NOT A MISPRINT: OBAMA SEEKS CUTS OF 100 MILLION TO CURB DEFICIT
If this were April 1, I might be inclined to think it a media joke. Or that the White House press office is pulling our leg.
But it is not and it makes me worry for the sanity of President Obama that he could actually believe that cutting 1/3,700 of the federal budget will make a dent in the $1.75 (at least) TRILLION debt he’s running up this year.
And the way the Obamapress is reporting this is hysterically funny - as if he is actually trying to cut the deficit. Here’s one of the major Obama rags in the country, the LA Times:
President Obama, whose healthcare and economic stimulus initiatives threaten to dramatically inflate the federal budget deficit, heralded a new push Saturday to cut wasteful spending in Washington.The president said that in coming weeks he would announce the elimination of “dozens of government programs.” And he said he would ask his Cabinet secretaries on Monday for specific proposals to slash their departments’ budgets, promising there would be “no sacred cows and no pet projects.”
The president singled out a move by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to end consulting contracts to create seals and logos that he said had cost the department $3 million since 2003.
In case you are unaware, it wouldn’t surprise me if DHS spends $3 million on exercise bikes for higher grade bureaucrats. They may spend that much on Kleenex for DHS offices. Hell, they might spend $3 mill on Napolitano’s dog biscuits - for her dog, of course.
And by the way, just what the hell was DHS doing spending millions of dollars on logos anyway? I know everyone in America wants a DHS T-shirt ’cause they’re so kewl but can’t they settle for a coffee mug with the Homeland Security seal on it?
Economist Greg Mankiw can’t believe it either:
To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.
Is the president that out of touch that he doesn’t know there are far riper trees to prune if he wants to go after government waste? The Pentagon always has a lot of bloat as do entitlement programs. Don’t need a pair of pruning shears there, an ax will do just fine. Just keep hacking away until someone starts screaming - and then hack some more.
And aren’t you proud of our president who is seeking to eliminate “dozens of programs” from the budget? There may be thousands of programs that could safely be eliminated from corporate welfare to to some of the grants that are going to groups like ACORN, Operation PUSH, and other stick-up operations. Either Obama doesn’t have much of an imagination or he is making all the jokes about liberals never being able to cut the budget for fear of offending an interest group. To be sure, the American Society of Logo and Seal Designers will no doubt be up in arms over the DHS cuts. But then, they didn’t contribute to his campaign so Obama could care less what they think.
Energy, Transportation, HHS, Commerce, Education - the whole jiggling, fat laden, porky pig of a budget could stand a once over by those Department secretaries. Instead, what will be cut won’t even count as being superficial. More like a bad PR joke or Obama’s idea of responsible government - which, when you think about it, is pretty much the same thing.
Talking trillions and cutting billions would at least be in the ballpark. But saving $100 million dollars out of a budget of $3.6 trillion is a slap in the face to the taxpayer - a cynical public relations blitz. I hope it is not indicative of the way the president will approach deficit cutting in the future.
At the rate he’s going, the sun will burn out before the deficit is reduced to a manageable level.
In other news, after an exhaustive diet I’ve lost two ounces. All better now!
Yeah, this is silly.
Comment by michael reynolds — 4/20/2009 @ 12:03 pm
You do nothing here but show your hatred of Obama.
What is God’s name is wrong with cutting 100 million of waste?
Geez.
You’re kidding, right? Let’s see if I can make it simple for the simple minded.
2009 deficit: $1.75 TRILLION
Obama makes big deal about getting the cabinet together (why the cabinet meeting? Why not text them or call them old fashioned wise on the telephone?) to cut 1/37,000 of the budget.
Get your head out of the president’s ass and look at reality.
ed.
Comment by jharp — 4/20/2009 @ 12:10 pm
This is IDENTICAL to the tire gauge BS from last year. Where did O say that this was his one and only plan to eliminate the deficit?
Yes, your “O” no doubt has other plans to cut the deficit. But to make a big deal - and they did make a big deal about this - about cutting 1/37,000 of the budget is ludicrous. You are so far in the tank for the guy that he you probably believe he shits marigolds.
ed.
Comment by yazi — 4/20/2009 @ 1:14 pm
Get your head out of the president’s ass and look at reality.
ed.
Get over your hatred of Obama.
A hundred million wasted is bad. Obama ended it. That’s good.
