The administration has stopped short of calling for a second economic stimulus package to augment the $787 billion measure approved this year. But with the jobless rate continuing to climb, President Barack Obama said Saturday he is exploring “additional options to promote job creation.”
In his weekly radio and Internet video address Saturday, Obama said his proposed health care overhaul would create jobs by making small business startups more affordable. If aspiring entrepreneurs believe they can stay insured while switching jobs, he said, they will start new businesses and hire workers.
It is amazing that people still believe Obama and the government in general after this. They haven’t managed to create any jobs and blame it on lack of government involvement.
zancu, check out tinyurl.com/obamadeficits
to see how Obama is doing on the deficit front.
MikeN:
OK this is getting serious. If Obama is re-elected I’ll bet you $5 that he won’t double the debt like Bush did.
Zancudo.com
OK,
I hope you all understand a few stupid tricks in this STRANGE country.
That MOST of the business advances were PAID by the gov.
The intercontinental rail was BACKED by the USA gov.
MOST of the infrastructure to interconnect the Phone services around our nation.
The FREEWAYS.
the Electrical grid..
UNTIL 1 of these companies can TAKE it in the shorts, and CUT the price of goods(not labor) NOTHING will happen. Those on the TOP need to DROP their OWN wages. IF they CUT 1/2 wages on the TOP 100 wage earners in the MAjor corps. They could save Every job in the lower levels.
Part of the problem is that THOSE on the top arent Hourly workers. They have CONTRACTS. Contracts that rank up there with Football and basketball Salaries..
The 1-3% at the top arnt paying into Social security. They pay Very little taxes. 10% is nothing to them.
The IRS hasnt the hardware or SOFTWARE to deal with the major corps and companies. They cant even trace 1/2 the companies(esp. OUT OF COUNTRY) that they use as WRITE OFFS on their taxes.
what would you think of a CORP that has its OWN medical business. Pays into it, and then most of the money goes someplace else.
You want a CHANGE..
THEN MAKE IT.
DEMAND better products.
DEMAND options on those PRODUCTS that are available ALL OVER the world, but restricted in the USA market.
DEMAND that goods IMPORTED have a MAX resale value.
WE are paying $60 for a VCR/DVD combo thats not worth $10. and it wont even WRITE to the DVD.
Want a WORLD market…Then ASK for WORLD prices.
WE export more food into the WORLD then we EAT.
This is funny, as we PAY MORE for our food then Other countries could afford. The food in the USA??
What IS Canola, what is rape seed, Why is there NO peanut oil in peanut butter(its worth more then the peanuts), Why does COFFEE have a 10000 times MARKUP.(3lbs of coffee will make 100+ cups of coffee(at $3 per cup??(doubt your coffee beans are worth 1/10th that much))), why is there so much Soy bean oil in the USA?? did you know that in the last 15 years Caws on dairies have been reduced in 1/2 but we still get about the same amount of milk?? The USA is the largest maker of CRAPPY cheese. We have an import tax on SUGAR cane based products a LARGE TAX, and its the cheapest sugar in the world(so that hawaii can compete)….. IT all needs to be fixed. and allot more.
The Gov needs to go back and SIFT threw all that has been done and FIX IT.
Our farmers make more money EXPORTING because there are so many ADDITIVES in the USA food, that you get LESS of the goods in the USA, when OTHER nations pay full price and use the WHOLE of the product.(watch bread prices to see this).
Biggest seller in all the USA is Cheese. MOST of your ready made products are CHEESE and little bits of food and flavoring.
YOU are willing to pay $3 for LESS then 1lb of potato chips..LESS then the size of 1 BASIC potato and it cost them >$0.10 to make the chips and $0.30 for the bag.
Look up vegetable oil and try to tell me WHAT vegetable is in it.
