HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » CNN Host Schools Bobby Ji...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:25 PM

CNN Host Schools Bobby Jindal For Spouting ‘Misleading’ Economic ‘Nonsense’



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/25/1636621/cnn-host-schools-bobby-jindal-for-spouting-misleading-economic-nonsense/


CNN Host Schools Bobby Jindal For Spouting ‘Misleading’ Economic ‘Nonsense’

By Igor Volsky posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Feb 25, 2013 at 3:30 pm


CNN business correspondent Ali Velshi slammed Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) for likening the federal budget to family spending and suggesting that the Obama administration should not spend more than the government takes in.

“Every family has to balance their budget, isn’t allowed to spend more than they need, every business is more efficient, tighten their belt. The reality is it can be done,” Jindal said in remarks outside of the White House on Monday, following a meeting between the National Governor’s Association and President Obama. He added that the administration can implement the automatic across-the-borad sequestration cuts that are likely to go into effect on March 1 “without jeopardizing the economy” or “critical services” by focusing on “wasteful spending.”

Velshi rejected Jindal’s comparison as “misleading” “nonsense” and pointed out that businesses and families routinely borrow money to invest in their futures, reasoning that an investment made today in college education or a new equipment can lead to greater returns down the road:

VELSHI: It’s 3% of a small part of the federal budget which makes it a very big part of some major agencies. It’s misleading stuff Bobby Jindal is saying, number one. Number two when he says families understand they have to live within their budget. I don’t know a lot of families who buy a house with cash. Buying a house on a mortgage, is that living within your budget or not living within your budget? You would have to be 80 years old to be able to buy a house with cash. We have an understanding in our society, it may be flawed, that we borrow money based on our future earnings potential. All people do that, companies do that and governments do that. There’s a point at which you can say, we’ve gone too far with that or we’re too much of a risk of not paying back so we’ll end up paying a higher interest rate. When you borrow too much money, your personal interest rate goes up, credit cards go up. But to suggest within your means and balanced budget nonsense is just misleading. That is not how families live. It’s not how businesses conduct themselves. It is certainly not since the history of time the way governments run themselves. Bobby Jindal is a smart guy. He runs a state. He needs to not talk like this and it’s become common to hear this stuff coming out in these press conferences.


Watch it @ link~

The federal economy is fundamentally different from household budgets and economic data and history suggest that the government should be spending more, not less given the current economic circumstances. After all, overall government spending has plateaued under Obama after rising sharply under George W. Bush and the resulting fiscal contraction has resulted in a lower recovery.

30 replies, 5391 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply CNN Host Schools Bobby Jindal For Spouting ‘Misleading’ Economic ‘Nonsense’ (Original post)
babylonsister Feb 2013 OP
JaneyVee Feb 2013 #1
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #5
BlueStreak Feb 2013 #2
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2013 #3
freshwest Feb 2013 #4
southern_belle Feb 2013 #6
DeSwiss Feb 2013 #7
Lex Feb 2013 #8
Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #24
red dog 1 Feb 2013 #9
MrScorpio Feb 2013 #10
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #12
guyton Feb 2013 #11
Lex Feb 2013 #13
guyton Feb 2013 #18
babylonsister Feb 2013 #14
Lex Feb 2013 #15
guyton Feb 2013 #21
guyton Feb 2013 #20
Cheviteau Feb 2013 #17
guyton Feb 2013 #19
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #25
Yavin4 Feb 2013 #16
VA_Jill Feb 2013 #22
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #23
DallasNE Feb 2013 #26
merrily Feb 2013 #27
ThomThom Feb 2013 #28
Democrats_win Feb 2013 #29
Uncle Joe Feb 2013 #30

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:35 PM

1. This is why conservative economics FAILS, because it would rather spend

$100Billion on repairing a bridge only after it has collapsed into the river with hundreds of cars on it than spend $20Billion repairing it before hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:35 PM

5. It fails because the only thing it conserves is a hugely inflated military

...and tax cuts for those who need it the least at the expense of everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:37 PM

2. What nobody mentioned is that OBAMA has done EXACTLY what Jindal asked for

Obama has put forward a plan that makes serious cuts and does prioritize the cuts in ways that will be least harmful to the economy and the American people. And it also closes just a few of the many loopholes that Ryan and Romney were so vocal about jest 4 months ago. Don't forget that Romney was planning to balance the whole budget by eliminating loopholes that mostly favor the rich. He said that over and over.

Election is over. The people decided. Let's get on with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:49 PM

3. Ali will be quietly "reassigned" to an "off camera" role soon

Book it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:55 PM

4. Yup!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:20 PM

6. Thank you for posting this

babylonsister!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:28 PM

7. You can't ''unrotten'' an apple. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:32 PM

8. Right. People buy houses and cars and start small businesses by borrowing

money on some level. If it were otherwise, the entire economy would grind to a halt.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:31 PM

24. The financial sector and most banking would fail inside of a year.

Our entire economy would crash if credit was no longer used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:59 PM

9. Piyush Jindal is an idiot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:03 PM

10. Perhaps lenders should cut off credit to the State of Louisiana…

Because Jindal thinks that government should live within its means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:13 PM

12. LOL. Excellent. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:51 AM

11. not the buying-a-house analogy again!

Oh no no no no! There's a difference between borrowing to invest in the future and borrowing to pay operational expenses.

People don't buy a new house every week without selling their old one first. Comparing Federal spending to buying a house is just a lousy comparison.