Comment by jharp — 4/20/2009 @ 1:39 pm
It is a PR stunt, I think. If this is to counter any bad publicity from the Tea Parties (if any), Obama’s damned fine message machine really has broken down.
Comment by jackson1234 — 4/20/2009 @ 1:51 pm
Would it be paranoid of me to assume that the bulk of that $100 million will just coincidentally come from programs that were put in place between 1/20/01 and 1/19/09?
Comment by Junk Science Skeptic — 4/20/2009 @ 1:58 pm
“Would it be paranoid of me to assume that the bulk of that $100 million will just coincidentally come from programs that were put in place between 1/20/01 and 1/19/09?”
And might I asked what makes the difference?
Wasteful spending is wasteful spending. It doesn’t matter what time period it originates.
Geez. You guys and your hatred of Obama is ridiculous. Why not find something worthwhile to whine about? Like his position on warrantless wiretaps. Or his reluctance to prosecute torturers.
Comment by jharp — 4/20/2009 @ 2:15 pm
Talking trillions and cutting billions would at least be in the ballpark. But saving $100 million dollars out of a budget of $3.6 trillion is a slap in the face to the taxpayer - a cynical public relations blitz.
When you consider he was left with a 1.3 trillion deficit for 09 from Bush. Plus a dead economy with a drastic drop of spending for a consumer economy, and Banks with Credit Default Swaps loaded with toxic assets threatening to destroy the world economy, I think he has been fairly thrifty. The TARP money is starting to paid back, and banks are showing some life.
I think what right wingers are mad about is the lions share of the stimulus going to research for future industries with new money for new markets and a new economy down the road that might just save our bacon for the long haul. Such gestures of substance make the old money blue bloods nervous, which makes their GOP servants nervous.
Holy Christ! Are you listening to yourself? “Fairly thrifty?” Your idea of “thrift” is appalling. $100 million is less than nothing, it is worse than nothing. It is a joke. And what makes it worse is that Obama’s people are hyping this as “action” on the deficit!
A trillion is one thousand billions. That’s 1,750 billion for the deficit. You see nothing amusing or heartbreaking that our president feels he is “taking action” on cutting the deficit by slashing such a teeny tiny portion of that?
He pulls a PR stunt of gathering the cabinet together - for the first time, mind you - and then expects people to be impressed by it?
And what does Bush have to do with anything? This is Obama making a fool of himself, not Bush. The only people who are defending this are Obamabots like you who are so blinded with partisan hackery that you can’t see when your man goofs. Or maybe he’s thinking there are enough fools out there who will think this a great step forward in deficit reduction.
ed.
Comment by Mr. Stuck — 4/20/2009 @ 2:49 pm
So Obama has decided to start with the obvious reductions, and will then go on from there, much the same way I asked my family to come up with what we could cut in spending. After I let them maul it over for a day and make choices, I then came back and asked what else we could afford to do with out.
You get rid of the easy stuff first, and then you start going for the harder stuff.
Yes, I know, you disagree.
Comment by KenGirard — 4/20/2009 @ 3:19 pm
“Yes, I know, you disagree.”
How could anyone in their right mind disagree with cutting $100 million in wasteful spending?
The wingnuts are getting desperate and can’t tell the difference of what they are for or what they are against.
And in this case angry because Obama might look good over this.
Comment by jharp — 4/20/2009 @ 3:42 pm
I can’t decide which is funnier. Obama thinking this makes him look like a serious deficit hawk, or his breathless admirers cheering him on.
I actually thought it was 100 Billion given the OMG! style of reporting. When I heard 100 million I couldn’t stop laughing.
Comment by Allen — 4/20/2009 @ 3:45 pm
jharp said - Why not find something worthwhile to whine about? Like his position on warrantless wiretaps.
Do you even know what a wiretap is? As opposed to a pen register or a trap and trace?
I presume you do not but in the off chance that you do, when and where was anyone ever accused of “warrantless wiretapping” except by demagogues and media shills?
You purport to have knowledge of a classified program that no one else has?
Comment by geeyore — 4/20/2009 @ 3:50 pm
“Obama thinking this makes him look like a serious deficit hawk”
So now you can tell what Obama is thinking.
Or are you just another wingnut making shit up?
Obama cut a $100 million in waste. That’s all there is to it. And only God knows why anyone would object to it.
Comment by jharp — 4/20/2009 @ 4:19 pm
“Do you even know what a wiretap is? As opposed to a pen register or a trap and trace?
Yes. I also know that you used to require a warrant as per the 4th amendment.
“when and where was anyone ever accused of “warrantless wiretapping” except by demagogues and media shills?”
The Democratic-controlled Senate handed President Bush a major political victory on Wednesday, July 9, by voting to derail lawsuits against telecommunications companies that unlawfully opened their networks to the National Security Agency.
But no. There were no unlawful wiretaps in wingnuttia.
Comment by jharp — 4/20/2009 @ 4:23 pm
jharp…..stop drooling on the keypad. BTW, mom says it’s time for dinner.
Comment by Ad rem — 4/20/2009 @ 5:37 pm
So Rick, 100 million is just chump change? Its small, but its a start. Or are you just looking for something to attack Obama over? Constant negative attacks from conservatives just hurts their cause. People want new ideas not just Limbaughesque partisanship. All conservatism is doing is isolating themselves. Your side is like the little boy who crys wolf all the time, people eventually just tune you out, even if you have a legitimate gripe. My sense is your side is just flailing around, not knowing which way to turn, lashing out at anything. Get some ideas, instead of constant whining!
Comment by Joe — 4/20/2009 @ 6:28 pm
“Yes, your “O” no doubt has other plans to cut the deficit. But to make a big deal - and they did make a big deal about this - about cutting 1/37,000 of the budget is ludicrous. You are so far in the tank for the guy that he you probably believe he shits marigolds.
ed.”
Nice. You presume to know a lot about me because I used shorthand (not unlike my use of W) in a blog comment.
But to your point: okay, maybe he made too big of a deal of it. It seemed to me he used words like “drop in the bucket” and “symbolic,” which seemed like good qualifications on this move. But let’s assume that you’re right and it is just an empty PR stunt — that seems like a legitimate, substantive complaint. But YOUR post was all about how this is such a ludicrously small portion of the deficit and how could anyone think that this is meaningful. So I say again, if he’s not claiming that it’s the sum total of his plan, you can’t really fault him for saying that.
As others have pointed out, you show your irrational hatred when you walk right past the legit critique straight to the slightly unhinged one.
Comment by yazi — 4/20/2009 @ 6:46 pm
“President Obama has announced an additional $37 per month will be sliced from the budget through bulk purchases of dog food!”
Sure, there’s nothing wrong in principal with cutting $100 million from a bloated budget, but to claim it as some kind of grand victory is ridiculous given the scale of the budget. If he were truly interested in cutting “waste” from the budget, there’d be a LOT bigger price tag associated with the cuts. That seems to be the point of this piece and what many of you appear to be missing.
Comment by sota — 4/20/2009 @ 7:25 pm
He pulls a PR stunt of gathering the cabinet together - for the first time, mind you - and then expects people to be impressed by it?
Of course it’s a stunt. I didn’t even address it in my comment. It is a stunt that worked, baiting you wingnuts into mouth breathing outrage over nothing. Doesn’t the faux outrage all day every day get tiresome. I Know it does listening to it. And of course it is about Bush in the sense of the right cheerleading his crap for six to 8 years until the public turned on him and you, and now you never heard of the guy and your all principled conservatives again, overnight. Calling out hypocracy is always a valid debating point, when it applies.
And saying “fairly thrifty” was my snarkish baiting of you, and it worked. Nobody is comfortable with the deficit size, but is arguably necessary, considering what would happen if say AIG failed, or any of the big banks. And the rest is an investment gamble for the long haul as I said. It should have been funded all along in smaller bits, but the right has been fighting tooth and nail to keep us stuck in the past.
Comment by Mr. Stuck — 4/20/2009 @ 9:04 pm
I’m recalling earlier discussions about the stimulus package and how any job was worth it the spending was “worth it”. Now I hear that amount of cuts is “worth it”. What appears to be missing are BASIC MATH SKILLS.
If George Bush had said in 2007 “we’re reducing the number of troops in Iraq from 162,000 by 50 would there not have been a loud protest regarding such meaningless reduction in troops?
Comment by c3 — 4/20/2009 @ 9:05 pm
Gotta agree with you this time Rick. When I first heard about this, I assumes that Obama meant 100 Billion dollars, then when it became clear that it was millions, I thought he meant from each cabinet division. This 100 million in total cuts is just a dumb idea. Haven’t heard anything this dumb from him since the fake presidential seal back in June.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 4/20/2009 @ 9:26 pm
ABC’s Tapper and an AP reporter thumped Gibbs pretty hard on this- good job.