Think of a company that has NOTHING in the USA except 1 building, IMPORTS all goods from other nations, FORCES other countries companies to CUT costs to get THEIR BUSINESS(so the corp can make more money), Cost to the company is $100 and sells the goods for $500-700..(apple). ANd the same company makes a KNOCKOFF, in THEIR own country, that sells for about $125-200(and no service plan)
Look at the cellphone laws in EUROPE and compare then to the USA..
WHY is the USA behind in tech to Europe/japan/china/1/2 of the middle east?? PROFITS are spent on BUILDING NEW in the other nations. NOT paying 100 TIMES the wages as the people in EQUAL positions.
JAP airlines, the CEO cut his OWN wages, BELOW what his pilots get. to keep the airline Flying. WHAT top wage earner in the USA would do that??
WHO is old enough to REMEMBER when going to a sporting event was CHEAP to FREE, unless you bought the Food/drink?? When going to a MOVIE was LESS then 1 hours PAY. When going OUT to dinner was about 1-2hours PAY(for 2 people).
I wont continue. this could go on for another 2-3 pages.
#38
I’ll bet you he doubles the debt before 2012. He’s already 30% there and he hasn’t been in office for a full year.
#36, jbenson,
And the sole alternative by the right wing has been to “reduce taxes”. Eight years of Bush proved that doesn’t work. Taxes today are lower than when Hoover took office.
42,
tAXES ARE LOWER THEN before THERE WERE TAXES..
WE are paying them to Stay and work…
THEY ARENT..
Thomas:
According to Wikipedia, “The U.S. government’s fiscal year begins on October 1 of the previous calendar year and ends on September 30 of the year with which it is numbered.” Obama’s fiscal year didn’t start until last Thursday. If you believe that the debt has increased 30% that means that the national debt is just south of $15 trillion, and only $400 million of that was Obama’s. Of course that’s no reason to stop spending now. Here’s Robert Reich with an explanation:
“People who now obsess about government debt have it backwards. The problem isn’t the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It’s that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can’t do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then — after people are working and the economy is growing — we can pay down that debt.
But if government doesn’t spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier.”
Of course some people believe that government can’t do anything right, and the Bush years would tend to support that thesis. In any event Obama won’t get the debt to $30 Trillion, he can’t, people will stop buying our treasuries and taking our dollars long before that occurs. The President of the United States is indeed is in a sticky wicket, I know you, and every patriotic American hopes he will succeed.
Oops. Make that a $13 Trillion debt you’re projecting and Obama’s contribution $400 billion, with a B. I’m glad we’re now on the second page. Hopefully no one saw my mistakes….
#44,#45
> If you believe that
> the debt has increased
> 30% that means that the
> national debt is just
> south of $15 trillion
No. The debt at the end of 2008 was just under 10 trillion. The estimated debt for 2009 is approximately 12.9 trillion. That’s about 30%.
> It’s that at a time
> like this, when consumers
> and businesses and exports
> can’t do it, government
> has to spend more to
> get Americans back
> to work and recharge
> the economy.
I would love to play Mr. Reich in poker. They call this chasing bad money. “If I keep doubling my bet, eventually, I’ll get my money back.” It is fundamentally, unsound money management. The government has already spent a trillion dollars more than it has and it hasn’t done squat. (One could argue, it’s done less than squat). They tried this during the Great Depression, where investment on infrastructure would have had a far more profound impact on productivity and it still did not get us out of the slump until the cataclysm of WWII.
The problem isn’t that the government “can’t do anything right”; it is that the government is fundamentally corrupt. I have zero belief that government will reduce spending in “good” times and even less confidence that spending when you are broke is a sound policy.
> In any event Obama
> won’t get the debt to
> $30 Trillion, he can’t,
> people will stop buying
> our treasuries and taking
> our dollars long
> before that occurs.
If the US government were unable to simply print more money, I’d agree. However, they can and have at an alarming rate. The government will keep printing money because it devalues the debt they owe. Furthermore, I see no evidence to suggest Congress, especially this Congress, have any desire to slow spending. So, going from 10 trillion to 20 trillion in four years? It’ll be close, but I think Obama will hit it especially if these Democrats are still in Congress after 2010.
Wow!
The Republicans and Democrats sure love hating on each other. You both need to go back into your own parties and fight to rid them of undue influence by big money. You need to make sure “your guy” isn’t a minion of the CFR or Trilateralists.
It matters.
Probably more than anything else you can think of.
#46, The problem isn’t that the government “can’t do anything right”; it is that the government is fundamentally corrupt. I have zero belief that government will reduce spending in “good” times and even less confidence that spending when you are broke is a sound policy.
Some could argue that is what _makes_ them incompetent — their inability to stop their spending.
Liberty Lover: anarchy has a long history, good luck with that. Somebody: Obama was the first presidential candidate who won since I can remember, and I’m pushing 60. I’ve voted for 3rd party candidates a lot including Ross Perrot twice, this time I didn’t want to waste my vote. Thomas, Thomas, Thomas. Obama is no more responsible for the current deficit than George W. was responsible for the surplus he inherited from Clinton. The Bush White House projected a balanced budget in the future every year. Before you try to peddle your faith based projections it’s time for a reality check. John Maynard Keynes was right, Herbert Hoover was wrong. Those who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it.
#49
> Obama is no more
> responsible for the
> current deficit than
> George W. was
> responsible for the
> surplus he inherited from Clinton.
Well, at least your bias is clear.
It was Obama that decided to bail out the automakers. It was Obama that pushed and signed the porkulus bill. It was Obama that told everyone we have to spend to get out the recession. The current deficit is absolutely Obama’s. He is the one that chose to try to spend our way out of recession. It didn’t work in 1930’s but hey maybe it will this time.
With respect to Keynes, it is amazing people still buy into him. The list of economists that have made a career of proving Keynes wrong are legion.
17% unemployment and rising validates the notion that one cannot spend their way out of a recession.
“It didn’t work in 1930’s but hey maybe it will this time.”
Keynesian economics did work in the 1930s, what didn’t work was Hoover’s misguided attempt to balance the budget for three years following the stock market crash. Letting all the major banks fail and the car makers freeze up 38 weeks ago would have been even more stupid, which is why the Republicans led by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke spent 20 hours a day for weeks frantically working to get the TARP funds.
We came out of the last Great Depression by borrowing to finance the biggest public “make work” project in history. You might have heard about it. It was known as World War II. We learned then that in order for a stimulus to work it must be long and strong. Of course some of us will never learn…
#51
RE: Keynesian economics in the 1930s
No, it did not work. What worked was turning the entire economy on its ear in a build up for WWII and that almost bankrupted the country.
> Hoover’s misguided attempt
> to balance the budget
No sir. Hoover’s policy of balancing the budget was sound and not the cause of the Great Depression. What turned a recession into a depression was Hoover’s signing of the Smoot-Hawley Act.
Yes, letting the banks fail WAS a mistake but Hoover could have helped that situation without pissing money down the drain like we did with Obama and the automakers. FDIC was one of Roosevelt’s smarter ideas. Bush’s (and Obama’s) passage of TARP were LOANS to help prop up the financial industry. That is entirely different than GRANTS. Of Bush’s 2008 1.2 trillion dollar deficit, 800 million were TARP loans that were (and mostly have) expected to be paid back. In addition, Roosevelt created FDIC which help foster faith in the financial industry and that pretty much didn’t cost a dime.
Roosevelt spent like a mad man for the first four years of his Presidency on public works and it did nothing but slightly slow unemployment on occasion. It wasn’t until he started a massive build up in anticipation of entering WWII that things turned around.
RE: Great Depression and public works projects
See, this is the problem with Obama’s spending now. We were vastly overdue for major infrastructure improvements in this country when Roosevelt started pumping money into infrastructure. Those projects are done and we didn’t really receive the gain on those projects until after the war. Thus, the marginal productivity gain by further infrastructure improvement or maintenance has diminished substantially. You can’t keep playing the same trick.
Indeed, some will never learn…
I think we’re making progress. The massive government spending for World War II took us out of the Great Depression. Roosevelt was responsible for those deficits that saved democracy and the American economy. Carping about about them almost bancrupting the country and turning the entire economy on its ear is a little silly is it not? I mean are you really suggesting it was the wrong course of action? Hell-o?
On to our current deficits. You’re wrong in saying the TARP funds are $800 billion of the deficit. The TARP funds which were approved under Bush’s watch, and designed to mitigate his eight years of incredible economic mismanagement. The CBO and Treasury count them differently because most of the funds are loans and will be paid back. The Obama adminstration figures 2/3rds will be paid back so they’re now valued for budgeting purposes as costing 33¢ on the dollar.
In June The New York Times did a thorough breakdown of who is responsible for our current horrific deficit. In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office expected that the federal government would run an annual surplus of $800 billion or so in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Now it projects more than a trillion dollars in deficits. What happened? What accounts for the change?
The New York Times crunched the numbers. The answers, in descending order, are the downturn in the economy (37 percent of the change), the policies passed by George W. Bush (33 percent), the extension of policies passed by George W. Bush (20 percent), the stimulus bill (7 percent), and the rest of Barack Obama’s agenda (3 percent).
Some might be surprised that Obama’s prospective agenda doesn’t account for more on that graph. After all, health-care reform alone is expected to cost more than a hundred billion dollars a year. The only policies that increase the deficit, however, are those paid for by borrowed dollars. And the Obama administration is insisting on funding its policy proposals with existing dollars. It’s a bit of a novel approach after the past eight years of debtor government — so novel,
in fact, that it’s been effectively ignored. People are so used to assuming that government spending is deficit spending that health reform is being attacked for both being too expensive in a time of deficits even as the Obama administration gets tagged for all manner of proposals to raise revenue.
The summery is by Ezra Klein, it’s on his blog:
By Ezra Klein | June 10, 2009; 6:00 PM ET
Categories: Budget , Charts and Graphs
Share This: E-Mail | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble
Previous: Streets Blog
Next: Tab Dump
#53
I’m suggesting that it took a cataclysmic event which forced everyone stop what they were doing and focus on winning a war instead of worrying about their failed farm. Furthermore, it is not as if the war was Roosevelt’s plan for fixing the economy. That is entirely backwards. Roosevelt increased spending, because it was required in order to win and eventually the economy improved (which didn’t happen until a couple of years after the war I might add). Keep in mind that effectively he employed a significant majority of the nation by drafting them. Are you suggesting that is what Obama should do?
In the end, Roosevelt’s best achievement with respect to the depression was to put in protections for consumers should banks fail. A reasonable argument could be made that had Hoover put in FDIC, instead of Roosevelt and let the banks fail while protecting consumer investments (especially up to $100K of in 1930) that the economy would have recovered on its own (that and not signing Smoot-Hawley).
RE: Current deficits
And what has STILL not changed? Frankly, I don’t buy the argument that the current deficit is as a result of the Bush tax cut. It is Congressional spending that is at fault. The Federal government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. The Federal government has more than enough money to do what it needs and beyond that it should stop spending until it does have available money. The liberal mentality seems to be that the government has an unlimited set of funds. What happened to the day of fiscally conservative politicians that didn’t spend money they don’t have? They haven’t been Republicans since Gingrich and they have never been Democrats.
> And the Obama administration
> is insisting on funding its
> policy proposals with
> existing dollars.
The problem with that sentiment is that it isn’t believable. The porkulus bill for example was not funded with existing dollars. Furthermore, given what the Obama administration is proposing, it simply will not be possible to fund it with “existing” dollars. Taxes will have to be raised to pay for his new program. If Obama were able to put in health care reform without spending one dime he doesn’t currently have (which would be possible with just legislative reform), then fine, but history tells me not believe it until I see the bill.
Deficits are obviously caused by the difference between revenues and expenditures. You can point to expendituresbut the fact is that expendures have increased under Republicans at about the same rate as they have under Democrats. One fact is clear for anyone who looks at all the numbers under both Democratic and Republican presidents:
Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republicans.
Michael Kinsley recently ran the numbers in the LA Times and found that Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There’s just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
The dataset he used covers more than 50 years, 10 administrations, and half a dozen different measures. That’s a fair amount of data, and the results are awesomely consistent: Democrats do better no matter what you measure, how you measure it, or how you fiddle with the data.
Princeton’s Larry Bartels added some fascinating details to this picture.
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What’s more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they’re obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats. (this is from The Washington Monthly)
#55
What he clearly failed to account for was Congress. Whether Congress is conservative or liberal matters more than whether the President is liberal or conservative. Congress for the past decade has been on a spending spree and Bush, to his detriment, rubber stamped everything that passed his desk in exchange for the resources to fight the war on “terror” (and Iraq).
Boy we are making progress. Now it’s a question of whether it was the Republican congress’ fault or the Republican President’s fault. You win! It was the liberal Republican Congress under Bush that is responsible for the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. President Bush only rubber stamped everything. Do you think these things through before you post? Am I arguing with a 12 year old? Let’s continue this discussion after a new post, like the one about Obama winning the Noble Peace Prize this morning.
Your argument is all over the map. First you claim that deficit spending is good to get out of bad times and then you complain that the current deficits are bad and because of Bush. Make up your mind. Fundamentally, the government spending more money than it receives is bad fiscal management whether good times or bad. Lending money that is reasonably believed to be repaid is far more sound than simply pissing it away on pork as the Congress is doing now at historic rates and has done for the past decade.
The economy is a CIRCLE..
Those on top want OTHERS to pay them money.
If there is no money at the BOTTOM, there is none going UP the ladder.
So the RICH must pay those on the bottom, so that they can BUY the things that PAY the RICH..
IF those on the bottom, HAVE ENOUGH money, then they can CHOOSE what is bought, and the BETTER product gets purchased MORE often. So that the RICH on top, TEND to find what the CONSUMER wants, so they can MAKE more money.
EXCEPT,
When you tighten the circle, and DROP those with the LESS money. and aim from those WITH MORE money.. Chopping off those ont he bottom, and making the CIRCLE SMALLER. Then you end up PAYING MORE to have the same affect. ANd those on the bottom can ONLY BUY CRAP..
The BOTTOM starts eating UP those above them. Prices go to HIGH as those that are getting the money, IN the SMALLER circle, are the ONLY ones that can AFFORD anything.
Those on the END of the circle tend to OVER PRICE their goods as they need MORE money, and the RICH on top, start RUNNING to other ways to DO THE JOB, of making MORE money..
AFTEr a time, even the GOV. gets involved with this, and the TAXES go up, and COSTS go up..ANd they have to charge more to PAY those that need money to SURVIVE..
Its the SNAKE eating itself..and chokes to death..
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds! Deficits and surpluses are two sides of the same coin. Chronic deficits or chronic surpluses are both bad… You need to take an economics course… In the meantime here’s what Wikipedia says on the subject…
Government deficits: good or bad?
Whether government deficits are good or bad cannot be decided without examining the specifics. Just as with borrowing by individuals or businesses, it can be good or bad. If the government borrows (runs a deficit) to deal with a severe recession (or depression), to help self-defense, or spends on public investment (in infrastructure, education, basic research, or public health), the vast majority of economists would agree that the deficit is bearable, beneficial, and even necessary. If, on the other hand, the deficit finances wasteful expenditure or current consumption, most would recommend tax cuts to stimulate private investment, transfer cuts, and/or cuts in government purchases to balance the budget.
Not all national government deficits are intentional, a result of policy decisions. When an economy goes into a recession (say, due to monetary policy), deficits usually rise, at least in the U.S. and other large, rich, countries: with less economic activity, a relatively progressive tax system implies that tax revenues automatically fall. Similarly, transfer payments such as unemployment insurance benefits and food stamp grants rise.
Most economists favor the use of automatic stabilization over active or discretionary use of deficits to fight mild recessions (or surpluses to combat inflation). Active policy-making takes too long for politicians to institute and too long to affect the economy. Often, the medicine ends up affecting the economy only after its disease has been cured, leaving the economy with side-effects such as inflation. For example, President John F. Kennedy proposed tax cuts in response to the high unemployment of 1960, but these were instituted only in 1964 and impacted the economy only in 1965 or 1966 and the increased debt encouraged inflation, reinforcing the effect of Vietnam war deficit spending..
#61
> Consistency is
> the hobgoblin
> of small minds!
Indeed. You are, if nothing else, consistent. Perhaps you should re-read what you posted.
> Chronic deficits or
> chronic surpluses are both bad
Let’s make sure we’re using the same terminology. When you are up to your eyes in debt, spending less than you earn, is not a surplus. The last time this country was out of debt where it would have been possible to run a surplus was more than a century and half ago and thus no one has ever accused the US of a “chronic surplus.” Because of that, the only meaningful term is a chronic deficit.
What your reference is really trying to say is that deficit spending in time of emergency is acceptable. Thus, deficit spending to win a war is OK. No disagrees with that. Furthermore, what economists are also saying is that SOME deficit spending is OK. When the national debt is say 5% of GDP, then SOME deficit spending isn’t going to matter. When the national debt is 50% of GDP, adding to it is a serious problem. The last time the national debt was as high, as a percentage of GDP, was during WWII.
Deficit spending on investments is not bad if the expected return on your investment is expected to exceed the cost and if it does overtax your debt-to-income ratio. For example, people go into deficit spending when they buy a house with the presumption that it will go up in value. Further, the house represents a tangible, capital asset. Individual investments like these, even houses, are far more liquid than say investments in Medicare.
> If, on the other
> hand, the deficit finances
> wasteful expenditure or
> current consumption…
For example, the stimulus bill…
> …most would recommend
> tax cuts to stimulate
> private investment
Which is the exact opposite of what Obama plans to do…
> …transfer cuts, and/or
> cuts in government
> purchases to balance the budget.
Which is also the opposite of what Obama is planning to do.
> When an economy goes
> into a recession (say, due
> to monetary policy), deficits
> usually rise,
Indeed they do which is why it is prudent for governments to have a reserve fund specifically to handle down economies. The Federal government has never managed to figure that out.
> Active policy-making takes
> too long for politicians
> to institute and too long
> to affect the economy.
Exactly so. Which is why the Republicans were pushing for maintaining the tax breaks and holding off on massive expenditures like say a universal health care plan, until the economy recovered.
*Sigh*..it’s a good thing I emphasized this. It should read:
…and if it does NOT overtax your debt-to-income ratio…
RE: “Surplus”
You are reading media spin. The budget surplus of which they refer simply means that yearly expenditures were less than yearly revenue for the first time in a long while. It does NOT mean that the national debt was zero. We haven’t had a “surplus”, meaning ZERO debt, for well over 150 years. Thus, my statement still stands. You cannot have the concept of a surplus when you owe 50% of what you make in a year. In our lifetimes, we have never even encountered the very concept of a “chronic surplus.”
Yes, Bush made the national debt worse by running yearly deficits just as Obama is doing now; only Obama is going to put Bush to shame in that department. The way Obama is going, he’s going to double the national debt in four years instead of the eight it took Bush.
> Exactly, and an economic
> collapse constitutes
> a national emergency,
Again, you need to separate the issues. Issuing TARP *loans* in order to help the financial industry stabilize (and thus eventually getting your money back) is a far cry from pissing money away on the auto industry for bad management practices. They are worlds different. Most of Obama’s deficit is not in TARP loans.
RE: Porkulus
Actually, only 12 cents on every dollar of the porkulus bill is actually towards anything relating to actual growth stimulus. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html)
> The single largest
> component of the Act
> was over $280 billion
> in tax cuts.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html
First, the final bill only included 182 billion of tax credits. Second, of that, Only $82 billion of the $800+ billion bill actually relates to tax credits to individuals. In reality, the actual amount of tax relief is a pittance. The maximum credit is 400 per individual or 800 per couple. Luckily, tax breaks for the poor don’t cost much because they don’t pay any tax.
> The second component of
> the act was $270 billion
> in relief to state and
> local governments
Again, not true. If you look at the link you will notice that only 79 billion is dedicated to the State Stabilization fund which includes money for education and thus teachers and such.
Btw, in all of this you are forgetting the massive tax increase on the “wealthy” making over 250K a year. But hey, we don’t care about them right?
> The third component
> of the act is financing
> the largest investment in roads
Only 30 billion is being spent on highway construction. I’m curious if the claim that it is the most since the Interstate Highway system accounts for inflation. I bet not.
RE: Homes
Clearly, you did not understand the analogy. A home, like a loan, is at least a capital asset, unlike, say the 4 billion spent on such groups such as ACORN.
> The Baucus bill
> will reduce the debt
> by $84 over the next
> decade.
When pigs fly. Are these the same people that claimed that unemployment would peak at 9%? How will that $84 billion over ten years pay for the $800 billion they just spent in a single year? Btw, there is also the issue of the present value of money. That $84 billion will not be worth as much over the next 10 years as it does now so the savings is paltry in comparison to spending.
Making up facts indeed. You need to get it into your head that not running a deficit does not mean you are out of debt. Spending 10 dollars in a single year to save 1 dollar over the course of 10 years is bad fiscal management.
This is the definition of a deficit and a surplus:
“A budget deficit occurs when an entity spends more money than it takes in.[1] The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus.”
The cumulative sum of the deficits is called the national debt. The national debt was about $5.5 trillion when Bush took office. It’s now just shy of $11 Trillion. George W. Bush increased the national debt more than all the previous presidents combined. Before you attack President Obama for trying to make the best of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression I would consider it the right thing to do to apologize for your part in bringing the country I love, the greatest country in the world, to its economic knees.
I am fully aware of the difference between the deficit and the national debt which I’ve been trying to explain to you all along. A budget “surplus” is meaningless in the face of trillions of dollars of debt. It is media spin. “Hey, we spent less than we made for once. We’re doing good!” Baloney. If you owe many times what you make in a year, simply spending less than your entire income in a given year is not a surplus. A surplus would only be if you had no debt.
In Obama’s first year, he has racked up a deficit larger than Bush did in his last three years. I could easily make a similar excuse for Bush as you have for Obama. “Before you attack Bush consider we were heading into a recession at the beginning of his Presidency and we were attacked.” It’s an excuse and like all good excuses, there is an air of validity to it. Yes, we were heading into a financial crisis at the outset of Obama’s Presidency which was abated by Obama and Bush with TARP. However, Obama has done far more than bailout the financial industry. He chose to bailout the automakers (which are now going into bankruptcy court). He chose to push for the porkulus bill which has not improved the economy but has put us billions further into debt.
You cannot use the excuse of an emergency to justify all spending. A good portion of the spending beyond capitalizing the financial industry is waste IMO. Yes, Bush’s policies made it worse and Obama’s current policies are making it even worse yet.
By the way, speaking of emergencies, in the next couple of years, it is likely that some of the States like CA will require bailouts. From where will the money for that will come I wonder?