the bank crisis was not dealt with = they had the zombie banks that wouldn't loan money because of problems in their lending (sound familiar). If they had taken action to take over the banks, zero out the shareholders, and recapitalize with new owners, they could have recovered much faster.
Sadly, we are about to repeat the probem because of our political unwillingless to temporarily takeover bad banks like Citi and instead do a politically acceptable but useless "insurance" scheme that keeps the crooks in the managament.
I think it would be useful to distinguish between tax cuts that are stimulative and those that aren't. Tax cuts that go to the lowest income earners are one of the more efficient stimuli, because those people immediately go out and spend. You are almost certain to get that money "in the pipeline" at least as fast as you can get the spending money out the door on infrastructure and such. So some tax cuts, like those in the original bill, do have a place here.
I think the weakest Republican argument of this whole episode is the offense they take at this "redistributive" tax policy, and "giving tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes."
Tax cuts targeted elsewhere are nowhere near as stimulative. As soon as you get above the bottom income earners, people just save the money because they're afraid. I think the same thing would've happened with the suggested 25% corporate rate for one year. Most companies would've just horded the extra cash the same way most of the banks have simply horded the TARP money, rather than putting it to work.
Walker,
Perhaps too many Fox talking points are weaving through your head?
On the January 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity joined the ranks of media figures who have cited Japanese fiscal policy in the 1990s in arguing against a large scale-stimulus plan to combat the current recession in the United States. Hannity claimed that "the Japanese economy was suffering, in the '90s, they had eight separate stimulus packages that created, in their history, massive debt. It was unprecedented. And it didn't work." However, according to prominent economists, economic conditions were improving in Japan before the Japanese government temporarily abandoned fiscal stimulus policies in an attempt to reduce the deficit. And Krugman, for one, points to Japan's fiscal stimulus packages as having "probably prevented a weak economy from plunging into an actual depression."
Additionally, Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in his September 1998 book, Restoring Japan's Economic Growth, that "the 1995 stimulus package ... did result in solid growth in 1996, demonstrating that fiscal policy does work when it is tried. As on earlier occasions in the 1990s, however, the positive response to fiscal stimulus was undercut by fiscal contraction in 1996 and 1997." Posen also testified before the U.S. House of Representatives that the Japanese government "way overstated the amount of fiscal stimulus in which they actually engaged." Other economists and media accounts of Japan's policies agree with Posen that the positive effects of the mid-decade stimulus packages in Japan were curtailed by attempts to scale back spending and increase taxes.
Winning a big legislative victory in the first month of his Presidency is critical for Obama's continued success. While the stimulus package may not be perfect from a policy standpoint, it at least signals that the Democrats are capable of pushing a huge and controversial package through Congress. It also drives a wedge between the handful of moderate GOP Senators and their wingnut colleagues. I'm hoping that one or two of them split off and pull a Jim Jeffords, which would dramatically alter the balance of power.
Hey, Ol' George Will thinks Obama's acted quite Presidential.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6830481
This is backasswards analysis again by the leftist blogs, and Nate intuitively knows it, but misidentifies why.
There was broad public support for a clean stimulus package, but the ridiculous overreach into the land of pork tanked that support once the details began to emerge. That was the huge friggin' mistake, and it's mind-boggling that so many on the left are still in denial of the basic points, prefering instead to delve into gamesmanship.
It has much less to do with the amount of money, and much more to do with the composition of the package. And guess what: it's still not going to pass in current form.
Now that it's become so clear that so little of the package has any stimulative effect, the sense of urgency is muted, despite the continuous bleatings of impending doom if the monstrosity isn't passed. Credibility is strained, and next stop is broken.
Even with adjustments, the bill is still mostly just more big government in drag, and you'll see continued slide of public support in the upcoming polling. It is so transparently bad, that the political capital being burned on this may exceed the bank balance.
Such a missed opportunity to do the right thing. This is going to look even worse in hindsight than it does now.
Rudy, you sound like Emperor Palpatine in Return of the Jedi telling Luke that the Rebellion is doomed. Nice try with the drama. I'll give you a B.
WV: sillymen- see GOP
I think the strength of the stimulus bill is also it's weakness: the large array of programs where money will be spent or taxes cut. As I've read articles describing - or criticizing - the legislation, it's my opinion that some significant spending is neither stimulative nor a dose of "anti-contraction" spending to keep state governments from wholesale layoffs etc.
Increased Pell grants, for example, seem to not really stimulate much but rather subsidize those who are going to school anyway. And it means the college or university gets a better guarantee of payment of fees, stable enrollment, etc. all of which feed the massive overhead we have in higher education. More beer money for college students will lead to little more than a stimulus for the local bars.
I'd prefer to see the ineffective tax cuts, like the AMT, removed because they won't lead to more spending as much as people in the middle and upper income brackets paying off their VISA debts.
One strength of the legislation is the funding of public works projects through multiple government agencies who can push the money out the door quicker than putting it all on just highway construction, for example. Billions spent in national parks will provide protection of natural resources and visitor safety improvement. Other construction programs for energy efficiency of buildings will also pay dividends long into the future.
interstices, you seem naive about the real world as it effects students. Loads of students will drop out because they can't afford college. An increase in Pell grants is incredibly cost-effective, because people with college degrees pay back many times more in increased taxes due to increased income than they used in government aid. It may not be exactly a stimulus, but it sure is an obviously good investment, in purely monetary terms, not to mention the social benefits.
If I were President I would have made it a Trillion and not divided it by category but rather by state. Fifty different allocations, one for each. Then if anyone wanted to complain about the size they could have the option of slicing their state out of the package. 100% pork spending but I guess it would get 100% approval in Congress.
Damn straight, about time education got some prioritizations. Never going to school never done me no harm.
Schools are "Pork" to the wingnuts, go figure. Anything not roads or military is pork to these pinheads. They'd like a nation of undereducated zombies feeding the prison industrial wal-mart agrobusiness combine.
How come you can't be a political adviser, instead of just a political commentator? I mean, seriously, your ideas seem so much more reasonable, logical and factually grounded than any of those jokers in actual politics.
Adam Carolla said back when Arnold won California that, if he doesn't fall completely on his face, can't we all just admit that there is NO QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED FOR POLITICS?
Well, I guess we're not that sophisticated just yet. For now, us masses will just have to read the logical ideas and do our best to vote accordingly.
Rudy said...
There was broad public support for a clean stimulus package but the ridiculous overreach into the land of pork tanked that support once the details began to emerge . . . .
There you go again, Rudy.
Specify the 'pork', please.
And guess what: it's still not going to pass in current form.
We already know that, Rudy. The bill passed by the Senate is different than the bill passed by the House, so it will go to conference. The differences will be hammered out in conference. Some give and take by the House conferees, some give and take by the Senate conferees, then we get a bill that is different than the one passed by the House, and it will be different than the one passed by the Senate.
It's elementary civics, Rudy.
This is going to look even worse in hindsight than it does now.
Why, Rudy? Most of what was cut from the stimulus package, the GOOPers were calling 'pork' (things like aid to states to repair schools [which even a majority of GOOPer governors were pleading NOT to be cut]; money to insulate and otherwise reduce energy costs in government buildings [less money spent by the government means less money in taxes, Rudy])
Now that it's become so clear that so little of the package has any stimulative effect, the sense of urgency is muted . . . .
Clear to whom, Rudy? Lush Limbaugh? He's been against it from the get go.
Bill O'Lielly? He's been against it from the get go.
The mindless bots at Faux News? They've been against it from the get go.
Such a missed opportunity to do the right thing.
And just what IS the right thing, Rudy? More tax cuts to the upper 10%? We tried that with little shrub, and look where we are now. More deregulation? We've been trying that since Ronnie Ray-gun. That resulted in the savings and loan meltdown. The FDA doesn't have enough money to protect us from the greed of people who send out peanuts that have salmonella. The big investment banks had to be bailed out, Rudy, because they got greedy when they weren't regulated. The SEC didn't investigate Enron and Madoff, so we had people's life savings ripped off by scam artists. The FERC didn't have enough investigators to see what was happening with the electrical supply in California, so Enron was able to manipulate the supply of electricity to the state, causing some rates to increase by 100% or more AFTER the state endured blackouts and brownouts. Even if the FERC WOULD have had the investigators, they didn't have regulations to stop Enron from ripping off the California customers.
So what kind of plan would YOU propose, Rudy? What do you think would stimulate the economy?
Or maybe you think like Hoover - the economy will self-regulate and adjust itself?
Mike- This beer's on me.
Whatever happened to Missy who needed her nap?
Just recently the Australian Prime Minister announced a stimulus package with a large portion going to "reinvestment" projects and a smaller amount going to short-term "recovery" projects. The reinvestment part of the package includes infrastructure funding for long-term projects such as school building repair and installing insulation in every home in the country. The recovery part of the package includes a host of one-off cash payments to low-medium income earners.
Though the political situation is slightly different to in the US, this is probably as close to a 'what-if' situation you're going to get. He is approaching selling the package very much like you're suggesting Obama could have with his...errr...package.
The reaction the Australian stimulus package is getting is mixed though from what I can tell a large percentage of the population (not just the ones getting the handouts) support it. We're one of the last countries in the world to fall in to the deep pit of recession and for some reason this makes people think we're going to get out of it sooner, go figure.
The Opposition (currently conservative) initially only rejected the cash handouts, the short-term part of the package, not the infrastructure part. Right after the details were released they in fact came out publicly in support of the largest part of the package, the long-term infrastructure. That is until they realised what they weren't being very oppositiony and decided to reject the entire thing.
So there's a bit of an insight in to what might have happened if Obama had tried to sell the stimulus as a two-layered mudcake of recovery and reinvestment rather then a shortbread cookie of short-term respite. The Republicans might have initially only rejected the one-off payment portion of the package, but probably would have eventually realised their folly and rallied to oppose the entire thing as too costly, similar to what they're doing now.
Certainly o/t, but it's late at night and this may be one of the less-discussed positive aspects of an Obama administration, for any of you fivethirtyeighters interested in such things:
White House: DEA Raids in Medical Marijuana States Will Stop
Do you have a doctrinaire right wing in Australia that is bent more on winning elections that sound governing, like here in the US, you know, one that wants to basically starve government to death until it no longer functions (to paraphrase Cheney)? You must have some shred of it, because you imported ol' Rupert over. Umm, we'd like to send him back. I seriously want the INS to start screening Aussies better. We fret far too much over people with brown skin who just want to make an honest living. Don't take that personally. G'day mate.
@ Left - Australia has compulsory voting, so that must change political strategy somewhat if not profoundly. It seems like politicians couldn't just pander to a base in such a system. Existentialist, do you have any input on that?
Holy Bongwater, Rufus!
I was just ruminating over the ol' Drug War the other day. That has got to end- and finally we have the man in the White House to do it. Just think of the revenue we will get from ending the waste of resources in fighting the drug war and- what really needs to happen besides an Internet Porn Tax:
Legalization and taxation of Cannabis AND a full-on National Guard deployment in the federal lands of California and the West that are being destroyed by violent, destructive Mexican gangs.
Marijuana (and Hemp in all its forms and uses) is probably the biggest cash crop in several states and the Feds have stuck in Cold War head-in-ass mentality over it.
Seriously, that will turn the whole childish immigration debate on its head as well. We worry about poor migrants coming up who want "steal" jobs washing dishes while well funded criminals are wreaking havoc. Absolutely ridiculous and uniquely ignorant American. Gotta change.
Remember when McCain said that Obama would rather lose the war in Iraq than lose the election? Does it seem now that some Republicans would rather see a depression than have the country move to the left?
I doubt that anyone really knows what the current efforts to bring about a recovery will do, but when I hear Sen. Shelby (and others) predicting disaster, I can't help thinking that he's rooting for some sort of apocalypse that will bring people back to the grand old fold like so many repentant prodigals.
And all during the Bush years, weren't righties making similar charges about liberals, that they'd love nothing more than to see the market crash just so Bush would look bad?
I'm not going anywhere with this. It's just a conundrum. Personally, neocons disgust me (please get Reagan's face off my screen), but there are plenty of bozos on all sides.
Taft, senator Shelby looks only his interests.
He doesn´t think about the country.
1. Obama couldn't ask for a trillion dollar stimulus, that was never on the cards. But at least it would have fastracked this bipartisanship nonsense into a ditch. And he wouldn't have to host cocktail parties for the scum.
2. Tax Cuts should not have been included in the stimulus at the beginning. That way, blue dogs would have cover in supporting a spending bill.
2. Democrats, with the exception of Barney Frank and DINO Ben Nelson, have been AWOL for the past two weeks. It's inexusable that the President has been doing the heavy lifting on this. Tonight should have been the knockout blow to any wingnut or blue dog opposition to an infrastructure/green jobs stimulus package. The American people elected OBAMA an his ecomonic ideas in november and increased majorities for Reid and Pelosi, not McCain, McConnell and Boehner. It's time the Democrats started acting on it.
4. The Stimulus better get back to what it was before the likes of Ben Nelson started picking it apart. Otherwise it'll become ineffective. You mnay as well scrap the whole thing if you're gonna throw out things that'll create jobs.
Notice how wingnuts, even now, are considered irrelevant? That's because they are. Obama has a minimum of three so-called moderate Republicans to work with. Any more than that is delusional. The fact that McCrypt Keeper has reverted back to douchebag campaign mode effectively puts the idea of bipartisanship to rest. I can't believe Obama honored this half-wit.
