Obama budget cuts have little deficit impact

[DamnYankee]

Wait a minute... he added darn near $1 trillion in spending in his first 3 weeks in office and we're talking about cutting $17 billion over 10 years?

Something is screwed up here.

Immie

More cuts to come.

And if Bush would have spent some of the money he spent on American IN America, maybe Obama wouldn't have to spend as much as he does now.

How much spending would you approve of? What are you basing your numbers on? So really you don't know what you are talking about.

What spending of Obama's is wasteful? What programs don't you agree with? You don't know? So you are just a big mouth conservative who pretends he doesn't get it?

You act like he spent the trillion in 3 weeks.

How much was Bush's spending? And are you fucking aware that Bush didn't include the wars but Obama is? HUGE difference, don't you think?

Don't answer me. Since you won't be honest and admit you are a dumb liar, don't bother replying back with bullshit. I already know what lies you will say.

Is liar your favorite word? And do you always call someone a liar before they've been given an opportunity to respond? <snicker>

If you can't agree that pork is wasteful spending, perhaps you should redefine liar....

Three news reports from April 14th:


Video - CNBC.com

Getting Fat On Pork - CBS News Video

Oink! Group Calls Out Top Congressional Porkers - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com


"To advocate an efficient, sound, honest
government is neither left-wing nor right-wing,
it is just plain right."
-- J. Peter Grace, Co-founder
Citizens Against Government Waste

 

[Meister]

Obama was handed a deficit/recession and has to spend his way out of it.

Almost every economist agrees. What makes you smarter than them?

No almost every economist doesn't believe it and if you want I can provide quotes from Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini and Stigletz to demonstrate it. BTW two of them are Nobel prize winning economists.

In fact MOST really credible economists including those at the Government Accounting Office disagree.

But the pundit economists and the "experts" who play the role of economists on the news prolly do agree.

But then again none of them were on record in the public domain predicting this econ crisis either as I was, as Krugman, Stigletz and Roubini were.

And if you want proof that I predicted this great recession I can provide proof that I predicted today's deflationary trend last April, months before anybody else mentioned it anywhere.

And I can also provide damned strong evidence that no amount of deficit spending will correct a deflationary trap, and that the Obama admin's approach is one that has no history of success while there actually is a proven success strategy that he is ignoring.

But you better be able to deal with real economics and not just soundbites or it will just blow right over your head.



Obama is guaranteeing himself a comparison to Hoover for eternity.

Bush already has that comparison to Hoover. Obama will be the new FDR.

And we were telling YOU GUYS that this economic crash was coming. At least I was telling people, and they mocked me. I wish I had the email saved from my GOP buddies last year making fun of me. They said, "oh sealy, you always think the sky is falling..."

That's something to be proud about?
Oh Sealy your such a socialist......

 

[DamnYankee]

Obama was handed a deficit/recession and has to spend his way out of it.

Almost every economist agrees. What makes you smarter than them?

Do you believe that if you keep repeating it that it will make it so?

 

[Iriemon]

Obama was handed a deficit/recession and has to spend his way out of it.

Almost every economist agrees. What makes you smarter than them?

Do you believe that if you keep repeating it that it will make it so?

Not for that reason, but I can see the logic in the argument that when you are faced with a potentical credit market collapse because of rapid asset devaluation in key players, it makes sense to spend money to stabilize salvageable financial instutions to both prevent whole sale collapse as well as get credit moving again.

And I can see in a recessionary scenario of potential significant severity, using fiscal stimulus to make up some of the demand lost by the lack of confidence to reverse the spiral of layoffs, fear, contraction, and more layoffs.

 

[Meister]

Obama was handed a deficit/recession and has to spend his way out of it.

Almost every economist agrees. What makes you smarter than them?

Do you believe that if you keep repeating it that it will make it so?

Not for that reason, but I can see the logic in the argument that when you are faced with a potentical credit market collapse because of rapid asset devaluation in key players, it makes sense to spend money to stabilize salvageable financial instutions to both prevent whole sale collapse as well as get credit moving again.

And I can see in a recessionary scenario of potential significant severity, using fiscal stimulus to make up some of the demand lost by the lack of confidence to reverse the spiral of layoffs, fear, contraction, and more layoffs.

There is a strong possibility that it won't work....then what???
We're just out a bunch of money that we can't pay back.

 

[DamnYankee]

Very good indeed.

Yea, I'm liking this Paul Krugman:

Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1

But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.




Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.

It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.

That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: it’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject — and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate — or is being deliberately obtuse.

These are only some of the fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments out there. Basically, conservatives are throwing any objection they can think of against the Obama plan, hoping that something will stick.

But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost.

My goodness.... After so many of his supporters telling me that he was a good leader because he is a good listener.

Once again, just for you, the top five "hits" from Google search "economists stimulus bill":

DC Republican Examiner: Harvard Economist: 'Stimulus is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s'

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009...-the-spectrum-continue-to-flee-stimulus-bill/

For Many Economists, Stimulus Falls Flat - CBS News

The $800 Billion Gamble: Economists Say Stimulus Cuts Could Be "Disastrous"

Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no | McClatchy

And one for good measure:

Factcheck.org: Truth, Fiction on the Stimulus Plan | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com
Feb 13, 2009 ... Still, Nobel laureate economists can't agree on whether the stimulus bill contains the right kind of measures to aid the crisis-plagued...

 

[Xenophon]

Obama will be the new FDR.

So you believe Obama will force a world war over asia that is not in our interests just to jack up the economy, do you?

Will he top the 400,000+ dead Americans FDR racked up?