Obama's Deficit Lies

[Skeptic Ginger]

This isn't Keynesian. Keynes wanted debt to be paid down in good times, we're missing [we missed] that half of the equation [when Bush took office at the end of 'good times' under Clinton].

Fixed it for you. Surely you are not claiming this is 'good times'?

 

[Meadmaker]

You too, Meadmaker. I find it curious that you are defending the notion of 10+ years of extremely high deficits given your past statements about deficits and balanced budgets.

I'm not, and no reasonable person could take my last post as being anything even remotely close to that. You should go back and see which of your preconceived notions led you to make such a mistake. Through such self examination you might avoid such error in the future.

So the question is, MM, do you honestly believe that Obama's programs will grow the economy?

I think the economy will continue to shrink for a while and then start growing again. I think Obama's programs will have minimal impact either way. However, to the extent they do have some impact, it isn't likely to be good. I don't like debt.

Do you still miss those days?

There's no need to miss those days. They're back. Once more the GOP is demanding fiscal responsibility. When they get back into office, I hope they remember it. Sadly, their track record on that issue is not so good.

So do you think a depression is a possible outcome of Obama's even more massive increase in the National Debt?

Yes.

We are still suffering from LBJ's mistakes (and FDR's). Finally, it's almost impossible to reverse things unless someone like a Reagan comes along ...

Wait...we're still suffering from LBJ's mistakes, but someone like Reagan reversed things? Whoa...which is it? Did he reverse things or not? Oh wait, I remember. If it's good, our guy was responsible. If it's bad, your guy was responsible. It doesn't matter who was actually in power, or when.

This is simply dishonest.

As your idol once said, "There you go again."

Let me repeat. This, not anything about Barack Obama's policy, was the main poin of my last post. When someone, including a politician, makes a statement you disagree with, they are not lying.

When Barack Obama took office, the projected deficit for FY2009 was 1.3 trillion dollars. That was based on continuation of the previous administration's policies. To my way of thinking, that is the deficit he inherited, and if he cut that to 650 billion, I would say he cut the deficit in half.*

Maybe you have some other method of accounting. I can't see how it makes sense to say that Barack Obama was responsible for legislation that was passed before he became President, but maybe you think he was. Fine then, that is a point of disagreement, but it is in no way dishonest to say that the annual deficit, as of Jan 20, 2009 at 11:59 am was 1.3 trillion dollars. It says so in papers put together by Bush administration officials on their way out of town.


*And to reiterate, if the best he can do is be half as bad as GWB, then he's a pathetic loser.

 

[gdnp]

And I find it curious that you are defending these much higher deficits, given some of your past statements on this forum concerning deficits. In the past you seemed to me for balancing budgets and against large deficits. Suddenly you aren't?

As just one example of your past statements:

When a country is in recession, there are two ways to stimulate demand. One is through monetary policy: cutting interests rates. The fed cut interest rates to almost 0 and the economy contracted by 6.2% in the 4th quarter.

The other is through fiscal policy: deficit spending. I am against deficit spending in times of growth. Just because I do not advocate attacking countries that are not an immanent danger does not mean I do not advocate attacking those that are. Just because I do not advocate deficit spending when the economy is expanding, or even in a bubble, does not mean that I do not support it when the economy is in the worst recession in 70 years.

 

[Upchurch]

So how is propping up GM going to help your business training people for the auto industry? Housing materials will be nowhere for some time, because there is a glut of housing right now.

I suspect this is probably more of your trademark "Talk about it now, learn about it never" style, but let's assume you're right.

How would you suggest we stimulate the economy? What actions could be taken? I don't need to hear another repetition of what you think won't work.

 

[Texas]

I suspect this is probably more of your trademark "Talk about it now, learn about it never" style, but let's assume you're right.

How would you suggest we stimulate the economy? What actions could be taken? I don't need to hear another repetition of what you think won't work.

The financial markets all over the world have spoken and it is getting louder. Governments through their actions have taken a simple recession and turned it into a de facto depression. Nothing any government has done has worked. The Dow closed just above 7000 on Friday and the futures are down almost another 100 tonight. . That means it has lost 20% year to date. 9 of the 30 Dow component companies have a share vale less than $15 and all are down a minimum of 25%-90% from the 52 week highs. The book value of our major corporations are evaporating and the only entity that is hiring is government at all levels. The same is true in the Asian and European markets. HSBC one of GB's largest banks stopped trading on the Hong Kong exchange pending some dire announcement later today.

You stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates, that has been done, lower taxes especially business taxes, encourage investment by lowering capital gains taxes to zero if need be and completely freeze government spending to the point that the government is not crowding out private business in the credit markets. Last of all, let bankrupt banks and other bankrupt companies go bankrupt so they can reorganise and renegotiate their debts.

 

[Upchurch]

I hope Wildcat can do better than Texas's lame parroting of the GOP line.

My business has almost no debt that could be easily paid off with other assets in a pinch without going through the hassle of bankruptcy. There is nothing to reorganize. We have tons of interest in our work. Some of them have already invested in initial work. They just don't have the money to move forward.

What use are lower taxes when we have no money to tax? When business was good and money was flowing through the system, paying taxes was easy. It was hardly the thing holding us back then or now.

 

[gdnp]

The financial markets all over the world have spoken and it is getting louder. Governments through their actions have taken a simple recession and turned it into a de facto depression. Nothing any government has done has worked.

This is like arguing that the levees didn't protect New Orleans from Katrina, and therefore the levees caused the flooding. You can certainly argue that government policies over decades contributed to the crisis, but to assert that it was government intervention that caused the recession to become a depression is unsupported.

The Dow closed just above 7000 on Friday and the futures are down almost another 100 tonight. . That means it has lost 20% year to date. 9 of the 30 Dow component companies have a share vale less than $15 and all are down a minimum of 25%-90% from the 52 week highs. The book value of our major corporations are evaporating and the only entity that is hiring is government at all levels. The same is true in the Asian and European markets. HSBC one of GB's largest banks stopped trading on the Hong Kong exchange pending some dire announcement later today.

World stock markets are in the toilet, this is true. I don't think that there is much argument there. Do you think they would be in better shape had the feds allowed AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, GM, Chrysler, Bear Stearns, etc. to go belly up?

You stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates, that has been done,

Can't be lowered further. Next suggestion?

lower taxes especially business taxes,

doesn't help if you are losing money. Taxes are paid on profits, not income. Next.

encourage investment by lowering capital gains taxes to zero if need be

capital gains taxes can be anywhere you want and people will not invest unless they see an opportunity to make capital gains. Next.

and completely freeze government spending to the point that the government is not crowding out private business in the credit markets.

Government spending crowding out the credit markets implies interest rates so high that businesses cannot borrow. Interest rates are at historic lows, the banks just don't have a lot of customers that they trust to be able to pay them back. The only people they want to lend money to are those who don't need to borrow. So government borrowing is not driving out private borrowing. Next.

Last of all, let bankrupt banks and other bankrupt companies go bankrupt so they can reorganize and renegotiate their debts.

While this is happening many other companies that are solvent but illiquid will be dragged down with them. There will certainly need to be bankruptcies and reorganizations, but it will be much less traumatic for the rest of this economy if this is allowed to happen in an orderly fashion.

So all in all you have not listed a single item that will be effective in stimulating the economy in the current climate. The only tool left is fiscal stimulus: government deficit spending. Yet you seem to oppose not just the stimulus package, but wish to dramatically cut back government spending overall. This would throw additional millions out of work, leading to more mortgage and credit card defaults, more bank failures, and a worsening cycle of contraction.

Sounds like a recipe for depression to me. Of course, if it were done and the inevitable depression ensued, I'm sure that you would blame it on government interference anyway.

 

[Upchurch]

My business has almost no debt that could be easily paid off with other assets in a pinch without going through the hassle of bankruptcy.

That's a typo. It should be:

My business has almost no debt. What debt we do have could be easily paid off with other assets in a pinch without going through the hassle of bankruptcy.

That's what I get for posting from my phone.

 

[BeAChooser]

Fixed it for you. Surely you are not claiming this is 'good times'?

Surely you aren't claiming that what Obama is doing is good policy? Afterall, skeptigirl, don't you remember posting this back in September?

"It's so mind boggling that such a platitude continues to lead the right wing masses considering the last 3 decades which have had Republican administrations spending like there is no tomorrow and the 8 years of Clinton actually having a balanced budget.

Seems to me you were chastising republican administrations for "spending like there is no tomorrow" and applauding the Clinton administration for "having a balanced budget". What's changed such that now you are apparently in favor of Obama spending that makes those republican administrations look like spendthrifts and with a budget that hasn't been more out of balance since WWII? Well?

 

[BeAChooser]

Upchurch, gdnp, Meadmaker ...

Just be honest with yourself.