I love the bit about the DHS “buying office supplies in bulk” to save money.
Does the President think that the Secretary’s job includes a run down to Staples every other day to pick up some toner, a pencil sharpener, and a pack of assorted Sharpies?
Re: DHS new logo search-
http://Www.ThePeoplesCube.com has a good “Dept. of Homeland Scrutiny” logo that they could use.
Comment by Terry_Jim — 4/20/2009 @ 9:27 pm
Pretty bad when the in-the-bag Obama lovers at MSNBC pretty much echo Rick’s sentiments about the utter insignificance of measely $100 million cut in spending. They note that amount is about equal to the DAILY interest we are paying for Obama’s bloated stimulus bill. Better yet, they get 90 days to make there recommendations, so by that time I have no doubt whatsoever that some new spending boondaggle will have been proposed and passed … the upcoming cap and trade fiasco now that CO2 has been declared a pollutant comes to mind. I can see it now … A prime-time press conference with the TOTUS to announce his ‘ground-breaking’ $100 million in savings, while in the background the idiots in Congress pass some ‘climate change’ legislation that will cost us trillions of dollars and millions of jobs.
Comment by Michael S. — 4/20/2009 @ 9:30 pm
“A hundred million wasted is bad. Obama ended it. That’s good.”
Obama has wasted HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS. That’s BAD.
THEY JUST ADDED $800 BILLION in STIMULUS in Feb, $1,000 BILLION IN TARP III in March, $80 BILLION in S-CHIP EXPANSION in January AND $430 BILLION FOR THIS YEAR’S DISCRETIONARY SPENDING in March ($40 billion above what Bush was willing to spend). Oh, and an Obama budget that is almost $3 TRILLION ABOVE BASELINE, with almost a trillion for socializing medicine, and hundreds of billions in added energy taxes.
Lets do the numbers: $800 billion + $1,000 billion + $80 billion + $430 billion = $2,330 billion
So he added $2,330 billion in the last 80 days - $25 BILLION A DAY!!!
The .1 billion is a chump-change drop in the bucket. Obama could have saves 1,0000 TIMES this amount by simply not signing the wasteful extravagant bills he did. He could have controlled the earmarks that ran into the billions. He did not. He could have said ‘no’ to jacking up discretionary spending by double digits. He did not. He did the binge spending thing to pass his Big Govt expansion and now he does the token BS PR thing to create some useless talking points from his moron-robot followers.
Obama is peeing down our backs and telling us its raining and now he makes it up with a desultory insulting savings of less than a $1 a person - IN A BUDGET THAT WILL ADD $40,000 IN DEBT FOR EACH FAMILY IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS!
it’s like an obese binge dieter announcing, between scarfing down BBQ ribs and an entire fried chicken, that they are now on a diet, where every third softdrink they consume will be a diet one.
And yes, the skeptic asking if it just so happens to be programs added under Bush, yep, that’s the plan exactly …. The Democrats in Congress saved a whopping $10 million ($10 million!!) killing off the DC Scholarship program; school choice is a No-No for Obama, who sends his own kids to private schools but has now condemned hundreds of kids who were benefitting from this small program, to substandard overly expensive public schooling in DC. It will save zero dollars net, since charter and private schools are cheaper (yet more effective) than DC public schools. But the NEA and liberal special interests must be obeyed!
This PR stunt fools nobody who can count - $100 million is pitiful. $100 BILLION could be saved from the $3,600 billion budget with ease. Or just look at Rep Paul Ryan’s budget that goes trillions below Obama’s baseline. Obama benefits from the adoring morons who can count and have no sense of proportion. And they willingly lap up garbage, crap and lies. I really pity their small minds and innumeracy, but its a hell of a stupid way to run a country.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/20/2009 @ 9:37 pm
$100 Million. What’s he going to do, quit eating $100 dollar per pound steak and feeding it to a gang of animals at his rock parties every night he chooses to stay in the white (still I think) house. If you made a one cent mistake in your income taxes over a period of 10 years you had better get the Lame Stream Media on it, front page news.
Comment by Scrapiron — 4/20/2009 @ 9:42 pm
“When you consider he was left with a 1.3 trillion deficit for 09 from Bush.”
This is FALSE.
The Democrats have been running the Congress since January 2007. Democrats have written the budgets for 2 years now. The Democrat budget for 2009 was never completed on time because Bush refused to sign on to the high level of spending that that Pelosi Democrat Congress wanted. So the Democrats passed only half a year of appropriations, then waited until Obama became President to get a bulked up, porked up, super-duper earmarked big-spending bill which added to the spending and deficit.
Which Obama signed.
Obama also demanded a Trillion dollar spending boondoggle bill, that was stuffed with pork, as a so-called ’stimulus’ bill. Obama also demanded another $350 billion in TARP money, the bailout bill the Democrat Congress passed and which Obama supported throughout. These Democrat Congress-Obama bills have added hundreds of billions to the 2009 duget deficit… Actually about $1 trillion.
The Pelosi/Reid Democratic Majority Congress and Obama created this years deficit and are 100% behind everything in the budget that they wrote and they support. They ‘inherited’ nothing but their own creation.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/20/2009 @ 9:43 pm
$100 million equals one small spit in the ocean of what he’s already spent.
Comment by Scrapiron — 4/20/2009 @ 9:44 pm
Politics as usual. This is the typical lip service provided by disingenuous politicians we hear every day. I have heard this silly talk from politicians my entire adult life and not just from Democrats.
On the other hand, maybe the TEA PARTIERS have made a difference. After all, the longest journey starts with a single step.
To put it into perspective (Thanks G. Mankiw), would anyone here be willing to accept 1oo MILLION dollars were it offered?
Comment by bsjones — 4/20/2009 @ 9:44 pm
“They note that amount is about equal to the DAILY interest we are paying for Obama’s bloated stimulus bill. Better yet, they get 90 days to make there recommendations, so by that time I have no doubt whatsoever that some new spending boondaggle will have been proposed and passed”
Right. by the time they act on it, the fiscal year is gone.
Pelosi and Company just ADDED $40 billion on top of what they needed to spend in the discretionary spending account. And what’s worse? Senator Hutchison (R-TX) noticed that there were billions in *double-spending*, where the appropriations were in both the stimulus bill and the 2nd-half-year appropriations. So she made a very reasonable amendment to the appropriations bill to gut the double-counting and save billions. What did the Democrat majority do? Vote it down!
So Mr President, there’s your billions in waste and duplication right there! Billions of it!
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/20/2009 @ 9:49 pm
Travis Monitor,
You are right. Now that I think about it clearly, I finally see it! Republicans are the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility, while Democrats grow the size of government (to increase their power and enslave us) while ballooning the deficit.
Come to think of it, I should have known this all along. Morning Joe and Neal Cavuto have said this at least a thousand times each.
It’s a truly easy to understand narrative. The stuff of children’s books.
I just need to be re reminded every now and then.
Comment by bsjones — 4/20/2009 @ 9:52 pm
“To put it into perspective (Thanks G. Mankiw), would anyone here be willing to accept 1oo MILLION dollars were it offered?”
Of course we would… but let’s put it in perspective this way.
If your boss pulled you aside and said “Great News! You’ve Got a Raise!” and he shows you the raise amount - a whopping 100 cents per year… will you pleased or ready to punch out the boss for yanking your chain?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/20/2009 @ 9:52 pm
“Republicans are the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility, while Democrats grow the size of government (to increase their power and enslave us) while ballooning the deficit.”
I wasn’t talking about Republicans and didnt state that at all. Nice mind-reading trick that. Knock that strawman outta the park.
Last I checked the Republicans have near zero power in DC right now, havent had the power to write budgets since 2006, and are outvoted by near filibuster-proof Senate, so are irrelevent in any case. The Democrats own the whole ball of wax right now.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/20/2009 @ 10:03 pm
The Pelosi/Reid Democratic Majority Congress and Obama created this years deficit and are 100% behind everything in the budget that they wrote and they support. They ‘inherited’ nothing but their own creation.
You can parse all day who is more responsible for spending, the president or congress. The 800 billion Of TARP was proposed by Bush with the caveat that if you don’t pass this by tomorrow, the economy will die. It wasn’t a dem idea and they like the rest of us didn’t even know things were that bad. So yea, I lay that 800 bill on Bush along with the already circa 500 bill deficit = 1.3 Trillion. And I also agree that has likely save us from a crushing depression. You don’t agree, so be it.
