PDA

View Full Version : Obama and his phoney deficit numbers



MamaMia
2/11/2010, 01:21 PM
I ran across across an interesting little gem...

BEHIND OBAMA’S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS

By Dick Morris 02.1.2010

President Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Congressman Joe Wilson might have said “you lie,” but we’ll settle for “you distort.”

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”)

Here are the facts:


In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

Obama seems not to understand that the deficit is the jobs problem. To add to the deficit in the hope of creating more jobs is an oxymoron. Additional deficit spending just crowds out small businesses trying to borrow money to create jobs and consumers seeking credit to buy cars and homes.

Soon, when the Fed stops printing money and we have to borrow real funds from real lenders, the high deficit will send interest rates soaring, further retarding growth and creating a cost-push inflation.

The interest rate we are now paying for the debt — about 3.5% — is totally artificial and based on the massive injection of money supply created by the purchase of mortgage backed securities by an obliging Federal Reserve. Once these injections of currency/heroin stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere. Once we had to choose between guns and butter. Now we will have to choose between guns and butter on the one hand and paying our debt service on the other.

Obama’s program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. He freezes very selected budget items while he shovels out new spending in his stimulus packages. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here’s what he could do:

1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending and

2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.

Those are the real numbers. Or, as Al Gore would have it, “the inconvenient truth.”

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/02/01/behind-obamas-phony-deficit-numbers/#more-714

UTisLousy
2/12/2010, 01:24 AM
What did Dick Morris say would have happened if nothing had been done? Let me guess, it would have just fixed itself? Did Dick Morris forget that the economy was close to completely collapsing? Any fool knows that you can tell whatever story you want with numbers.

The real problem are the crooks on Wall Street. Something should be done to regulate those people so this doesn't happen again.

tommieharris91
2/12/2010, 01:59 AM
What did Dick Morris say would have happened if nothing had been done? Let me guess, it would have just fixed itself? Did Dick Morris forget that the economy was close to completely collapsing? Any fool knows that you can tell whatever story you want with numbers.

The real problem are the crooks on Wall Street. Something should be done to regulate those people so this doesn't happen again.

I hope he retunrs to see what Tuba left him. :pop:

Collier11
2/12/2010, 02:27 AM
Im sure some on here think he is a lying crook or something close to it but I have always found Mr. Morris to be educated and honest.

To the guy above who asked what Obama shouldve done? Well, the majority of Americans who had to pay for the bailout mind you, those people didnt want the bailout. The collective American said F*ck em, someone else will come around

Crucifax Autumn
2/12/2010, 06:36 AM
I can't decide if his flip flopping on which side of the dem-pub debate he's on is because he's a sincere moderate, confused, always wanting to be on the winning side, or just uninformed. I like to think he's sincerely moderate, but I'm a bit cynical of anyone that's been a power player in Washington so long.

OU_Sooners75
2/12/2010, 08:05 AM
This crap would not happen if D.C. would actually listen to the people that put them in office.

Position Limit
2/12/2010, 11:09 AM
The real problem are the crooks on Wall Street. Something should be done to regulate those people so this doesn't happen again.

what, pray tell, did the "crooks" on wall street do exactly?
this should be good.

Position Limit
2/12/2010, 11:10 AM
The real problem are the crooks on Wall Street. Something should be done to regulate those people so this doesn't happen again.

what, pray tell, did the "crooks" on wall street do exactly?
this should be good.

UTisLousy
2/12/2010, 11:34 PM
First they invent these wonderful new types of adjustable mortgages. Then they trick people like your grandma or your good FRIEND into going with the cheaper version, because the economy is doing so well, while making all the money upfront. The economy takes a crap, the rate goes up on the mortgage. People can't afford their mortgage anymore then default. The banks are now screwed. The housing market colapses (Glad to summarize)

I am one of the many that believed the bailout was an extremely unpopular move, but I also believe it was necessary. I hope those banks felt completely ashamed and embarrassed to take that money. Some must have, because many have paid it back, or are currently working to pay it back. Now we need some regulation, because the next generation may not remember how we got into all this crap and make another poor decision.

Just a note to the people above that are so worried about our new President's scruples... It's okay to believe and trust in somebody. Life sucks if you never do.

Collier11
2/12/2010, 11:42 PM
brilliant

Curly Bill
2/13/2010, 12:02 AM
horse feathers

StoopTroup
2/13/2010, 12:27 AM
I'm needing 100 million to bailout my horse feather factory.

Collier11
2/13/2010, 12:30 AM
just pluck em and reuse em

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/13/2010, 12:41 AM
What did Dick Morris say would have happened if nothing had been done? Let me guess, it would have just fixed itself? Did Dick Morris forget that the economy was close to completely collapsing? Any fool knows that you can tell whatever story you want with numbers.

The real problem are the crooks on Wall Street. Something should be done to regulate those people so this doesn't happen again.haha, get real, about where the real crooks are...a hint: they have the power of govt.

UTisLousy
2/13/2010, 12:48 AM
First they invent these wonderful new types of adjustable mortgages. Then they trick people like your grandma or your good FRIEND into going with the cheaper version, because the economy is doing so well, while making all the money upfront. The economy takes a crap, the rate goes up on the mortgage. People can't afford their mortgage anymore then default. The banks are now screwed. The housing market colapses (Glad to summarize)

I am one of the many that believed the bailout was an extremely unpopular move, but I also believe it was necessary. I hope those banks felt completely ashamed and embarrassed to take that money. Some must have, because many have paid it back, or are currently working to pay it back. Now we need some regulation, because the next generation may not remember how we got into all this crap and make another poor decision.

Just a note to the people above that are so worried about our new President's scruples... It's okay to believe and trust in somebody. Life sucks if you never do.

Collier11
2/13/2010, 02:44 AM
you have no idea what you are talking about

SCOUT
2/13/2010, 03:30 AM
Wall street sells mortgages?

Collier11
2/13/2010, 04:07 AM
apparently

KABOOKIE
2/13/2010, 06:57 AM
I bet lousyut thinks his insurance and healthcare come from Wall Street

greeksooner
2/13/2010, 09:36 AM
dick morris has always been know as a tea bagger

delhalew
2/13/2010, 11:31 AM
Community Reinvestment Act

When the government picks winners and losers this what you get. The gov is the pollutant in the organic ecosystem that is an economy.

Veritas
2/13/2010, 11:34 AM
What did Dick Morris say would have happened if nothing had been done? Let me guess, it would have just fixed itself
Well...yes, if you subscribe to the Austrian school of economics

Collier11
2/13/2010, 12:31 PM
Obama needs to take his wife on another tax payer funded night out

Collier11
2/13/2010, 12:32 PM
dick morris has always been know as a tea bagger

ill tea bag you :D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/13/2010, 01:30 PM
you have no idea what you are talking aboutUTisLousy, this man is correct.

tommieharris91
2/13/2010, 01:32 PM
Community Reinvestment Act

When the government picks winners and losers this what you get. The gov is the pollutant in the organic ecosystem that is an economy.

The CRA had 0 to do with this recession.

Veritas
2/13/2010, 01:45 PM
The CRA had 0 to do with this recession.
Puff puff pass.

UTisLousy
2/13/2010, 09:31 PM
I bet lousyut thinks his insurance and healthcare come from Wall Street

No way I would ever let that happen! It comes from a magical place called Aetna. I'm personally not worried about, as all the republicans like to coin it, "government run healthcare". My job has provided my healthcare for me for the last 10 years. I work for a large corporation so I'm good to go.

I honestly don't believe the republicans believe that the government is going to take over healthcare either. I just think it's something else that they have the opportunity to oppose, like everything else, then bitch about it later.

They have no leadership, or any new ideas, so what other strategy can they go with to try and regain control? On the other hand, they could all just be paranoid, but where was all this paranoia when their guy was running the country into the ground? Sorry, but I for one have lost all respect for that party. Worthless baggage doing nothing but impeding any progress.

Frozen Sooner
2/13/2010, 09:44 PM
Well...yes, if you subscribe to the Austrian school of economics

If those guys were so smart, they'd live somewhere cooler than Auburn.

TheHumanAlphabet
2/14/2010, 07:56 AM
dick morris has always been know as a tea bagger
And getting his toes sucked...;)

AggieTool
2/14/2010, 07:41 PM
The CRA had 0 to do with this recession.

True. It only represents a small % of foreclosures.

http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm

...but let's not let facts get in the way.:D

Crucifax Autumn
2/14/2010, 07:45 PM
Just curious, when has the debt, deficit, or national budget not been a huge jumble of cooked books and phony statistics? I'm not aware of anytime post WWII myself and not too sure of any time before that, particularly after the formation of a centralized banking system.

tommieharris91
2/14/2010, 08:49 PM
Puff puff pass.

Care to actually refute instead of ad hominem attacks?

delhalew
2/15/2010, 12:35 PM
True. It only represents a small % of foreclosures.

http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm

...but let's not let facts get in the way.:D

Good Lord. Look at the big picture. Carter and then congress changed the mortage culture. This along with actions of the FED lead to the bubble and anti-survival practices of banks because they had been told "you are going to make these loans, but we have your back". How long until they decide to exploit the system? Let's not be purposefully dense.

AggieTool
2/15/2010, 09:07 PM
Good Lord. Look at the big picture. Carter and then congress changed the mortage culture. This along with actions of the FED lead to the bubble and anti-survival practices of banks because they had been told "you are going to make these loans, but we have your back". How long until they decide to exploit the system? Let's not be purposefully dense.

That's the lock-step sloganeering for sure.;)

It's just that the facts don't support what you're saying.

Overzealous valuation of CDOs on contrived market values, and the relaxation of regulation are the culprits.

...not poor black people who barely qualified for some mortgages.

Did you read the Dallas Federal Reserve report?

tommieharris91
2/15/2010, 11:05 PM
That's the lock-step sloganeering for sure.;)

It's just that the facts don't support what you're saying.

Overzealous valuation of CDOs on contrived market values, and the relaxation of regulation are the culprits.

...not poor black people who barely qualified for some mortgages.

Did you read the Dallas Federal Reserve report?

It was the bankers who gave out loans to people who had no business getting those loans, and the people with bad credit scores who took those loans, that caused this recession.

MamaMia
2/15/2010, 11:19 PM
No way I would ever let that happen! It comes from a magical place called Aetna. I'm personally not worried about, as all the republicans like to coin it, "government run healthcare". My job has provided my healthcare for me for the last 10 years. I work for a large corporation so I'm good to go.

I honestly don't believe the republicans believe that the government is going to take over healthcare either. I just think it's something else that they have the opportunity to oppose, like everything else, then bitch about it later.

They have no leadership, or any new ideas, so what other strategy can they go with to try and regain control? On the other hand, they could all just be paranoid, but where was all this paranoia when their guy was running the country into the ground? Sorry, but I for one have lost all respect for that party. Worthless baggage doing nothing but impeding any progress.
If you have any respect left for any political party in this day and age then you haven't been paying attention, however the democrats are in first place on my 'scum list' in that they spend a whole lot more of my money pissing me off than the republicans do, who are coming in at a real close second.

Just for the record, the author of this article, Dick Morris, was Chief Adviser to Bill Clinton during his presidential administration.

AggieTool
2/16/2010, 10:41 AM
It was the bankers who gave out loans to people who had no business getting those loans, and the people with bad credit scores who took those loans, that caused this recession.

Ummm....nope.

I know that's what you've been told, but there again, the facts don't support this.

Banks make bad loans all the time, but that doesn't cause recessions.

Bundling bad/good loans into securities with contrived values is what caused the recession, not the loans themselves.

Did you take a loss on your 401k? How many mortgage backed securities were in there?

If you had them in your portfolio, then you are the problem, not poor people.

I know you don't probably manage your own portfolio, but you get the point.

When banks were allowed to tie up too much of their investment income in this snake-oil, it was only a matter of time.

delhalew
2/16/2010, 11:37 AM
Ummm....nope.

I know that's what you've been told, but there again, the facts don't support this.

Banks make bad loans all the time, but that doesn't cause recessions.

Bundling bad/good loans into securities with contrived values is what caused the recession, not the loans themselves.

Did you take a loss on your 401k? How many mortgage backed securities were in there?

If you had them in your portfolio, then you are the problem, not poor people.

I know you don't probably manage your own portfolio, but you get the point.

When banks were allowed to tie up too much of their investment income in this snake-oil, it was only a matter of time.

You are making me crazy. What you just said about mortgage backed securities is absolutely true.
Why do you insist on pretending these things happen in a vacuum? What led to banks wrapping up these balls of crap and trading on them?
Our financial culture and our banking culture has changed, due in large part to what I mentioned earlier. Particularly the FED. We now have a bubble economy. Until we let the economy be the living breathing organism it is supposed to be, we will reap reccession after reccession. Economics is VERY VERY simple.

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 11:42 AM
Ummm....nope.

I know that's what you've been told, but there again, the facts don't support this.

Banks make bad loans all the time, but that doesn't cause recessions.


When many banks constantly make bad loans, yes, it does cause recessions.

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 11:43 AM
.
Why do you insist on pretending these things happen in a vacuum? What led to banks wrapping up these balls of crap and trading on them?


I dunno, profit, maybe?


Economics is VERY VERY simple.

Get at least a bachelor's in Economics, then come tell me how it is VERY VERY simple.

soonerscuba
2/16/2010, 11:52 AM
Economics is VERY VERY simple.Spoken like a man that's never sat for an econometrics test.

AggieTool
2/16/2010, 12:38 PM
You are making me crazy. What you just said about mortgage backed securities is absolutely true.
Why do you insist on pretending these things happen in a vacuum? What led to banks wrapping up these balls of crap and trading on them?
Our financial culture and our banking culture has changed, due in large part to what I mentioned earlier. Particularly the FED. We now have a bubble economy. Until we let the economy be the living breathing organism it is supposed to be, we will reap reccession after reccession. Economics is VERY VERY simple.

You keep insisting (I think) that CRA mandated loans to poor people are primary component/catalyst to the crisis, which is factually incorrect. If there had been ZERO CRA loans made, we'd still be in the same crisis.

This was a regulatory blunder, not a cultural one. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act rescinded the rule that prevent banks from engaging in such hazardous securities manipulation.

Now I agree that is was cultural in the sense that we demand higher than realistic returns from our investment. Well that applied to mortgage back securities as well.

The problem then was mark-to-market, which was an accounting rule post Enron.

It was no longer about the actual value of the mortgage, but instead became about what the "market" value of the security was. Even houses that were up-to-date on their mortgages where booked at zero value once the securities stopped trading.

This is what caused the crisis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

delhalew
2/16/2010, 01:20 PM
I dunno, profit, maybe?



Get at least a bachelor's in Economics, then come tell me how it is VERY VERY simple.

What I learned at the University of Oklahoma...there is no shortage of people who earn their pay attempting to make simple concepts complicated.

As long as you got a degree and a job congrats. Otherwise, a liberal arts degree can only loosely be called an education.

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 01:29 PM
What I learned at the University of Oklahoma...there is no shortage of people who earn their pay attempting to make simple concepts complicated.

As long as you got a degree and a job congrats. Otherwise, a liberal arts degree can only loosely be called an education.

Economics ain't just what you learned in Intro to Macro & Micro. There's a LOT more to it.

Frozen Sooner
2/16/2010, 02:47 PM
I took Physics 1114. That stuff doesn't seem too hard to me.

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 02:57 PM
Economics ain't just what you learned in Intro to Macro & Micro. There's a LOT more to it.

I agree.

My main problem with economic forecast models is that they rely too much on historic trends in a failed attempt to make it a science. Economic forecasting is not a science: it is an art.

Okay, I am not an expert because I got a B in my graduate level econometrics class. Econometics is just bunk if you ask me. Yeah, and I had the hots for the female graduate assistant actually teaching the class. I did get her to go on one date with me, but if truth be told, that was at a Baptist church. Okay, it was Baylor. What do you expect?

In terms of production, our economy is very different than 40 or even 10 years ago. Service and capital intensive industries are much larger components while the value of human labor has been discounted by illegal immigrants and the wholesale shipping of labor-intensive jobs overseas.

There is nothing in history that compares to this. Who knows about the next 10 years?

I do my own economic modeling with the Thai economy and it is pretty simple and by that I mean by delhalew's standards. I plug in my gut feeling into a national account model on excel. It is not at all scientific, but I tend to be fairly accurate. That is pretty much akin to forecasting the weather. If I get the next couple of days right, then I am golden, at least as the stock market is concerned.

The next 10 years in the US will be very interesting. I am left wondering how much of that American "can-do" spirit will play out and how many people will fall back on "oh crap, let's blame somebody".

I still think that people who want to blame President Obama are silly. All of this was put in motion before his administration. A jobs bill rewarding companies for hiring new employees, health care reform and splitting up the big banks on Wall Street seem to me would be the best that he can do. It seems like a pity to me that an increasing number of Americans don't get it and would rather play partisan politics and status quo in a diminishing prospects world. The "let's hope he fails crowd" is not at all helpful.

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 03:22 PM
I still think that people who want to blame President Obama are silly. All of this was put in motion before his administration. A jobs bill rewarding companies for hiring new employees, health care reform and splitting up the big banks on Wall Street seem to me would be the best that he can do. It seems like a pity to me that an increasing number of Americans don't get it and would rather play partisan politics and status quo in a diminishing prospects world. The "let's hope he fails crowd" is not at all helpful.

He has to have some blame and you are right it's Bush's fault too but really it's the fault of the politicians because they have been since about 9-11 to spend money they don't have and now they are doing it at a bigger rate than has been done in any of the last 8 years. It took the Bush whitehouse and his policies 8 years to get the debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion. Since then the debt is projected to go up 4 trillion in 2 years. What is going on now is what was happening under Bush on steroids. The democrats were mad at Bush not because of what he was doing but because he wasn't doing those things at the right rate.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2010, 03:25 PM
A jobs bill rewarding companies for hiring new employees, health care reform and splitting up the big banks on Wall Street seem to me would be the best that he can do.
I guess you missed it, but Dear Leader already tried that.

And $1 Trillion and millions of unemployed later, it's been nothing but a miserable failure. Perhaps the most expensive miserable failure in this countries history.

Collier11
2/16/2010, 03:39 PM
I still think that people who want to blame President Obama are silly. .

Chuck, I think most of it derives from the idea that he is the leader of the free world, therefore even if he doesnt directly effect the issue at hand, he is still the boss.

I heard this many a time with GW when people were going after him

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 03:43 PM
I guess you missed it, but Dear Leader already tried that.

And $1 Trillion and millions of unemployed later, it's been nothing but a miserable failure. Perhaps the most expensive miserable failure in this countries history.

Your logic is about as bad as your grammar. Most developed and devloping countries in the world launched fiscal stimulus packages last year to support a global economic recovery. If you are suggesting that none of them should have done that and instead they should have let the global economy further spiral down into a global depression, I will say that you are wrong.

The global stock markets are currently panicking because of Greece. Imagine that times 10 or 100.

John Kochtoston
2/16/2010, 03:49 PM
I took Physics 1114. That stuff doesn't seem too hard to me.

Well, if economists would wear rainbow wigs and drink liquid nitrogen, we could all understand this stuff.

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 04:13 PM
Chuck, I think most of it derives from the idea that he is the leader of the free world, therefore even if he doesnt directly effect the issue at hand, he is still the boss.

I heard this many a time with GW when people were going after him

You sound like President Obama has already started more than two wars. I mean when the US goes to war, it should naturally involve a lot of self searching and debate. Afterall, it is our courageous men and women serving our country that are asked to put their lives on the line and they should get the full support and equipment to fight the war or get the hell out of there.

Let's see: 1) President Obama administration did restore confidence in the global financial system, 2) he did propose major reform to the health care system and most of us agree that something needs to be done to control runaway health care costs, 3) his stimulus measures did work but only for a short period and we all knew that would be the case until unemployment begins to fall and that isn't likely over the next several years. Okay, yeah all of that so far is a bandaid on a gunshot wound. And, some of you are blaming Obama for getting us shot.

delhalew
2/16/2010, 04:25 PM
This is what I'm talking about. An economic principle that is so simple that even I can understand it, is that trying to bribe employers into purchasing labor they don't need is full of fail before it starts. $6000 tax credit to hire an employee for a job that pays $106000 a year(because there is tons of those jobs). The gov using taxpayer money to reward good behavior. Thanks pappy!

All while you make the economic climate even worse for bussiness than it already is. Because not enough bussinesses have fled or outsourced.

And these are the "SMART" guys coming up with this crap.

Collier11
2/16/2010, 04:33 PM
You sound like President Obama has already started more than two wars. I mean when the US goes to war, it should naturally involve a lot of self searching and debate. Afterall, it is our courageous men and women serving our country that are asked to put their lives on the line and they should get the full support and equipment to fight the war or get the hell out of there.

Let's see: 1) President Obama administration did restore confidence in the global financial system, 2) he did propose major reform to the health care system and most of us agree that something needs to be done to control runaway health care costs, 3) his stimulus measures did work but only for a short period and we all knew that would be the case until unemployment begins to fall and that isn't likely over the next several years. Okay, yeah all of that so far is a bandaid on a gunshot wound. And, some of you are blaming Obama for getting us shot.

Just cus he proposed health care reform, he still has to propose a good system and it is fair to say at this point that very few have confidence in what he has proposed.

He may have restored some confidence in the global financial system but not in our own

The people who he chose to bail out are still f**king up

Id say thats 0 for 3

SoonerAtKU
2/16/2010, 04:33 PM
Del, I take it that your use of sarcastic quotes means that you feel like you're an "actual" smart guy. You've done half of the work and told us what you feel like shouldn't have happened. I'd like to hear what you think should have happened.

Please include the expected impacts of your actions, as well as the cost to government and taxpayer. Be specific. Show your work.

Thanks.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/16/2010, 04:37 PM
Del, I take it that your use of sarcastic quotes means that you feel like you're an "actual" smart guy. You've done half of the work and told us what you feel like shouldn't have happened. I'd like to hear what you think should have happened.

Please include the expected impacts of your actions, as well as the cost to government and taxpayer. Be specific. Show your work.

Thanks.haha

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 04:39 PM
This is what I'm talking about. An economic principle that is so simple that even I can understand it, is that trying to bribe employers into purchasing labor they don't need is full of fail before it starts. $6000 tax credit to hire an employee for a job that pays $106000 a year(because there is tons of those jobs). The gov using taxpayer money to reward good behavior. Thanks pappy!

All while you make the economic climate even worse for bussiness than it already is. Because not enough bussinesses have fled or outsourced.

And these are the "SMART" guys coming up with this crap.

Actually. yes. This is exactly what "SMART" people all over the world are coming up with.

Please bear in mind that they are not saying "blue skies forever". But, it is a confidence game that they are playing the role of cheerleaders. They have no choice but to try to encourage confidence and new investment.

I am surprised that you don't like tax breaks for small and medium-sized businesses employing more workers. I thought that that was one of the major Republican stalling points on health care reform was the impact on small and medium-sized businesses.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2010, 04:48 PM
Most developed and devloping countries in the world launched fiscal stimulus packages last year to support a global economic recovery.

*****

The global stock markets are currently panicking because of Greece.

Heh, the irony here is just comedy gold.

So your saying Greece should just spend its way out of its current debt crisis?? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2010, 04:50 PM
his stimulus measures did work
10% of the workforce would say otherwise I suspect.

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 04:52 PM
Just cus he proposed health care reform, he still has to propose a good system and it is fair to say at this point that very few have confidence in what he has proposed.

He may have restored some confidence in the global financial system but not in our own

The people who he chose to bail out are still f**king up

Id say thats 0 for 3

Ahem...how many bank runs? Nope. Nadda. 1/1

He is proposing a major overhaul of the banking system. He is suggesting separating again investment banking from banking. 2/2

He is still pushing for the ever growing number of Americans without health care coverage to have some option of an affordable state plan. Unfortunately, this has been killed by Republicans using scare tactics of "socialized medicine'. Okay, so he has what 2/3.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/16/2010, 04:54 PM
Just don't let those individuals and business keep most of the money they earn. They will NOT spend it right! The govt. knows where money should be spent, and don't let anyone convince you differently. The hell with the consequences of them controlling the(lack of) economic activity.

Collier11
2/16/2010, 04:54 PM
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, lets go have a beer

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/16/2010, 04:56 PM
Our Chairman hasn't even spent most of the stimulus(porkulus) yet. That will be doled out to re-elect democrats.(those that haven't resigned, to spend more time with their families, haha)

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 04:57 PM
I heard this many a time with GW when people were going after him

This is because more than a lot of the stuff that happened under him in his first term (especially his first 2 years) were all about what Clinton left him.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2010, 04:58 PM
Unfortunately, this has been killed by Republicans using scare tactics of "socialized medicine'.

You realize how stupid this sounds, considering the donks have (had I mean) a super majority???

BTW, any guess at how many jobs Obama & his porkulus bill have lost in its first year alone??

(Hint: Its Less than 5 Million, and more than 3 Million)

I'm thinking he should change his middle name from Hussein to Hoover.

JohnnyMack
2/16/2010, 04:59 PM
If some of you party line hacks don't think there was a real threat to bank runs, can you explain TARP 1?

Frozen Sooner
2/16/2010, 05:01 PM
This is because more than a lot of the stuff that happened under him in his first term (especially his first 2 years) were all about what Clinton left him.

A kind-of balanced budget and a growing economy? ;)

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2010, 05:03 PM
A kind-of gutted military and CIA and a growing economic bubble? ;)

Fixed it for ya.

delhalew
2/16/2010, 05:06 PM
Del, I take it that your use of sarcastic quotes means that you feel like you're an "actual" smart guy. You've done half of the work and told us what you feel like shouldn't have happened. I'd like to hear what you think should have happened.

Please include the expected impacts of your actions, as well as the cost to government and taxpayer. Be specific. Show your work.

Thanks.

I'm smart enough to know that the mark of true intelligence is a willingness to admit how much you do not know. I also know that an ivy league education gets you the kind of ideas we have seen to much of in the last century.

That said, I have to go to work and what you request takes more time than I am going to put in on a blackberry. Later, if I have some time, I may placate you.

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 05:09 PM
Ahem...how many bank runs? Nope. Nadda. 1/1

He is proposing a major overhaul of the banking system. He is suggesting separating again investment banking from banking. 2/2

He is still pushing for the ever growing number of Americans without health care coverage to have some option of an affordable state plan. Unfortunately, this has been killed by Republicans using scare tactics of "socialized medicine'. Okay, so he has what 2/3.

Uhhh... there were bank runs and bank failures. Not as many as say, 1929-1930 (thanks Federal Reserve System), but there were bank failures.

As far health reform, it's nice that we're aware that it is needed, but, as far as I understood it, the thing didn't seem to address our problems. The US is the best at repairitive medicine, but we're a buncha fatasses that use our hospitals too much because we're fat. It would be better off if the bill we're designed to attack our unhealthy ways.

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 05:10 PM
Heh, the irony here is just comedy gold.

So your saying Greece should just spend its way out of its current debt crisis?? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


It may be comedy gold to you, but you must have a very low threshhold for laughs.

So, you won't concede even in the slightest that Greece would be in a far worse shape right now without the stimulus measures implemented by various developed and developing countries in the world?

Afterall, we are living in a global economy and Wall Street is responding more and more about what is happening in China.

Thailand, like Greece, is dependent on the foreign tourism market. It will take several years for the higher spending westerners to come back. It is a reality and if you think it is comedy gold then go ahead and laugh.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2010, 05:10 PM
BTW, there were 100+ bank failures just in the last year alone (600 near collapse) (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/02/unofficial-problem-bank-list-increases.html). And the FDIC is nearly broke.

More proof that porkulus was a stunning success no doubt.

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 05:12 PM
I'm smart enough to know that the mark of true intelligence is a willingness to admit how much you do not know.

Calling economics "VERY VERY simple" doesn't jive with this statement.

JohnnyMack
2/16/2010, 05:13 PM
BTW, there were 600+ bank failures just in the last year alone. And the FDIC is nearly broke.

More proof that porkulus was a stunning success no doubt.

What part of your *** did you pull that number from?

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2010, 05:15 PM
So, you won't concede even in the slightest that Greece would be in a far worse shape right now without the stimulus measures implemented by various developed and developing countries in the world?No, I think your posts are laughable for the most part.

That and the fact that you really seem to believe that more spending of money that doesn't exist is the solution to a debt crisis.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2010, 05:22 PM
What part of your *** did you pull that number from?Fixed it, 100+ collapsed, 600+ on life support.

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 05:22 PM
Uhhh... there were bank runs and bank failures. Not as many as say, 1929-1930 (thanks Federal Reserve System), but there were bank failures.

As far health reform, it's nice that we're aware that it is needed, but, as far as I understood it, the thing didn't seem to address our problems. The US is the best at repairitive medicine, but we're a buncha fatasses that use our hospitals too much because we're fat. It would be better off if the bill we're designed to attack our unhealthy ways.


Of course there were many bank failures. I was just noting that I wasn't aware of bank runs. The Fed did move very quickly to arrange bank mergers and takeovers. Okay, if you say that there were bank runs, I stand corrected.

On health care, I find it a bit galling to be so opposed to socialized medicine and then suggest that our health concerns are due to our own damn fault with poor diets and unhealthy lifestyles. If I were in my 20s or 30s, I'd probably agree with you.

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 05:27 PM
If you are 5k debt you don't keep spending to cover that debt it doesn't work. If you look at American history we have prospered when we cut spending and cut taxes. Right now we are doing the exact opposite and as the world will tell you it doesn't work anywhere.

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 05:32 PM
No, I think your posts are laughable for the most part.

That and the fact that you really seem to believe that more spending of money that doesn't exist is the solution to a debt crisis.

You are really a silly guy. I never said that Greece should spend its way out of a debt crisis. I did say that Greece is very pone to a global economic slowdown due to its large tourism sector. Some countries that did start stimulus measures, such as China, has had a very positive impact on the global economy.

Chuck Bao
2/16/2010, 05:34 PM
If you are 5k debt you don't keep spending to cover that debt it doesn't work. If you look at American history we have prospered when we cut spending and cut taxes. Right now we are doing the exact opposite and as the world will tell you it doesn't work anywhere.

Yeah, and the experience is to raise taxes during periods of prosperity. But, do we ever do that?

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 05:37 PM
On health care, I find it a bit galling to be so opposed to socialized medicine and then suggest that our health concerns are due to our own damn fault with poor diets and unhealthy lifestyles. If I were in my 20s or 30s, I'd probably agree with you.

I am in my 20s, and I personally am not completely opposed to "socialized medicine." I just thought that the system proposed by Obama and the Democrats didn't attempt to fix our problems. The problems in the US are not the same as they are in Europe or China, and I though the "fix" was too similar to a European system.

If people just worked out even 30 minutes a day throughout their lives, a large strain on our current and future health care system would be lifted. If people were just a little more mindful of what they ate, we in the US would not be using our hospitals as much because we wouldn't need treatment for diseases caused by malnutrition, such as adult-onset diabetes.

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 05:38 PM
If you are 5k debt you don't keep spending to cover that debt it doesn't work. If you look at American history we have prospered when we cut spending and cut taxes. Right now we are doing the exact opposite and as the world will tell you it doesn't work anywhere.

*cough*cough*reaganrandeficits*cough*cough*

Collier11
2/16/2010, 05:43 PM
maybe its just the fiscal responsibility sermon that we keep getting while THEY keep spend, spend, spending

Frozen Sooner
2/16/2010, 05:46 PM
What part of your *** did you pull that number from?

The part where he makes **** up, repeats it a bunch of times in the face of contradictory evidence, and declares himself the winner.

Frozen Sooner
2/16/2010, 05:47 PM
*cough*cough*reaganrandeficits*cough*cough*

Or really dang near every startup business.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/16/2010, 05:48 PM
Fixed it for ya.No shiite! How silly, coming from a smart guy!

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 05:48 PM
*cough*cough*reaganrandeficits*cough*cough*
He also had the largest tax cuts in US history. And he cut more government jobs than anyone in history

Tax cuts in the early 20s lead to the roaring 20s. In the late 20s a progressive republican took office and started spending and taxing and it lead to the great depression which only got worse under FDR untill WW2

JohnnyMack
2/16/2010, 05:49 PM
The part where he makes **** up, repeats it a bunch of times in the face of contradictory evidence, and declares himself the winner.

And then! And then! And then for extra fun he likes to trash people who make up **** with his posts attacking the AGW dude for using bad data. Sweet, sweet irony.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/16/2010, 05:50 PM
He also had the largest tax cuts in US history. And he cut more government jobs than anyone in history

Tax cuts in the early 20s lead to the roaring 20s. In the late 20s a progressive republican took office and started spending and taxing and it lead to the great depression which only got worse under FDR untill WW2Shhh, someone from the MSM might see that for the very first time.

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 05:56 PM
He also had the largest tax cuts in US history. And he cut more government jobs than anyone in history

Reagan still ran a deficit. If you're gonna beat the deficit drum, you must acknowledge that cutting taxes and cutting spending STILL leads to deficit city.


Tax cuts in the early 20s lead to the roaring 20s. In the late 20s a progressive republican took office and started spending and taxing and it lead to the great depression which only got worse under FDR untill WW2

Speaking of making **** up...

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 05:59 PM
Okay if you don't want to actually look up **** from the 20s or 80s then I don't blame you. Let's go back to the early 2000s

The Bush tax cuts of 2003 lead to 46 straight months of job growth. That is even with the ridiculous spending that was going on.

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 06:02 PM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015

The tax cuts of the 1920s were the first federal experiment with supply-side income tax rate cuts. Data for the period show an initial decline in federal revenues as tax rates were cut, but revenues grew strongly during the subsequent economic expansion. After the cuts, total tax payments and the share of total taxes paid by the top income earners soared. President Bush's current proposal to make phased-in rate cuts effective immediately also promises to expand the tax base. Indeed, Congress should consider further rate cuts to stimulate even larger gains in incomes and economic growth.

soonerscuba
2/16/2010, 06:06 PM
Heh, it's cute the way you think a speculative bubble during the 20s is unrelated to a depression in the 30s. Also, you are making a critical mistake by not incorperating historical context to the US economy, I'm sure that a still agrarian society faced with the largest drought ever recorded in the Missouri Valley is likewise unrelated.

In short, I would stick to being wrong about football.

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 06:06 PM
Reagan still ran a deficit. If you're gonna beat the deficit drum, you must acknowledge that cutting taxes and cutting spending STILL leads to deficit city.

I'm a believe of stopping the unnessary spending our government isn't. We shouldn't be spending money on bridges to nowhere, tunnels for turtles, and fixing dead end roads like we do now. But obviously the government hasn't shared those views for decades. The normal everyday person doesn't spend when they are in debt unless they like prison.

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 06:12 PM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015

The tax cuts of the 1920s were the first federal experiment with supply-side income tax rate cuts. Data for the period show an initial decline in federal revenues as tax rates were cut, but revenues grew strongly during the subsequent economic expansion. After the cuts, total tax payments and the share of total taxes paid by the top income earners soared. President Bush's current proposal to make phased-in rate cuts effective immediately also promises to expand the tax base. Indeed, Congress should consider further rate cuts to stimulate even larger gains in incomes and economic growth.

Congress didn't cut taxes until AFTER the roaring 20s started, when they could afford to. In fact, the boom of the 20s started in 1918, when the highest earners gave up 77% of their income to pay for WWI.

As for your last post, I'll just repeat what I said:


If you're gonna beat the deficit drum, you must acknowledge that cutting taxes and cutting spending STILL leads to deficit city.

Collier11
2/16/2010, 06:14 PM
Nick, I find it best not to act like I know what im talking about when I have no idea, you should try this

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 06:17 PM
Nick, I find it best not to act like I know what im talking about when I have no idea, you should try this

Hey, you don't see me getting too involved in climate change threads.

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 06:21 PM
Heh, it's ute the way you think a speculative bubble during the 20s is unrelated to a depression in the 30s. Also, you are making a critical mistake by not incorperating historical context to the US economy, I'm sure that a still agrarian society faced with the largest drought ever recorded in the Missouri Valley is likewise unrelated.

In short, I would stick to being wrong about football.

Okay you didn't read that article I posted or you would understand this. Before Woody Wilson came to office in the 1910s the tax rate was just 7% he bumped it up to 77% for the top rate by the end of WWI. There were tax cuts throughout the 20s that cut the rate eventually down to the mid 20s for the highest rate and the government got more money because more people were paying taxes. When you raise taxes less people pay taxes the government ends up getting less money.

Also the 20s was probably the biggest era in American history for invention and innovations. From flying to driving to watching movies, all the big innovations toward being a consumer nation started because of this era.

Hoover came in expanded government, pushed progressive ideas. They didn't really work with the conservative environment of both Harding and Coolidge which lead to the prosperity in the 20s. Use those same ideas now and they will work. They worked in the 80s when we cut taxes worked just a few years ago with Bush even though we were spending. I would like to see us quit the spending too but that's not likely to happen.

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 06:24 PM
Congress didn't cut taxes until AFTER the roaring 20s started, when they could afford to. In fact, the boom of the 20s started in 1918, when the highest earners gave up 77% of their income to pay for WWI.

As for your last post, I'll just repeat what I said:
If you really want to believe that you can. They weren't getting more money when they were being taxed 77% the government got less money when they were taxing at higher rates than did in the 20s. By the end of the decade they were higher than they were receiving in the early 20s when the tax cuts started.

Veritas
2/16/2010, 06:29 PM
BTW, what is "phoney?" Is this saying that Obama's deficit numbers are shaped like a phone? And if so, what kind of phone? An old style wall hanger? A rotary? A Zach Morris brick? A Motorola flip? A Zoolander micro?

It's a big can of worms.

ndpruitt03
2/16/2010, 06:36 PM
These numbers are a little old because this article is a year old but you get the idea.
Reagan Did Exact Opposite of Obama

http://www.worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-4806/Brannon-Howse/Paul-Kengor

President Obama says the economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, it is the worst since the Reagan recession of 1982-83. Further, the 2009 market crash is not the worst since 1929 but since 1987-also on Ronald Reagan's watch.

What did Reagan do-or, more importantly, didn't do-in response to these "crises?" How was Ronald Reagan's response different from what Barack Obama is doing?

In both cases, Reagan did the exact opposite of Obama's massive government spending infusions. In fact, it's worth noting that Bill Clinton-listen up, Democrats-didn't invoke Obama's method when he faced recessions at the very start and end of his presidency. (That's another article for another time.)

As for the Reagan recession, the president waited extremely patiently-to the point where he drove his advisers nearly nuts-for his huge 1981 tax cuts to take effect. He didn't spend money because he believed spending had been out-of-control, particularly since FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, which created systemic deficits. Reagan felt that high spending, high regulation, and high taxes had sapped the American economy of its vitality, and particularly its ability to rebound from recession. The economy needed to be freed in order to perform.

Reagan's prescription rested on four pillars: tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in the rate of government spending, and a stable, carefully managed growth of the money supply. The federal income tax reduction was the centerpiece: Reagan secured a 25 percent across-the-board reduction over a three-year period, beginning in October 1981. The upper income marginal tax rate was dropped from 70 percent, which Reagan believed was punitive and stifling, to 28 percent.

By 1983, America had begun its longest peacetime economic expansion in history, cruising right through the 1987 market plunge.

What did Reagan do about the October 1987 crash? Basically nothing-certainly nothing like a massive government "stimulus."

"Some people are talking of panic," Reagan calmly confided to his diary. "Chrmn. of Stock Exchange is acting very upset."

Those are Reagan's only diary references to the financial crisis. With the economy freed, he was confident it would bounce back. Reagan let the economy correct itself.

Okay, but Reaganomics created huge deficits, right?

That's the big criticism. It isn't accurate. It needs to be understood-now more than ever.

First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989. The deficit peaked at $236 billion in 1983, particularly because of the plummet in tax revenue during the recession. It began dropping steadily in 1986, continuing through the 1987 crash. (Source: Congressional Budget Office figures, "Historical Tables.")

Compare that to what's happening now, where the direct opposite of Reaganomics is being pursued by the liberal Democratic president and Congressional leadership:

President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.) We've never seen anything like this. This unthinkable explosion is a direct result of the stunning government spending unleashed by Obama and the Democratic leadership in just eight weeks-an unheard of development in 233 years of American history.

So, think about this:

Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit.

But what, exactly, caused the Reagan deficits? There were several factors: the recession of 1982-83, the Reagan defense spending-implemented to turn the screws on the Soviets-the domestic social spending by the Democratic Congress, and more. Some reasons were Reagan's fault; others were Congress' doing-both share blame in differing degrees.



Importantly, and despite what you've heard, Reagan's tax cuts didn't create the deficit. Tax revenues actually boomed from roughly $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989.

The primary cause of the deficit was recession and spending, mainly spending-as is always the case. It is especially the case right now under Obama, with the spending component utterly out-of-control.

The crucial lesson for today is that the best "stimulus" is one that relies on the tried-and-true American way: letting free individuals and entrepreneurs stimulate the economy through their own earnings and economic activity. Wealth confiscation and redistribution by government collectivists and central planners never works; unfortunately, it is that failed, extremely destructive method that Americans elected in November 2008.

For three decades now, the minority of Americans who make up the hard Left have been trashing Reaganomics. Well, on November 4, 2008, for the first time in American history, they convinced enough voters to join them in electing the extreme opposite. At long last, they will pay for the economic consequences of their ideology, as will their children and grandchildren.

Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004), professor of political science, and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).

tommieharris91
2/16/2010, 10:11 PM
If you really want to believe that you can. They weren't getting more money when they were being taxed 77% the government got less money when they were taxing at higher rates than did in the 20s. By the end of the decade they were higher than they were receiving in the early 20s when the tax cuts started.

That's funny. Between 1916 and 1918, tax revenues increased almost fivefold. And even in 1918, only 5% of people paid income taxes. And once again, they cut because of the boom of the early 20s.