Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama eyes domestic spending freeze

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
steven johnson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:44 PM
Original message
Obama eyes domestic spending freeze
Source: Associated Press

The Obama administration has alerted domestic agencies to plan for a freeze or even a 5 percent cut in their budgets, part of an election-year push to rein in record deficits that threaten the economy and Democrats' political prospects next fall.

China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities, has expressed concern about the size of U.S. deficits. U.S. policymakers worry that alarm over deficits could push foreigners into cutting back on their purchases of Treasury debt. President Barack Obama will visit China as part of his current tour of Asia.

White House budget director Peter Orszag said Friday that it is imperative to start curbing the flow of red ink in coming years so as not to erode the fledgling economic recovery and raise interest rates. But he called it a balancing act and said acting too fast could undercut the recovery.

Orszag wouldn't comment on the specifics of the upcoming budget, which will be unveiled in February, right after Obama's State on the Union address in which the initiative is sure to be a major focus.


Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2RBE...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. M I L I T A R Y . . . F R E E Z E
would serve us, and the world, far better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'm sure it's just a freeze on all that wasteful feeding and sheltering of people, instead
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. IOKIODI
It's OK If Obama Does It.

Or, so I am frequently told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Louisiana1976 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. AMEN!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. What $600 billion on the military, leaps and bounds more than anyone else
but we are going to solve the budget problem by cutting back on poor kids' lunches?

i hope not.

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. +100! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. +1 Also TAX the Hell out of the Filthy Rich! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
35. +10000000000000000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
40. +1000000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
87. +1
Not going to happen, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. He'd better not raise troop levels in Afghanistan, then.
If there must be cuts, start where the budget has gone up the most since 2001. That is most certainly not domestic programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Better yet, make the Pentagon pay for the troop increase out of their own budget
The idea of supplemental war spending bills is stupid. Make the Pentagon spend their budget money on real work instead of developing stupid toys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Bake sales and charity. They'll get by.
Guess they can't buy new snow tires this year for USS George H.W. Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. Maybe the new ATC contract won't be so bad after all...
We just went through a three-year pay freeze. Our brand new contract gives us just 3%/year.


Based on traditional government raises, it looked weak...but it might let us hold ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Will Geithner have to stop giving welfare to the banks?
........didnt think so.

Politicians of both party's always get tight fisted if it looks like there will be a need to actually spend money on the general populace.

Maybe the answer is for all of us to incorporate and become banks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garam_Masala Donating Member (711 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. That won't work...only big banks get bailouts
those who are "too big to fail"...gimme a break!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
39. Of course, we're already on the hook for as much as they want up to $15T.
The perversity is simply mind-boggling.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. And the Republicans, who called for a spending freeze early this year. . .
how will they play this in the mid-term elections? And honestly, how will this impact Democratic electoral prospects next fall?

Or might this just be our Chinese overlords pulling our strings again?

"Dance, silly democracy, dance to the tune of them to whom you've sold your children's futures. Dance!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't remember prior freezes when the media said it was due to politics
I hate AP

He's not doing it because its right, he's doing it to help dems.

ass holes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. WOW !!
These cuts must be focused on the DOD. He better be careful...Depending on where those cuts are placed its gonna be aweful hard to swallow and many Democrats will become disaffected in an election year...

Republicans will all come after social programs and the fight will be on .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. There's more to moral leadership than "will I get re-elected" eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #27
36. No kidding. This is not leadership.
If people are hungry and homeless, jobless and hopeless while the military fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, I simply will not be able to support him or any other Dem who goes along. Supporting such a program would be immoral in my view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. Thank you...
For so succintly claifying the intention of my post, I don't know how poster shortnfiery could not grasp the concept. There is nothing moral in cutting social programs to fund Imperialist war, in fact it is antithetical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. You're welcome.
Actually, I think that shortnfiery got it.

You just liked my way of putting it.

My jr. and sr. high school English teachers thank you for the complement you pay to their teaching skills. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #13
29. Republicans? The White House plans entitlement cuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
71. I was in concurrence with you.
:shrug: You're preaching to the choir. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
15. so the teabagggers did win....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. more like the FX market is winning
if things continue in this direction we could be looking at $8/gal gas by next summer - and remember that $4/gal gas was the trigger that set off the last round of financial chaos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MetaTrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. Two words: "Homeland" "Security"
Bush's Gigantic Gestapo Crony Giveaway, duplicating functions already performed by half a dozen other agencies, and apparently home to highly-placed pedophiles and would-be mercenaries. Cleaning house might as well start there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
17. Cuts would undermine the stimulatory effect of federal spending - bad move at this time
FDR did the same thing and the economy went back into depression/recession.