Comment by Mr. Stuck — 4/20/2009 @ 10:13 pm
Travis Monitor said: “Last I checked the Republicans have near zero power in DC right now, havent had the power to write budgets since 2006, and are outvoted by near filibuster-proof Senate, so are irrelevent in any case.”
Funny how “just enough” Republicans always find a way to cross the aisle, thus ensuring the passage of the wildly unpopular bailouts, giveaways, and government secured loans to the titans of Wall Street. Still, what’s a faithful Small Government Conservative Republican gonna do?
Comment by bsjones — 4/20/2009 @ 10:26 pm
“Pelosi/Reid Democratic Majority Congress and Obama created this years deficit and are 100% behind everything in the budget that they wrote and they support. They ‘inherited’ nothing but their own creation.”
“You can parse all day who is more responsible for spending, the president or congress.”
Nothing to parse, just stating obvious facts. Congress writes budgets and Presidents sign them. Within his first two weeks in office, Obama signed off on a huge spending increase, expanding S-CHIP to people who make more than median income, that will add over $80 billion to spending. Bush vetoed that spending as too high. Bush also didnt want to spend over $390 billion in appropriations, so Pelosi and crew waited until Obama was in office to pass the rest of 2009 approriations. Obama signed off on $800 billion in new stimulus/porkulus spending.
“The 800 billion Of TARP was proposed by Bush with the caveat that if you don’t pass this by tomorrow, the economy will die.”
Actually it was Paulson. Was he right or wrong?
“It wasn’t a dem idea”
The bill was written by Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and it was passed by a Democrat Congress with more Democrat votes than Republican votes. Obama supported it. What a statement of political cowardice for the Democrats to not stand behind something they wrote and passed into law!
“and they like the rest of us didn’t even know things were that bad.”
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank misled the Congress?!?
You might not be to blame for ignorance in thiese bill, but any Congress-critter who voted AYE yet claims werent aware of the ‘bad stuff’ should be booted out of office. That’s pure incompetence! Of course, the House acted disgracefully on the Stimulus Bill when they brought it out of committee and forced a vote on it in less than 24 hours, so NO member of Congress could even read that monster bill. But pleading ignorance on a bill you say yes to is another act of political cowardice.
” So yea, I lay that 800 bill on Bush”
Nitpick: Obama asked for the second $350 billion. So it should be only $350b on Bush.
That still leaves: TARP III for $1,000 billion, $800 billion pork-barrel spending ’stimulus’, $430 billion in appropriations, and SCHIP expansion … AND … Obama’s plan to add $10 TRILLION to our debt in the next 8 years, effectively tripling the public debt burden as scored by CBO.
You’d think if he really cared a whit about controlling spending, he wouldnt have signed off on the biggest spending bills in US history in his first months in office.
” along with the already circa 500 bill deficit = 1.3 Trillion.”
Not to get Bush off the hook, but 100% of this has been budgetted and appropriated by Democrat-majority Congress. You can co-blame Bush, but you cant say Democrats ‘inherited’ something *they* created as well … Reality check: It’s a Bush/Pelosi/Reid/Obama creation.
” And I also agree that has likely save us from a crushing depression. You don’t agree, so be it.”
Claims that Govt action were needed to save off ‘crushing depression’ were fearmongering claims designed to scare people like you into accepting unacceptable govt action. I am sorry you were bamboozled. I was for a time too. We were told in October the TARP was needed to save the stock market and fend off a recession. What woke me up was the fall in the stock market after the passage of TARP, then the change of plans, then the rocking of the market every time Paulson or Obama flapped their gums. We have a much lower stock market and recession to boot, anyway. The fact is that most of this deficit has nothing to do with AIG and more to do with generally out-of-control spending.
Deficit govt spending to pump the economy is a shell game to massively borrow from credit markets on the false assumption that the issue is lack of money. It isnt and thus it doesnt really work (see Rational expectations economics). The issue is lack of confidence and strong credit-worthy investment opptys. Confidence is shaken not helped by the uncertainties of govt interventions into markets. It’s expensive and often counterproductive.
Meanwhile CBO scored the Obama ’stimulus’ as causing LOWER ECONOMIC GROWTH in the overall 10-year period. Its not a long-term stimulus, but a short-term pick-me-up with a hangover later. It will work as well as Japan’s failed keynesian experiments in the 1990s.
All in all, the Democrat-Obama budget plans are adding massively to US debt while doing nothing to help the economy. On the contrary, they are hurting the economy and are making us poorer in the short and long run.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/20/2009 @ 10:58 pm
You can co-blame Bush, but you cant say Democrats ‘inherited’ something *they* created as well … Reality check: It’s a Bush/Pelosi/Reid/Obama creation.
Whatever.
All in all, the Democrat-Obama budget plans are adding massively to US debt while doing nothing to help the economy. On the contrary, they are hurting the economy and are making us poorer in the short and long run.
A little early to declare failure, I think. And the economy is doing better, by still breathing if nothing else. Republicans have by and large had their way on economic matters for the past 14 years and really since 1980. Their policies have led us to this point and it is way too soon to know if Obama and dems will fix the mess you folks left behind. Banks are now turning a profit and the stock market has made an historic rally. Even some of the TARP is being paid off. It will largely depend on just how worthless, or not, the alleged toxic assets are within the credit default swaps.
Comment by Mr. Stuck — 4/20/2009 @ 11:11 pm
Sorry, but this is just hogwash and right wing talking points. You don’t know what your talking about. I was flat out against TARP at first, but have taken the time to learn more about what is going on. You should do the same.
If AIG had failed, we would have had a national and worldwide catastrophe. Millions of Americans would have lost their retirement and savings that were wrapped up in the CDS’s that were gambled on and insured by AIG and others.
Comment by Mr. Stuck — 4/20/2009 @ 11:16 pm
If we can get people asking the wrong questions, there is no need to waorry about the answers….
Comment by bsjones — 4/20/2009 @ 11:47 pm
Tuesday morning links…
It’s been cold, rain and stormy, noisy wind here. "Feels like 34," weatherman said yesterday. We are eager for some global warming - solar, anthropogenic, cow farted, or otherwise.
A new book of Mark Twain’s unpublished work. One…
Trackback by Maggie's Farm — 4/21/2009 @ 3:44 am
Obama is hoping our public school indoctrination is working. After all, it’s really hard to think.
Comment by Foxwood — 4/21/2009 @ 1:55 pm
Travis:
It never fails. The GOP is never to blame.
Here’s how it works:
1) The years immediately following a Democratic president are the fault of the Democrats.
2) The years immediately following a Republican president are the fault of Democrats.
3) The years in the middle? The fault of Democrats.
4) When the GOP has both the White House and the Congress it’s the fault of the Democrats for having any vote at all.
5) If the Democratic party ceased to exist it would still be the fault of the Democrats because of the media.
Conclusion: It is never, ever the fault of Republicans. Because, after all, they are the party of restraint and responsibility.
Comment by michael reynolds — 4/21/2009 @ 5:54 pm
“All in all, the Democrat-Obama budget plans are adding massively to US debt while doing nothing to help the economy. On the contrary, they are hurting the economy and are making us poorer in the short and long run.”
“A little early to declare failure, I think.”
The Obama/Pelosi/Reid Democrat economic plans are to:
1. Add taxes in a recession (cap-and-trade, hike in top rates, smokers taxed, etc.) - something Hoover did, plus
2. Embark on massive keynesian-style deficits, combined with Govt propping up the banking sector; the same failed keynesians formula Japan tried in the 1990s. They had near 0% net growth for 10 years.
Those who dont learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/21/2009 @ 8:44 pm
“If AIG had failed, we would have had a national and worldwide catastrophe. Millions of Americans would have lost their retirement and savings that were wrapped up in the CDS’s that were gambled on and insured by AIG and others.”
ROFLMAO. First, AIG was saved prior to TARP. Second, AIG *has* failed in the sense that stockholders are practically wiped out and the company is now a ward of the state. Third, the whole Paulson “You must do X or the world will collapse” missed the BIGGEST OBJECTION: There were a number of alternatives that in the end were superior to the TARP bill; the conservative Republicans pointed out how to add insurance backing for assets at much lower cost; liberals and FDIC chair piped up about expanding FDIC insurance. Wrt to AIG, there too it is false to assume a bailout is the only way to save the global CDS market: You neglect the difference between Ch11 and Ch7. CDS counterparty protection could have been given protection in a pre-pack BK with the Fed backing that up.
“I was flat out against TARP at first, but have taken the time to learn more about what is going on. ”
Well, I went the other way. Ultimately the claim that TARP was vitally needed is simply refuted by the track record: It didnt do what it was sold as being needed for, and it didnt solve the problem at hand. the Congress voted for a TARP that would buy up toxic assets. Remember? Guess what? The week after TARP was passed the stock market fell 18% in one week. A vote of no confidence. Two weeks later Paulson changed course … Stock market cheered the change as it was clear there was a 10to1 advantage to shoring up bank balance sheets through direct investment. Only now we find out that half the banks given the money felt they didnt need/want it anyway! And the claim that this would expand lending has not borne out (not unexpectedly, since the banks just used it to pad extended balance sheets). Strangely, we are back to buying the toxic assets in Geitner’s TARP III.
So TARP didnt do what it billed as being needed for up front and has not solved the so-called credit market squeeze. The commercial BBB to AAA spreads are as high as in November. And we have 2 million less jobs now than in November to boot. All of this shift of financial risk from the financial sector investors to taxpayers has not in the end changed the economic trajectory much at all. We are going through a recession to clear out the defaulted and devalued over-investment in certain sectors and any TARP, stimulus or bailout will just be pumping air into a busted deflating balloon.
TARP and Geitner’s TARP III has been the big-Gubmint-solution to a problem: Throw enough money at the problem and hope some of it sticks.
The most effective lever we have is monetary policy, not bailouts. for example, the LIBOR-Fed rate issue was and is solvable via direct Fed action. The Fed’s zero interest rate policy and their direct purchases of commercial paper has had a lot more to do with helping LIBOR and overall situation right now than anything else. (Albeit another short-term gain we will pay for down the road).
You can at best argue that bailouts like TARP are mitigating someone’s economic pain, but you have to ask to what extent should taxpayer money be going to bail out, say the Abu Dubai sovereign investment funds’ insurance backed investments in US financial assets? Their Citigroup bonds? Their commercial RE loans in CMOs? Somehow when you are FOR it, all the billions are going to widows and orphans; when you are against it, its ‘greedy wall st bankers’. Same pot o’ money in both cases.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/21/2009 @ 9:18 pm
“And the economy is doing better”
Compared to what? We lost almost 3 million jobs since Obama was elected. We wont get those jobs back any time soon.
The best we can say right now is that the deceleration of the economy has slowed.
But its kind of like when Wile E Coyote hits the bottom of the canyon.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/21/2009 @ 9:24 pm
Fire the sorry asses of the Republicans who wimp out and do the wrong thing. This of course has led to the aforementioned fact of a rump Republican minority. … I am convinced that Liddy Dole lost her race on the bailout vote. People vs heavy-hitter Charlotte bankers … hmmmm …. she made her pick, people took another.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/21/2009 @ 9:31 pm
Your opinion/strawman, not mine. See above. Budget deficits are due to excessive spending and can be laid at the feet of all those who vote for higher spending, from either party.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 4/21/2009 @ 9:34 pm
AHAA,AHA,AHAAAA,AHAHAHA,HAAAAAAAAA,ahahahahahaha-ahaaaaaaaaaaaa,
hahahahahahaha-HAHAHAHAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAA,AHAAAAAAAAAAAA,HAHAHAHA,
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE-HE-HE-HE-, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA,hehehehehehe…
OH THAT BARACK, HE SHOULD’VE BEEN A COMEDIAN…
Comment by pepito cojones — 4/23/2009 @ 5:17 pm
Travis Monitor,
My point is that Republicans are in on it. They want to bail out the banks. The reason only a few crossed the aisle in the Senate is they want to keep telling the narrative that Republicans are fiscally responsible and want small government. If All Republicans voted in favor of corporate Socialism the story does not ring true. If only a handful of renegade Republicans cross the line the story line remains largely intact.
If the Democrats did not have the votes to get the corporate Socialism passed in the House, the Republicans would have been “forced” to help get the bill passed there too.
Comment by bsjones — 4/24/2009 @ 4:00 pm
I am expecting figures for swine flu in Chicago to be quite high, nothing reported yet?? suprising. But then some immigrants are afraid to go to the Emergency room for treatment….I know a ton about this stuff now!
Comment by Josieg6 — 4/28/2009 @ 6:02 am
oh to clarify, I am sure that plenty of legit cancun and mexi city tourists will bring swine flu to Chitown also.
Comment by Josieg6 — 4/28/2009 @ 6:03 am