Well, it's kind of a reversal of your earlier positions, Nate.
1) Obama should have asked for more money vs. The Price is Right Strategy
2) I wish we had 60 votes so we didn't have to compromise with the GOP vs 58/59 votes are better than 60.
Hmmmm....
We haven't hit bottom yet
The stimulus plan wasn't very good in the first place (too much useless, if not counterproductive, tax cuts), and was successfully worsened by those "centrists", because a working majority of the people and their representatives has yet to accept the fact that business as usual isn't working. We're going to have to hit bottom, more real-world consequences of business as usual will have to accumulate, before we have the moment of national clarity that will allow us to start on the road to recovery.
I wouldn't disagree that perhaps the tactics might have been better, resulting in a marginally better plan passing. But the fact that even the at best tepid original proposal gave rise to the completely clueless public discussion that followed, the fact that the "centrists" felt that the rationales stated for their obstructionism would help their case in the court of public opinion, is clear proof that public opnion just isn't where it needs to be yet for the sustained effort we will need to rebuild our economy along sustainable lines.
To put it in terms of historical analogy: Obama was never going to have his hundred days right after taking office, like FDR, because 2009 is not like 1932. It's more like we're still at the beginning of 1930. We've had our nasty shock, but too many of us still think that it's no different in kind from the usual business cycle downturns. We haven't yet had three years of Hoover floundering with the usual remedies while things just got steadily worse, to convince us that this crisis needs to be met with something other than business as usual.
History is at best an imperfect template for current events. No iron law says it will take three years of floundering, or that the incumbent president during that interval of floundering will get the blame from the electorate. Nothing keeps us from having the moment of national clarity earlier rather than later in the process of reality handing out hard knocks for continuing with business as usual. Having someone in the WH who is likely to acknowledge reality sooner rather than later is likely to help us out enormously compared to the 1930-1932 experience.
But it's also true that the historical analogy doesn't give us a guarantee that things will turn out even as well as they finally did with the Great Depression. If the other side, with its track record of both the willingness to exploit fear, and skill at doing so, gets ahead of the tidal wave of popular discontent that is building, and will get worse as we get closer to hitting bottom, we could have a national socialst, or state socialist, outcome, rather than the social democratic outcome we had to the Great Depression. Nations, like indivduals, can both learn from suffering the consequences of their mistakes, or they can simply be brutalized into even worse choices.
Getting Obama elected was the easy part. The real job starts now.
That Reagan Photo Creeps Me Out. Try This One Instead
Unfortunately, this stimulus bill won't be a feather in President Obama's cap.
To use an analogy from the Civil War: he won the election, but the Republicans (helped by undisciplined Democrats) are winning his term. In light of decades of Republican obstructionism, Mr. Obama needs to put the country before a false sense of bipartisanship.
If this process will continues, public support and confidence in Mr. Obama's leadership will quickly erode, Democrats will loose their majority (and with it the mandate for change) and Mr. Obama will end up a lame duck like Mr. Bush.
I hope the White House has learned its lesson from this episode. Bipartisanship will be a pipe dream if they continue this approach. Obama needs to direct the narrative and remain firm with the GOP. It is obvious the GOP was simply using this for political game without any regard for the real crisis facing people. Why wasn't the stimulus drafted by the White House? Letting congress write it assures some malformed freak creation. The WH should have controlled this whole process like they did their campaign.
Glen,
Thanks for your comment. It gave me some perspective on the current political situation that I had not thought about before. My current recent unemployment and the tough job market hones my discontent with the current political process and sharpens my concern about our sliding economy.
We seem to have folks in leadership that are completely out of touch with the reality that most of the people deal with every day. Read Frank Rich's column from last Sunday's NYT for insight into this phenomena. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08rich.html
What about the possibility that Obama DID ask for more than he wanted?
I think there were only so many things that could be funded quickly, maybe $400 BB worth. Obama added on $300 BB of tax cuts to get his $400 BB. The House added on $200 BB of additional spending. The Senate cut $100 BB.
Obama is getting what he wanted. The Left has been acting very strangely. Show me one post from anyone in October that said we needed a $800 BB stimulus.
We can spend another $800 BB next year, if the economy needs it.
My only question is whether TARP funds could be given to States on an "emergency" basis.
Nate, I don't quite follow where you're coming from here. Much of what the Senate cut _was_ well-spent and short-term - most notably aid for state governments, to prevent layoffs and service cuts. Education was also a major target for cuts even though you say it is "quite popular." That and clean energy spending were both attacked because "we haven't thought this through" or "we can't put more money into programs that aren't working now," etc.
My own second-guess would be that Obama should have asked for an all-spending package with 50% more than he wanted on every line item... then let the Repubs replace some of that spending with tax cuts and feel like they "won" something.
Obama also could have gone out and explained to the public why deficit spending is okay right now and why the stimulus has to come from the demand side, not the supply side. The language of the "free market" and "letting people decide how to spend their own money" is such a mantra in this country that many folks believe it without really understanding when it does and doesn't apply. Obama was pretty good at this sort of thing on the campaign trail; he could have done it here too.
President Obama reached out to the Republican Extremists, who stuck their knives in his back at the first opportunity. The House Republicans are playing to the voters in THEIR districts. They get re-elected by mocking the president and telling voters "I stood up to him and his libral friends."
The president may indeed get the stimulus package he wanted, or most of it, but there are two parts missing.
The first is the loss of good projects that are proven to inject money into the economy. They were lost because of politics, like removing Food Stamp and low-income health care. People that use these services pretty much spend them as soon as they get them. They have a huge multiplier effect compared to tax cuts. What was added as a sop to bipartisanship? Make sure we keep the Alternative Minimum Tax adjustment for rich people while pissing on people down on their luck.
The second is the loss of the narrative. The basics of what President Obama should be saying are: "I reached out to conservatives, and they did not shake my hand. I asked them for solutions and they gave me political philosophy. I looked for seriousness and I got mocked. We have heard how things should be done FROM THE VERY PEOPLE THAT GOT US IN THIS MESS. And they only can offer more of the same, with the same slogans and tired talking points. We need change we can believe in. I will lead us out of this mess with or without them." Then, schedule a series of speeches in their states and call them out on their lies.
Spot on analysis, as always.
As we head into the final stages of the debate, I'm so glad the President is standing strong against the economic ignorance and political games of the Republicans. We need investment in jobs and infrastructure, NOW- not tax cuts. Making dumb choices in the name of "bipartisanship" does not make sense, and I think Obama, having given it a good try, now realizes the Republicans are unable or unwilling to put country ahead of party.
As for the Senate "compromise" proposal -- among other cuts, the state stabilization funding and the school construction funding that the "centrists" cut from the bill would be immediately, strongly stimulative to local economies- allowing school districts across the country to both save and create thousands of teaching and construction jobs, right now. These cuts must be restored in the final version.
Also, the wasteful and non-stimulative tax cuts that the Senate "centrists" put in should be removed. Tax cuts don't work. We need investment in jobs and infrastructure, not more tax cuts. I hope the President and the D's in Congress stand strong and take the additional tax cuts out.
I think Obama, having given it a good try, now realizes the Republicans are unable or unwilling to put country ahead of party.
I'd wager that you objected to this bogus argument when Republicans tried it in the run-up to the Iraq War, so why trot it out now? Is it so hard to believe that Republicans have a difference of opinion?
I do think they're wrong, though. While I'm generally in favor of tax cuts, if the purpose of the bill is short-term stimulus, the old "paying people to dig up bottles of money" is probably more effective in that horizon.
Okay, forgive me, I'm missing something obvious.
But why does the stimulus bill have to be ONE bill?
We're been talking about a single bill of roughly $800 billion and there's lots of disagreement on the spending.
But isn't there a lot of agreement as well? If there is one- or two- or three-hundred billion dollars in spending about which there is little or no disagreement, why can't that be packaged up in a first phase bill and be passed, say, tomorrow?
The benefits from that spending could accrue even as the Hatfields and McCoys continue to argue about what they always argue about.
As I said at the top, I must be missing something. Surely someone thought of this.
A little help, please. Thanks.
98th!
ANYONE can be first
That's true loomis, but whoever is 100th will be more impressive
hello,hello,After the site to send shoes to Bush, here is a site that allows you to kiss to Obama.
http://www.kisspresident.com/
French TV talking about the new games to make Obama a kiss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywXxS92qAmM
ugg shoes
ugg boots
ugg
ugg sale
fake ugg
ugg store
ugg discount
men's ugg
womens ugg
buy ugg boots
ugg cardy
replica ugg
cheap ugg
ugg classic
Ugg Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
Ugg Gypsy Sandal
Ugg Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Locarno
Ugg Matala Sandal
Ugg Napoule Sandal
UGG New style
UGG Nightfall
Ugg Persephone Sandal
Ugg Skimmer
UGG Sundance
Ugg Tasmina
UGG Ultra Short
UGG Ultra Tall
UGG Women's Coquette
UGG Women's Knightsbridg
UGG Women's Mayfaire
Post a Comment