Amazing just amazing. does no one study history? Massive government spending never ever works...never. And when that government spending is from borrowed debt it is sure not to work. soon people will be charging the USa 10-15% interest on its debt. Quick what's the monthly payment on $12trillion at 15% interest?
Washington is clueless. Wall Street are clueless. they want the party to continue yet they don't want to pay for hit.
In 2000 the federal budget was $1.7 trillion. In 2009 under Obama the deficiet will be $1.7trillion maybe more.
Yes the amount we are in the red is equal to the amount the entire government spent in 2000. We have had massive government spending over the last 8 years (this was Bush's achiles heel) to no effect in fact it has made things worse. Now Obama wants to double down on the bet that somehow the "smart" government can fix the mess.
Idiots. CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Bring the gov back to the $1.7 trillion level. We did fine in 2000 at that level do we really need a $3.5Trillion federal gov?
I hate to say it, but you are right about a lot of things. First, I took you off ignore (temporarily) just to see what the nonsense replies were regarding.
Second, you are absolutely right about the foolishness of "stimulus". The idea that the government knows how to allocate resources (money) better than individuals is ridiculous.
If we were to now take extreme measures to balance the budget, we would probably go through several years of extreme hurt... but it would eventually turn around. The approach that we are now taking will virtually assure us of decades of very dismal economic times. Personally, I would prefer the former.
My major disagreement with you in the past has been your unrelenting bias against democrats in favor of republicans. In my opinion, the problems that we have today have been created over decades in roughly equal measure both parties. Both waste taxpayers money. The only difference seems to be that republicans seem to favor ill-advised "defence" spending and wars over ill-advised social programs.
My other point of contention is that you seem to believe that because we currently have too much government that somehow little or no government would be preferable. I see an important role for government. Without it we would have anarchy... not only in terms of lawless individuals, but reckless businesses and private organizations.
I believe that we need regulations on things like environmental protection and international trade with undesirable foreign states. It also seems that some common sense regulations such as a minimum down payment on mortgages and penalties on commodity traders who do not actually take delivery of their contracts might be necessary. It is apparent to most of us that unregulated capitalist greed has a preference for short term gains over long term enrichment.
While I would have to agree that both parties are to blame for the run away spending. esp Bush and other liberal "compassionate" republicians. The fact of the matter is that out of the two parties only one says they are for limited gov. Now we can argue the difference between saying and doing and you would have a good point. I consider myself a Reagan republician.
that means consitutionally limited gov. It does not mean no gov or massive deregulation. It means that the gov must act within its consitutional authority. You mention environmental regulation which is fine as long IMO it does not encroach on private property rights and individual freedoms.
I have no problem with requiring a down payment for a home, making trader take delivery etc.
One of the governments roles should be to provide for a free and fair market place. which means they should proactice anti-trust, insider trading rules etc. The problem comes that with each addtional regulation more costs are added on to the bottom line therefore only the regulation needed to ensure a free and fair marketplace should be done. Regulation should not include such things as social experiments, or social justice.
Finally if the gov must spend money I would rather spend it on defense than social make work programs that do nothing to help the economy. However I do believe there are billions that can be cut from defense before any drawdown in our strength is felt.
In short I do not believe in Kenyianism economics, I thing the Asutrian economic thepory is the correct one and has been shown to work. Unlike what Obama is trying. I think Obama's policy has less to do about the economy and more to do with securing power for decades to come. Or trying to.
I'm with Myfun$ & Unseennc!
Where in the Consitution does it describe Social Services for anyone?
Social Services is nothing more than a Vote-Buying-Scheme. Sure there are people that need a little help, but the Democrats & recent self-labeled Liberal Republicans have made a way of life out of it for the so-called proverty stricken lower class that doesn't want a job, just a check!!!
hayden....nice response....how is pointing out just 1 example (of many) where the government spends 15% more to get the same thing ignorant or bigotry?? how about redueing the benefits of the house and senate representatives - after 2 years of service they get FULL benefits for the rest of their lives...what other company does that? how about putting goevernment officials into the same social security fund we all get vs. their "country club" style retirement....how much would those 2 items save the tax payers and NOT effect your precious social services...infact then there might be real change to social security financing.....okay - there are 3 examples (2+1).....do you think there are many more???? LOL
instead of thinking all "rich" are out to get the "poor" and it is up to the government to be the watch dog....maybe you should look and see that some "poor" people actually choose to be that way to get the government subsidies they so enjoy.
p.s. - one more for you to look into - the farm subsidies - unnecessary and counter productive and costing tax payers billions - also not helping your social services....hmmmm....the list goes on and on without effecting your precious social services how much money could be saved if government REALLY wanted to reduce spending
How ignorant can you be? You can't compare Bush's reckless deficiet spending (to fund wars and provide tax cuts for the rich) to Obama's proposal (Infrastructure spending). Obama shouldn't be providing tax cuts in this envirnoment, but otherwise his plan is sound. There is nothing wrong with borrowing to fund projects that will actually see a return for the US long term. You talk as if his plan is to spend $700 billion on inflating government bureaucracy - investing in infrastructre and technology is not the same thing. These are exceptional times. Your do-nothing approach didn't work for Japan in the 90's and it sure as hell wouldn't work for the US.
"We have had massive government spending over the last 8 years (this was Bush's achiles heel)"
I just had to laugh at this one.. pick any metric you want and things are worse off now than when Bush's presidency started. Must be hard work dragging that 600 pound achilles heel around.
Funny how you are conspicuously absent from this board while the rally was ticking along (Dow 7000 by Jan 21st anyone?) but come chiming in with your rubbish when things start to fizzle. Never mind this is being driven by poor earnings and has nothing to do with Obama's plan.
And one final note. The ONLY time the gov should spend beyond its means is when it is in a war. Or and those increases in tobacco the dems are pushing right now in the Schip bill will further kill the economy has the poor and minorites are the worse hit.
It also figures you are against the only thing that could save this economy. Massive tax cuts and massive government spending cuts. Just like the avg person going thru tough times has to cut back and save look to make a little extra here and there. The government needs to get its house in order, start paying off the debt it took on for the last 70 years and return to a pay-go. It should also declare a 1 year tax holiday from all pay checks including social security. Paying for that holiday with massive spending cuts across the board. Give the people an extra 30% and see what spending does. This would be a great time for the government to cut dividend taxes to zero and raise capital gains taxes so that people have an incentive to buy and hold good paying dividend stocks. Yes it will put wall street out of business when people are not as willing to trade shares on a day to day basis but it would return confidence into the market.
In short Obama the dems and Bush and the rep are doing the exact opposite of what is needed.
Why because to do the opposite of what they are doing will require pain and that means lost votes.
As far as being absent from the suckers hopechange unicorn and fairy farts rally? My money is safe. I made some on the way up. Not much mostly sat out the fools rally until reality returned. Reality returned this week and so did I.
Hello? your typing but it appears no one is home.
I don't even no where to begin you lack of economic thought is hard to believe.
If you think that Obama's plan is not calling for a massive increase in government and bureaucracy i have some nice bridges to sell you. We are still 70 years later dealing with the bureaucracy left by the last dem president to do "infrastructure" (TWA? ring a bell) FDIC? Social security? )
As far as Japan goes what the hell do you think happened? and why is Japan still in a recession 15 years later.
Here is a clue for you. Japan tried exactly what Obama/Bush are trying.
"Between 1992 and 1995, Japan tried six spending programs totaling 65.5 trillion yen and cut income tax rates during 1994. In January 1998, Japan temporarily cut taxes again by 2 trillion yen. Then, in April of that year, the government unveiled a fiscal stimulus package worth more than 16.7 trillion yen, almost half of which was for public works. Again, in November 1998, another fiscal stimulus package worth 23.9 trillion yen was announced. A year later (November 1999), yet another fiscal stimulus package of 18 trillion yen was tried. Finally, in October 2000, Japan announced yet another fiscal stimulus package of 11 trillion yen. Overall during the 1990s, Japan tried 10 fiscal stimulus packages totaling more than 100 trillion yen, and each failed to cure the recession. What the spending programs have done, however, is put Japan's government in poor fiscal shape. The "on-budget" government spending has caused public debt to exceed 100 percent of GDP (highest in the G7), and even more debt is apparent when the "off-budget" sector is included."
and here is what you have to look forward too"
"Politicians in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) run most of these government agencies. The Economist Intelligence Unit profile states that "FILP money is channeled toward traditional supporters of the LDP, such as those in the construction industry, and without proper consideration of the costs and benefits of specific projects" (EIU 2001, p. 30). Although this Keynesian approach of government direct-lending does avoid the reluctance of banks to lend, it does not aid economy recovery. Funds are not allocated according to market-based consumer preferences, but to the most politically connected businessmen. This leads to a higher cost of borrowing for those seeking private funds, further distorting the economy. Also, because the loans are often highly risky, Japan's fiscal condition deteriorates further. Once FILP and other "off-budget" debts are included, Japan's debt is estimated to exceed 200 percent of GDP (EIU 2001). "