You advocate STEALING from those who are a success.

And giving what is stolen (after the thieves skim off 30% or so) to those who aren't a success.

And in return, you hope that those who receive your stolen goods will vote for your political party and agenda.

It's really that simple.

 

[gdnp]

Seems to me you were chastising republican administrations for "spending like there is no tomorrow" and applauding the Clinton administration for "having a balanced budget". What's changed such that now you are apparently in favor of Obama spending that makes those republican administrations look like spendthrifts and with a budget that hasn't been more out of balance since WWII? Well?

What about WWII, BAC? would you have advocated during WWII that the federal government balance the budget, or was deficit spending there justified due to the severity of the crisis?

Is it perhaps the case that there could be a financial crisis so severe that a similar level of deficit spending was necessary to end it? That we might be in such a financial crisis right now? Well?

 

[joobz]

BeAChooser,
Admit that you lied about Obama's statement regarding the severity of the current recesssion.

 

[gdnp]

Upchurch, gdnp, Meadmaker ...

Just be honest with yourself.

You advocate STEALING from those who are a success.

And giving what is stolen (after the thieves skim off 30% or so) to those who aren't a success.

And in return, you hope that those who receive your stolen goods will vote for your political party and agenda.

It's really that simple.

BAC, be honest with yourself

You really don't believe anything you post here.

You fantasize about an Ayn Rand utopia but you know it's no more achievable than the empire Asimov's Foundation series

And since you know that no one takes your wingnut theories seriously, you can proclaim their truth without ever having to worry that they will be tested in the real world. Where you know that they would fail. You are smart enough to know that.

Thus you can feel superior to everyone else when something bad happens because obviously you had nothing to do with it or the people who proposed it.

It's really that simple.

 

[Cleon]

Upchurch, gdnp, Meadmaker ...

Just be honest with yourself.

You advocate STEALING from those who are a success.

And giving what is stolen (after the thieves skim off 30% or so) to those who aren't a success.

And in return, you hope that those who receive your stolen goods will vote for your political party and agenda.

It's really that simple.

No.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Any more question, Darat?

Nope just the same original question i.e. What are his socialist policies?

 

[Upchurch]

It's only fair that BAC doesn't actually read what I say. After all, I've pretty much given up on reading his drivel.

The difference is that I have the courtesy to not pretend that I have and comment on it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Upchurch, gdnp, Meadmaker ...

Just be honest with yourself.

You advocate STEALING from those who are a success.

And giving what is stolen (after the thieves skim off 30% or so) to those who aren't a success.

And in return, you hope that those who receive your stolen goods will vote for your political party and agenda.

It's really that simple.

The real world is so much more rich and subtle than yours. In the real world, there are people who are honest, honorable, and intelligent. They are not deluded, nor have they been brainwashed by propoganda, nor have they been bought off by special interests. Some of these people chat on bulletin boards, and some hold elected office.

And yet, despite being honest, and intelligent, many of them still disagree with you.

Come, join us. Be a chooser, and choose reality. It's waiting for you with open arms.

 

[Upchurch]

Just for the record, I'm not asking for a hand out. I don't care how it's done. If someone knows how to get the money flowing again that isn't a stimulus bill, more power to them. I do know that lowering interest rates and providing tax cuts for small businesses are absolutely meaningless to this small business owner.

It's like offering not to charge me at a toll booth when my car has run out of gas. Thanks, that'd be just spiffy if I ever get my car moving again.

 

[gdnp]

Just for the record, I'm not asking for a hand out. I don't care how it's done. If someone knows how to get the money flowing again that isn't a stimulus bill, more power to them.

I wouldn't hold your breath expecting this from BAC. He's still working on how to recapitalize the insolvent US banking system without government interference.

 

[Upchurch]

I wouldn't hold your breath expecting this from BAC.

I'm not. As I said, I rarely give BAC's posts more attention than it takes to scroll past.

In this rare instance, BAC highlighted what is, I would guess, a fairly common misconception among conservative anti-stimulus package people: that it is simply a means of wealth re-distribution, a hand out. Not so. There are a lot of people that don't want a hand out. They, like me, want to work.

The problem is that with the economy in the state it is in, there is no work to be done or, at least, not enough to go around. The stimulus, as desperate and imperfect as it may be, stands a chance of getting money flowing through my business again. I haven't heard any other idea that can make that claim.

Wildcat may not want Congress spending money like a drunken sailor, but somebody needs to. I'm open to suggestions.