Freeze yes

Cut no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuaneBidoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
20. A spending freeze would be an ABSOLUTE DISASTER for the economy now.
The government has been one of the few segments pulling the economy along to avoid depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
53. i'm worried about this too- need to heed the lessons of the great depression
Edited on Sat Nov-14-09 07:21 PM by BREMPRO
where federal spending was cut and worsened the depression, but we do need to consider the problem of long term deficits. We are out of the recession according to the numbers, so this might be the right time to begin to reign in spending, but it's a difficult balance and i hope it's not a political decision forced by pressure from the right, but one that is sensible for the long term health of the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
72. A freeze in the government's budget is not an overall spending freeze
This is aimed only at the government agencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. 25 cent per gallon gas tax to fund the wars.
Since there is no draft the public has no stake in wars. If wars had to be funded by taxes maybe the public would take a greater interest in whether we go to war or not.

Why must every social program go thru a budget test but no matter how stupid the military spending it's never questioned??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Fuck that
Edited on Fri Nov-13-09 09:09 PM by Strelnikov_
Anywhere from $5 to $13/gal are figures from studies I have read regarding the military cost to the US in 'protecting' the 'Energy Crescent'.

$5/gal. min.

Fully agree with your tax angle. Was thinking of the same thing the other day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
22. CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cutlassmama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
58. +10,000
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
28. Oh, for fuck's sake.
Edited on Fri Nov-13-09 11:59 PM by FatDave
Let 'em bully you to the right, Barrack. There's a winning fucking strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
60. Unless he's bought and sold like the rest of them.
Edited on Sat Nov-14-09 09:28 PM by Deja Q
((It's still too early to tell.))

But speculation on every single thing... that's not getting this country any better either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
30. If I had wanted a president who would institute a spending freeze, I would have voted for McCain,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
31. How about a freeze on handouts to WALL STREET? Get our money back and sell the execs organs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
32. The military budget was $302 billion in 2000.
The occupation budget for this year so far is $164 billion dollars. This is a d'oh moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
33. More from the Chicago school of fail
I guess that's to be expected when you hire proven failures to advise you and run economic policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. But since the GDP went up recently, he probably doesn't think that the policy failed.
I'm sure he expects that the unemployment rate will be down to 6-7% by November 2010, even though his team told him that unemployment would be 8% tops here.

Obama's choice of economic advisers at the beginning of his run turned me off to his primary campaign because I thought that the economy was likely to become an issue before the general election or during his first term.

If things are not a lot better economically, he may not be able to turn out his base in 2010. Counting on independents to turn out en masse to replace them in an off year election is, IMHO, a risky proposition. It is even more risky, since the 2010 election at the state level will determine the legislatures that will redistrict after the 2010 census. It is not a time for risks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. The failure to keep the federal revenue sharing provisions in the stimulus
has put a lot of state legislatures and governorships at risk, that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. It's more than that.
You have lived or lived here for a long time. State legislative and governorship races are not always about state issues, particularly in a time of general difficulty like we are now having. The losing side always paints them as such, but I'm not nearly as convinced as many.

What we saw a couple of weeks ago was a very poor turnout among young and minority voters who came out for Obama. Republicans, who are older and whiter, vote much more regularly. We simply have to get our folks out to vote and that's going to take Obama going out there and asking them to get off the sofa and vote.

It's been my impression that a considerable amount of the stimulus money has gone to state and local governments, particularly to the schools. Revenue sharing hasn't been around since the late '80s. Block grants, their replacement, haven't been very generous for the past few years as money has been shoveled into Iraq and Afghanistan, not into our potholes. Apparently you see things differently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. They chopped over $40 billion out- causing states to raise substantially raise taxes-
and cut services. Never a popular thing- but this was THE worst time to do it, politically and economically.

Krugman and others were just shook their heads at the stupidity of that at the time- and they've been proven right:

According to the CBOs estimates, were facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-ce... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Thanks for posting that blog. I had forgotten about it.
However, I maintain my point on turnout.

Do you still live here or did you leave? Your cv says "Oregon, NSW."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #33
83. but it isn't a "failure"... they are succeeding
in furthering the demise of the "Commons", something our ForeFathers left us to guard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
34. cut the defense dept spending by 2/3 , Obama.. slash the Pentagon
stop sending millions to mercenaries


boy, he is really going to make it difficult for dems to win in 2010 if he pulls this shit.

oh, but wall street will eat well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cory777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. let's increase funding baby bombing, though
real smart!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. you dont think we have bombed enough babies in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I guess not. perhaps you should enlist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saorsa Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. sarcasm missed?
I think # 38 was being sarcastic, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. no I think its a troll with vague references to the stupak bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cory777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. yes, that was meant to be sarcastic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
48. Then why did he approve a pay raise for all Federal Employees
for next year.?

Yes, tis true....google it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
50. So now they've started to notice that deficits matter?
Where was this notion a trillion dollars ago?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. i'm still astonished that many here don't understand the basic economics of the need for federal
spending to fend of an economic meltdown and depression. Read a little history of the great depression. The fast massive federal spending and resulting deficits are what kept us from falling into another one and pulled us out of the deepest recession since the depression of the thirties. Now may be the time to begin to reign in spending- but it may be too soon. tough call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. So far most of the stimulus hasn't been spent
what has has been spent poorly and cuts/moves to increase efficiency along with higher taxes to offset the spending have not materialized.

FDR didn't merely start throwing money around willy nilly, he had a plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #55
62. I'm referring to both the bailouts and the stimulus
Edited on Sun Nov-15-09 12:11 AM by BREMPRO
which has helped us avert a depression. Even Paul Krugman agrees with this.

According to Recovery.gov that tracks stimulus spending and results, 640,000 Jobs have been saved or created with about 20% of the stimulus spent. OF COURSE it could have been spent better, but there is still no doubt that we've gone beyond a crisis that could have brought down the ENTIRE world economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #62
73. don't confuse them with the facts.
a lot of people here can barely grasp the concept of negative numbers. they can't imagine the larger economy, they just bitch about their own job losses, or their friends. to them, the larger economy consists of the evil rich.
talk about the 'i got mine, fuck everyone else' mentality. alive and well here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. That comment would be warranted
if there were any evidence the stimulus bill as it passed was the best way to go about fixing the larger economy.

You can't simply sign progressively larger checks to lobbyists and special interests and then act offended when people expect you to defend that tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #73
78. Try posting on the topic of the thread, instead of posting solely to insult your fellow DUers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #62
74. Thank god for that stimulus
Edited on Mon Nov-16-09 01:42 PM by JonQ
or else we'd be in real trouble.



Hey I didn't pile up all my money today and burn it, I guess I saved/created thousands of dollars!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. There is no way of knowing what would have happened without the bailout and the stimulus, though.
That is too bad, but it is true. We may have been in much worse shape, or in much better shape, though I personally very much doubt the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #79
85. Point is the administration predicted a certain set of results
given their proposed solution. And by their own numbers the stimulus has made things worse. The other option is that their initial estimates were way off.

Neither of those inspires confidence.

And I really dislike the "yeah you can't show things are getting better, but just think how much worse it would be if we hadn't done X" defense. Just think, if we hadn't invaded iraq the terrorists may have detonated over 20 nuclear weapons in the US by now. Can't prove it, but there is no way of disproving it either. So the invasion saved or created millions of american lives potentially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #74
82. incredible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #62
77. Oh, the government claims that 640,000 jobs have been created or saved? Well, then, it MUST be true
Edited on Tue Nov-17-09 09:28 AM by No Elephants
because government never fudges things to make itself appear better than it is or makes any mistakes.

:sarcasm:

BTW, that website shows jobs created or saved in a number of Congressional districts that don't even exist.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congr...


Edited to add: Just noticed this thread, also relevant: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #77
86. The stimulus is now saving/creating
new congressional districts! This is incredible. No other president has been able to generate so many new districts in so short a period of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. Germany and France: no stimulus, less unemployment, and faster recovery
Both countries decided it was foolish to borrow and spend massively to get out of the problem that borrowing and spending got them into. Makes sense, no?

The results say it does make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. their economies are a fraction of the US economy and didn't have
50 trillion dollars of credit default swaps and derivative, Wall Street banks meltdown, AIG black hole, and sub-prime mortgage mess dragging them down. The economies of the world are also so intertwined, once we did the bailout and stimulus, France and Germany benefited from it and were able to ride the wave and not do any stimulus. Also, China had a much large per capita stimulus than we did and is recovering faster than all other countries. Makes you wonder if the Capitalist/Communists have an advantage over messy democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. I would say you can't have it both ways.
If the comparison is not valid vis. Germany and France, then it is not valid vis. China. Or, if the economies of the world are so intertwined that benefits flow internationally, why does that not hold true for the relationship between China and the US?