It makes sense to borrow to invest in the future, or to recover from an unusual, unexpected situation. But it does *not* make sense to add long-term debt to cover routine, recurring expenses.

Two examples ... would it make sense to always put your monthly electric bill on a credit card account -- and then only pay the minimum charge on the bill when it comes? Or to go on a permanent vacation (borrowing for all your expenses) until your credit runs out?

Of course not, that's just living beyond your means and before long you'll be buried in debt and unable to make even minimum payments.

Acquiring new debt makes lots of sense when it's an investment in the future or for covering unexpected emergencies. But routinely increasing your debt, spending more than you have, is a path to destruction ... for individuals, businesses, or governments.

And no, I'm not a right-wing troll. I'm way left of Obama and most of the folks here on DU. But I believe in raising taxes to pay for what we spend unless it's a capital investment or an unusual expense that can't be deferred.

Please, no more buying-a-house comparisons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guyton (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:16 PM

13. So you don't see buying a house as any sort of investment in the future?

"Acquiring new debt makes lots of sense when it's an investment in the future . . . "



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:21 PM

18. yes of course buying a house in an investment

but you don't buy another new house every week. the national debt includes lots of 'non-house' type expenses. it's not at all appropriate to compare the federal deficit to investing since so much of it is for short-term recurring expenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guyton (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:25 PM

14. What if it's your first house? That's an investment in the future. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:37 PM

15. Right. My parents are retired & have no monthly house payments or rent

because they've paid off the house they bought. You won't be able to convince them that their decision to borrow money to buy a house wasn't an investment in their future.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:29 PM

21. I've been seriously misunderstood ...

... if you think I don't believe that buying a house is an investment in the future. The point is that's the only kind of deficit spending that does make sense. But it's not the kind of spending we're doing with the fed budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:28 PM

20. must notta been clear

Yes, buying a house is an investment in the future. And when the govt spends to invest in the future I have no problems with it going into debt to pay for that. E.g. even slightly dubious spending like "stimulus" spending. You can make the argument that it's improving the economy short-term and will pay us back big-time by avoiding a depression and with increased tax revenue.

But you can't look at the federal budget without realizing that way too much of the debt is just unchecked spending that has nothing to do with investing in the future. E.g. the entirely optional war in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guyton (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:43 PM

17. Buying A House

is an ongoing expense. That monthly expense is called "housing". Otherwise we'd all be renting and that is a monthly expense also. So we buy a home as an investment. Therefore, we add long term debt to cover ongoing expenses. See? It's simple. The comparison is appropriate and informative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheviteau (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:24 PM

19. buy vs. rent

The comparison sucks because we go into debt to buy a single house. We don't borrow money (w/out paying it off quickly) to pay the rent.

The federal budget is deeply in the red because of ongoing expenses. There are a few "buying a house" items in there, but way too much of it is going for ongoing expenses that should be covered by taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guyton (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:41 PM

25. We don't have a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure deficit because we are "buying houses"

No new warehouses. Nary a tractor or drill press.

It isn't investing in our people either, unemployment insurance, food stamps, WIC, and all of that is fairly minor. NASA gets about a half a fucking peanut. Non-military/security research gets the other half. We spend a fair little chunk on education but it seems largely to be spent to destroy rather than invest. The Arts? You jest! Masterpiece Theater best eat their peas!

Meanwhile, revenue really more or less only covers the on the budget and on the books military spending which means even if the military spending was zero we'd still have deficits and much of it would seem to be crap as well.

You are likely to spin in circles with a lot of folks. Democrats are shifting taxaphobic as well unless it is some bullshit "sin" tax, restrained nibbles at the wealthiest, and apparently weird tithes to predatory corporations supposedly to "keep them in check" and "curb their worst excesses".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:42 PM

16. And If the Republicans re-gain complete control of our govt., Jindal will be on CNN arguing

that we must cut taxes on the rich in order to grow the economy and ignore the deficit and debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:05 PM

22. Booby Jindal

has screwed up Louisiana's economy even worse than it already was and now spends his time running around the country pontificating and trying to avoid his constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:14 PM

23. not to mention that wall street funds most of its speculation on leverage.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 05:25 PM

26. "Bobby" Jindal Needs To Educate Himself On The Language

Of the bill because the President does not have the authority to pick and choose what spending he will cut because it was designed as across the board in nature to make it unpalatable and thus would never go into effect. Now if Jindal supports a new bill to give the President that authority that would be something else but I don't see where he is calling for that. Instead, he is just saying stupid stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:37 AM

27. Yes, the idea that all families due is cut spending is obvious bullshit.

Generating more income and borrowing are certainly known to every family.

But, it's good that the TV idiots do, on occasion, point out the obvious, rather than sit silently between one Republican telling his or her version and one Democrat telling his or her version.

It's not all about competing idea (read competing propaganda)

Facts do still matter, regardless of the formats the television idiots choose to adopt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:33 AM

28. maybe Mr Gindull we should bring in some more money form the people that got it

mainly you and your rich republican't friends and craperations
someone should tell him to shut the fuck up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:06 PM

29. omg! Such an old fallacy!

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I thought only old backward conservatives repeated that bromide. I first heard it when Reagan was running and it was totally false. First, as noted above, household do have debt and second, it's a straw-man argument because households are not the federal government. Today, most young conservatives understand the difference and don't repeat such nonsense.

The ironic and tragic twist is that BECAUSE of Reagan, household debt increased dramatically. Reagan always lied to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:38 PM

30. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread