Stanford Economist Slams Obama Budget

[Sinatra]

The double-speak being generated by this Obama administration is epic in both proportion and its misleading nature.

This economist rips through the budget truths quite effectively:

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama's Trillion-Dollar Deficit Budget Will Impede Economic Growth - WSJ.com

 

[Red Dawn]

The double-speak being generated by this Obama administration is epic in both proportion and its misleading nature.

This economist rips through the budget truths quite effectively:

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama's Trillion-Dollar Deficit Budget Will Impede Economic Growth - WSJ.com

Your source is a lunatic wingnut!

Michael Boskin, wikipedia

According to conservative Patrick Buchanan, in Death of American Manufacturing, Boskin was sanguine about the transfer of United States manufacturing overseas.

While serving on the Council of Economic Advisors to President George H.W. Bush, he is quoted as saying "It does not matter if the U.S. makes computer chips or potato chips".

 

[Sinatra]

The double-speak being generated by this Obama administration is epic in both proportion and its misleading nature.

This economist rips through the budget truths quite effectively:

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama's Trillion-Dollar Deficit Budget Will Impede Economic Growth - WSJ.com

,,,

 

[Brainactive]

The numbers are the numbers. No matter how you spin it, a $600 billion deficit 4 years from now is not a rational plan. And for that matter, I don't see how he 'inherited a deficit'. Yes Bush was financially reckless, but just because my wife ran up the credit cards in February doesn't mean that I have to overspend in March. Why is it so hard for these politicians to understand the basic principals of a budget?

 

[auditor0007]

The numbers are the numbers. No matter how you spin it, a $600 billion deficit 4 years from now is not a rational plan. And for that matter, I don't see how he 'inherited a deficit'. Yes Bush was financially reckless, but just because my wife ran up the credit cards in February doesn't mean that I have to overspend in March. Why is it so hard for these politicians to understand the basic principals of a budget?

It's just numbers. If they switch the 9 and the 3, then they can say the long term deficit Obama is creating is only 3.9 trillion.

 

[Ravi]

The double-speak being generated by this Obama administration is epic in both proportion and its misleading nature.

This economist rips through the budget truths quite effectively:

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama's Trillion-Dollar Deficit Budget Will Impede Economic Growth - WSJ.com

Your source is a lunatic wingnut!

Michael Boskin, wikipedia

According to conservative Patrick Buchanan, in Death of American Manufacturing, Boskin was sanguine about the transfer of United States manufacturing overseas.

While serving on the Council of Economic Advisors to President George H.W. Bush, he is quoted as saying "It does not matter if the U.S. makes computer chips or potato chips".

heh heh heh...don't try to have a reasonable conversation with her, she can't get past her preprogrammed talking points. Notice how she just reposts the same thing again.

 

[Iriemon]

The numbers are the numbers. No matter how you spin it, a $600 billion deficit 4 years from now is not a rational plan. And for that matter, I don't see how he 'inherited a deficit'. Yes Bush was financially reckless, but just because my wife ran up the credit cards in February doesn't mean that I have to overspend in March. Why is it so hard for these politicians to understand the basic principals of a budget?

Because the electorate squawks so much if you raise their taxes or cut their spending.

I'm sure the politicians understand these basic principles just find. Well, maybe Reagan and Bush2 didn't. But they all understand politics.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The numbers are the numbers. No matter how you spin it, a $600 billion deficit 4 years from now is not a rational plan. And for that matter, I don't see how he 'inherited a deficit'. Yes Bush was financially reckless, but just because my wife ran up the credit cards in February doesn't mean that I have to overspend in March. Why is it so hard for these politicians to understand the basic principals of a budget?

Because they have a unique opportunity right now. They are in control and are bleeding this country dry . . . because they can. Budget -- is that the name it's going by? Rape seems about right to me. Welcome to The Obama Nation.

 

[Yurt]

funny how obama worshippers don't actually argue facts, rather ad hominems....

guess that means they cannot dispute the article

 

[jreeves]

funny how obama worshippers don't actually argue facts, rather ad hominems....

guess that means they cannot dispute the article

To be quite honest both sides do that. I believe the market is set to skyrocket, due to natural economic cycles, although I believe this type of defecit spending threatens our country's economic stability long term.

 

[Iriemon]

funny how obama worshippers don't actually argue facts, rather ad hominems....

guess that means they cannot dispute the article

I'm not that much of an Obama worshipper -- I supported Clinton.

But I do get a bit jaded to see an author who was the Chair of Bush's Econ Council ranking on Obama about projected deficits during a time of the worst recession since wWII.

Where was Mr. Boskin squawking about deficits while the Govt he advised and was part of ran up $1/2 trillion deficits year after year after year? And at a time when the economy was doing fine?

I'm happy to see that people are finally focusing on deficits now that the Govt is $11 trillion in debt.

However, Mr. Boskin's -- and conservatives like him -- objections about the deficit would have a lot more persuasive authority if they didn't carry the stink of hypocricy with them.

 

[Sinatra]

funny how obama worshippers don't actually argue facts, rather ad hominems....

guess that means they cannot dispute the article

I'm not that much of an Obama worshipper -- I supported Clinton.

But I do get a bit jaded to see an author who was the Chair of Bush's Econ Council ranking on Obama about projected deficits during a time of the worst recession since wWII.

Where was Mr. Boskin squawking about deficits while the Govt he advised and was part of ran up $1/2 trillion deficits year after year after year? And at a time when the economy was doing fine?

I'm happy to see that people are finally focusing on deficits now that the Govt is $11 trillion in debt.

However, Mr. Boskin's -- and conservatives like him -- objections about the deficit would have a lot more persuasive authority if they didn't carry the stink of hypocricy with them.

He worked with HW not GW - c'mon people - know your damn presidents!

HW was the one who raised taxes...

 

[Iriemon]

funny how obama worshippers don't actually argue facts, rather ad hominems....

guess that means they cannot dispute the article

I'm not that much of an Obama worshipper -- I supported Clinton.

But I do get a bit jaded to see an author who was the Chair of Bush's Econ Council ranking on Obama about projected deficits during a time of the worst recession since wWII.

Where was Mr. Boskin squawking about deficits while the Govt he advised and was part of ran up $1/2 trillion deficits year after year after year? And at a time when the economy was doing fine?

I'm happy to see that people are finally focusing on deficits now that the Govt is $11 trillion in debt.

However, Mr. Boskin's -- and conservatives like him -- objections about the deficit would have a lot more persuasive authority if they didn't carry the stink of hypocricy with them.

He worked with HW not GW - c'mon people - know your damn presidents!

HW was the one who raised taxes...

Ooops! Caught me on that one. Though deficits were huge under HW as well.

 

[MaggieMae]

The numbers are the numbers. No matter how you spin it, a $600 billion deficit 4 years from now is not a rational plan. And for that matter, I don't see how he 'inherited a deficit'. Yes Bush was financially reckless, but just because my wife ran up the credit cards in February doesn't mean that I have to overspend in March. Why is it so hard for these politicians to understand the basic principals of a budget?

If you're living in a house with a leaky roof, would you charge the cost of a new roof or try to live in the same house, hope it never rains, and that the house will sell in that condition?

You want to compare the U.S. budget with a homeowner's budget, well, there ya go.

Sometimes it's necessary to spend more in order for long-term benefits to occur. If we do nothing, and simply freeze all non-entitlement spending (as the silly pubs want to do), then the whole country will remain stagnant while the other emerging superpowers take the lead on everything from alternative energy technology to producing "stuff" to keep their economies afloat.

 

[MaggieMae]

funny how obama worshippers don't actually argue facts, rather ad hominems....

guess that means they cannot dispute the article

That's because that article is one of many which say the same thing. Ironically, there isn't a single pol or economist alive who can accurately predict whether or not the new spending will have long-term success. I'm sure many phases won't, but I'm equally as sure many will.

AND...what EVERYONE seems to forget: This budget isn't set in stone, yet. I believe I heard that the Senate has already removed the carbon tax portion, which should please those on the right as well as the skeptics (like me) who doubt that formula would actually work anyway. The bill goes to conference now, where the real blood will flow. Stay tuned.

 

[MaggieMae]

funny how obama worshippers don't actually argue facts, rather ad hominems....

guess that means they cannot dispute the article

I'm not that much of an Obama worshipper -- I supported Clinton.

But I do get a bit jaded to see an author who was the Chair of Bush's Econ Council ranking on Obama about projected deficits during a time of the worst recession since wWII.

Where was Mr. Boskin squawking about deficits while the Govt he advised and was part of ran up $1/2 trillion deficits year after year after year? And at a time when the economy was doing fine?

I'm happy to see that people are finally focusing on deficits now that the Govt is $11 trillion in debt.

However, Mr. Boskin's -- and conservatives like him -- objections about the deficit would have a lot more persuasive authority if they didn't carry the stink of hypocricy with them.

He worked with HW not GW - c'mon people - know your damn presidents!

HW was the one who raised taxes...

Yeah, once he realized he had to try to get Reagan's spending spree under control, Bush 41 had to renege on his famous "read my lips" pledge. Poor guy paid for Ronnie's follies by losing reelection.

 

[Iriemon]

funny how obama worshippers don't actually argue facts, rather ad hominems....

guess that means they cannot dispute the article

That's because that article is one of many which say the same thing. Ironically, there isn't a single pol or economist alive who can accurately predict whether or not the new spending will have long-term success. I'm sure many phases won't, but I'm equally as sure many will.

AND...what EVERYONE seems to forget: This budget isn't set in stone, yet. I believe I heard that the Senate has already removed the carbon tax portion, which should please those on the right as well as the skeptics (like me) who doubt that formula would actually work anyway. The bill goes to conference now, where the real blood will flow. Stay tuned.

And that these are only projections we're talking about which have been historically suspect.

Remember when the CBO was forecasting $2 trillion in surpluses when Bush took office? They were only $7 trillion off on that forecast.

 

[Maple]

Because they don't have to work to repay this debt, we do.

 

[Meister]

I'm not that much of an Obama worshipper -- I supported Clinton.

But I do get a bit jaded to see an author who was the Chair of Bush's Econ Council ranking on Obama about projected deficits during a time of the worst recession since wWII.

Where was Mr. Boskin squawking about deficits while the Govt he advised and was part of ran up $1/2 trillion deficits year after year after year? And at a time when the economy was doing fine?

I'm happy to see that people are finally focusing on deficits now that the Govt is $11 trillion in debt.

However, Mr. Boskin's -- and conservatives like him -- objections about the deficit would have a lot more persuasive authority if they didn't carry the stink of hypocricy with them.

He worked with HW not GW - c'mon people - know your damn presidents!

HW was the one who raised taxes...

Yeah, once he realized he had to try to get Reagan's spending spree under control, Bush 41 had to renege on his famous "read my lips" pledge. Poor guy paid for Ronnie's follies by losing reelection.

Let's be real here maggie...Bush 41 lost the election because of Ross Perot...I know, I know, that's just one of those pesky little facts that you would rather deny.
What do you have to say about Carter? Just to get off topic here, but I would like to read just how good of a president he was....waaaay better than Bush 43 huih?

 

[MaggieMae]

He worked with HW not GW - c'mon people - know your damn presidents!

HW was the one who raised taxes...

Yeah, once he realized he had to try to get Reagan's spending spree under control, Bush 41 had to renege on his famous "read my lips" pledge. Poor guy paid for Ronnie's follies by losing reelection.

Let's be real here maggie...Bush 41 lost the election because of Ross Perot...I know, I know, that's just one of those pesky little facts that you would rather deny.
What do you have to say about Carter? Just to get off topic here, but I would like to read just how good of a president he was....waaaay better than Bush 43 huih?

I agree that Perot was the spoiler. I also agree that Carter made some huge blunders as his administration tried to get the economy back on track, but I also think Carter has been given a bad rap about a lot of things, in particular the attempt to free the Iranian hostages. Just because the military operation got fucked up, Carter was basically horsewhipped by the press for it. But lo and behold, there happened to be another "deal" in the works which enabled Ronald Reagan to announce their release ON THE DAY OF HIS INAUGURATION. I went to high school with Tommy Cullins, who was one of the hostages, and he subsequently had a LOT to say privately about the Iranian "deals" to have them released.