You do make some good points. :) They would be more persuasive if they were logically consistent. However, given that the smartest economists don't seem to be more in agreement than you and me, I think we're holding our own here. ;)

Bottom line: I look at the massive nonstimulus spending in the stimulus bill, and waste as far as the eye can see, and notice that here in the US, no one can point with certainty to any clear results from the largest spending bill in the history of all governments from the beginning of time. It's all spin. Meanwhile, we'll be paying $20 billion (or more, depending on what happens to interest rates) in interest on that whopper each and every year forever.

What else could have been done with that money?

Here's an idea.

We could have built between 100 and 125 new-generation pebble-bed (i.e., safe, meltdown-proof) nuclear plants and pretty much eliminated all fossil fuel purchases from foreign suppliers. We could have used the pocket change left over to create a safe disposal facility, as well.

This would have given us *complete* energy independence every year starting now, and a decline in C02 emissions below what would have been specified had we signed Kyoto. How many jobs would have been created to build those plants? Enough to whack the unemployment problem back in the hole, too.

But politics is so much more important, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #57
64. Since they have much more generous social programs,
a recession means that they automatically spend more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. Their social programs are different, but characterizing them as "much more generous"...
Edited on Sun Nov-15-09 01:34 AM by Psephos
...is a subjective assignment, and depends upon which comparisons one selects.

Given that already-committed future (unfunded) liabilities for just the United States' two "most generous" social programs, SS and MC, are over $50 trillion - which is not much less than the current total wealth of the entire planet, at $65 trillion, I would say the US has a fair claim at the offering the "most generous" social programs.

Meanwhile, it's a truism that any government committed to social expenditure (as are all Western democracies) will see outlays rise in a recession, while tax revenues simultaneously fall. No surprise there.

Earlier I said that if massive borrowing and massive spending got us into a deep hole, it seems clear that ever-higher borrowing and spending are hardly the means to get us out of the hole. It doesn't work for anyone else in trouble. There's nothing special about government, except that it can use Enron-style accounting without consequences right up until the moment when the pooch is finally and royally screwed. In the end, there is no escape from the laws of economics.

Unemployment here in Michigan is 15.7%. US unemployment is 10.2%. The stimulus architects solemnly warned us if we didn't pass the bill, unemployment would go to 8%...but if we did, it would crest somewhere between 7% and 7.5%.

Instead, we got a bill stuffed with political goodies and stupidly slow on distributing what actual stimulus money it contained...and an unemployment nightmare.

The results suck. Sorry, they took their eyes off the ball, and used up all their economic credibility. Don't even get me started on TARP, Geithner, bankster bailouts, Wall St. profits, AIG, GM, the unaccounted for $2 trillion backed by Treasury, the overtime shifts at the mint printing money by the container-load, and all the rest of it. It's a wall-to-wall fail.

Judging on results - which is the only judgment that counts - Germany and France got it right, and we did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. We'll have to agree to disagree on the social programs. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. That's cool.
I like our occasional discussions. You always bring your "A" game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Thanks. Same to you.
Edited on Sun Nov-15-09 02:09 AM by amandabeech
On edit: Folks who spend time in A2 ALWAYS bring their A-game, unless they are Rodriguez's football team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #57
80. Possibility: What tthey did made sense for them, but would not also have made sense for us.
In many, many respects, Germany and France are much more comparable to each other than they are to us US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #54
76. What FDR spent on was different from what Obama has been spending on.
It is not only a question of spending or not spending, but also of what you spend on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. Actually, what they've started to notice are the bad polling numbers.
If printing, borrowing, and spending more money polled well, then they'd be trying to increase the deficit.

Sorry to say, but when you listen to the actions, not the words, that's what you hear.

lol And to think I believed the crap about Pay-Go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #50
66. It was there ..Perot made it a big issue.. then Cheney came in and said deficits do not matter. nt


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-14-09 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
59. "[China]...has expressed concern about the size of U.S. deficits."
....and what China wants, China gets! Domestic policy, now made in Beijing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
65. assuming this story is true, wouldn't it make more sense for Democrats to score some victories
instead essentially agreeing with GOP budget priorities?

When will we be rid of these neoliberal parasites, sucking the blood out of the middle class to feed their trust fund babies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
81. hey, just don't forget to Bail out Wall Street
Edited on Tue Nov-17-09 09:07 AM by fascisthunter
and make sure they get their hands on the H1N1 vaccine before everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timo Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
84. better idea
why not cut off all the crappy foreign aid to countries that shit on us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyond cynical Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
88. Well, when you go after everybody,
no one can say that you singled them out for unfair treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 17th 2014, 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC