Obama's Deficit Lies

[richardm]

Or even the computer.

What, like ENIAC which was funded by the US Military?

 

[BeAChooser]

Stiglitz criticizes some aspects of how the stimulus is formulated, and from that you conclude that he opposes the stimulus?

Did I say that? No, I did not. All I said ... and it's absolutely true ... is that Stiglitz in those sources clearly has problems with high deficits and high national debt. He, being a good democrat who was opposed to the war (and even went so far as to make rather shaky and shady analyses of the war in order to attack Bush), castigates Bush severely over a $10 TRILLION dollar deficit. He clearly implies it won't be good for Americans ... especially in the long term. It's robbing from our kids. But now all of a sudden you us want to believe he's perfectly OK with the nearly $10 TRILLION in debt that Obama's policies are going to add to that ... and that's assuming things work out as Obama *hopes* (warning ... there are lots of things that can go wrong). Can you provide a source where Stiglitz actually endorses Obama's overall budget plans? Or are you under the seriously mistaken impression that the $700 billion stimulus/pork is the sum total of Obama's socialist spending? If so, I'd have to ask "what planet do you live on", gdnp?

What do you think of recent Stiglitz quotes like this, BAC?

Well for one thing, they demonstrate what a good little democrat Stiglitz is ... for example, it notes that Stiglitz calls the "tax rebate" aspect of the stimulus a "tax cut", even though many of those who will receive it will have paid little or no taxes whatsoever. And even Stiglitz admits that much of those "tax cuts" aren't going to stimulate anything. If Stiglitz can't be honest in his description of things, it makes me skeptical of his *analysis* and underlying motivations (which was a problem in his analysis of the war, too). And he's another one of these liberals who for some reason thinks the government can spend money more wisely than successful wealth creators ... even though there is NO evidence to suggest that.

I tell you what, let's look at what another well know economist, Robert (Bob) Shiller of Yale, has to say. He pretty much predicted the current economic crisis and even predicted the cause (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3111659.ece ), so he must be pretty good. Right? (At least that was your logic in naming a different economist earlier.)

He agrees that the crisis is now very serious ... that it might even lead to a depression, especially if folks (like Obama) keep talking about depressions and cause a crisis in public confidence. But he says tax cuts ... real tax cuts ... are a better way of stimulating an economy in the short term than the sort of infrastructure spending found in the stimulus bill. So if the OMB is indicating that 5 or 6 years from now, the Stimulus bill spending will decrease the GDP, we have wonder whether anything in the bill is really very stimulating. Perhaps it's mostly just pork.

And when it comes to deficits and debt, Shiller says

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller3 )

By running a deficit, a country increases its national debt and imposes burdens on future generations. Politicians naturally prefer to hide how wealth is shifted between generations. Their priority is paying for immediate problems, and for today's promised benefits.

In short, Obama's budget plans will not only steal from the current generation of wealth producers (the portion of his budgets that will be covered by increased current revenues due to tax increases) but will steal from our children ... or at least the productive ones ... for the portion that is not.

Shiller goes on to say

no generation should be forced to accept unnecessary economic risks imposed by another generation.

But that is exactly what Obama is doing ... risking our children's and their children's future by creating massive debts and borrowing to finance those debts that will make $500 billion dollar PLUS deficits a yearly occurrence.

Shiller then answers your side's argument that "future debt is less worrying then current crisis" with the following:

Those who advocate running deficits often portray them as necessary to fix an economy in which confidence is draining away. Following Keynes, they argue that running deficits will restore confidence before a recession or depression can take hold. It is like putting a patient on Prozac before he becomes suicidal. But such arguments, although valid at times, have their limits. Japan's public deficits spawned a national debt of 140% of annual GDP, without producing any economic resurgence. Indeed, today's budget deficits reflect long-term problems that are not what Keynesian theory envisions. So discussions about deficits should be recast in terms of the really long-term intergenerational issues that matter.

And to those who argue we can just "inflate" the debt away, he notes:

social-welfare obligations are not fixed in currency. Instead, they are promises of a certain standard of living (including the value of medical services), corrected for inflation. No government can thus ``inflate them away.''

In short, Obama is making promises that we simply cannot keep long term.

In reviewing a book titled "The Coming Generational Storm", Shiller (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10055 ) says

There's a lot of frivolous criticism of our politicians, but this book hits the mark, convincingly documenting their biggest sin: the failure to account for the magnitude of a huge government deficit crisis.

Will you listen or do you think we should we just ignore Shiller, gdnp ... perhaps because he's from Yale like Bush?

Don't you think you've made enough of a fool of yourself already?

Here, let's see what the next name you threw out, Paul Krugman, has had to say about debt and deficits (and for those who don't know, he's another one that really hated Bush and severely criticized Bush for running up the deficit):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01krugman.html

Deficits and the Future
By Paul Krugman
Published: December 1, 2008

... snip ...

Should the government have a permanent policy of running large budget deficits? Of course not. Although public debt isn’t as bad a thing as many people believe — it’s basically money we owe to ourselves — in the long run the government, like private individuals, has to match its spending to its income.

Tell us, gdnp, is a budget that projects deficits not dropping below $500 billion a year over the next ten years and in fact climbing to over $700 billion a year by the end of that period anything but a permanent policy of running large deficits? And by the way, even the highly leftist Krugman concedes (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html ):

Basically, the long run outlook remains worrying. According to the Obama administration’s budget projections, the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P., a widely used measure of the government’s financial position, will soar over the next few years, then more or less stabilize. But this stability will be achieved at a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio of around 60 percent. That wouldn’t be an extremely high debt level by international standards, but it would be the deepest in debt America has been since the years immediately following World War II. And it would leave us with considerably reduced room for maneuver if another crisis comes along. ... snip ... And even if fundamental health care reform brings costs under control, I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class.

Well, so much for another of those Obama promises.

 

[BeAChooser]

But if you wish, I'll give you another chance.

So, gdnp, like I asked jj, how many more tens of billions of dollars do you think Obama should throw at AIG? They've been at the government trough FOUR times so far (to the tune of $180 billion) and the problem isn't fixed. AIG just announced a $62 billion dollar loss for the last quarter. Something is clearly not working. So why doesn't Obama do *something*, since you folks keep telling us that *something* is better than nothing.

Could the failure to *recover* have something to do with the CEO of the company, Edward M. Liddy, being a crook and a liar? Has Obama simply been taken in by Liddy's lies? If he has, is that the kind of leadership we really need micro-managing a multi-TRILLION dollar socialist-style spending spree? And if he hasn't been taken in by the lies, then explain why would Obama want to keep giving money to a company run by a liar? Who will take responsibility when AIG finally goes bankrupt anyway? Obama? Or will he just point fingers at Bush like he's been doing in everything else?

 

[BeAChooser]

Without Gibbs (At Yale), we'd not have thermodynamics which was used for the engine development of the car.

And what leads you to believe that Gibb's research on thermodynamics (which was developed well before 1900) was funded by the government?

In fact, did the government EVER fund Gibbs for research? You do know, don't you, that Gibbs inherited a small fortune from his mother (see Structure, Deformation, and Integrity of Materials: Volume I, by Gijsbertus de With, 2006 "Still a few others had independent means so that external funding was not really required, eg Josiah Willard Gibbs inherited a small fortune from his mother"). In fact, starting in 1871, for the first ten years at Yale, he didn't even bother to draw a salary (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7574898/A-Short-History-of-Nearly-Everything ). His thermodynamics papers were produced from 1875 to 1878, so I rather doubt you can prove that the government had anything to do with that discovery.

Want to try again, joobz, since you CLAIM to know sooooooo much about research?

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't intend to ask anyone else about something that you posted so back to my question: What are his socialist policies?

Hey, I was just trying to help you out, Darat, since you seem a little lost on the subject.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, perhaps you would like to suggest what we ought to be doing that might help get the economy moving again?

If you were paying attention, I've already answered that question on this and other threads. We could start by letting AIG declare bankruptcy so we can identify and clear out the bad debts (and bad managers). Same with banks over time.

Let me ask you a question posed by Carnegie Mellon economist, Adam Lerrick. He said last November "One of the hardest issues (the president) will have to deal with is how to stop giving away government money. Where do you draw the line? First it was the large commercial banks that were systemic risks to the system. Then the community bankers said they will be at a disadvantage (without government money.) They are not systemically important, but they are politically important. Then it was the insurance companies. Now it's the automakers. The next group are state and local governments, they're being hit hard because of declining tax revenues. Once you start down this path, how do you stop the momentum?"

 

[Upchurch]

If you were paying attention, I've already answered that question on this and other threads. We could start by letting AIG declare bankruptcy so we can identify and clear out the bad debts (and bad managers). Same with banks over time.

How does that get the economy moving again?

 

[BeAChooser]

What, like ENIAC which was funded by the US Military?

ENIAC was really just a giant calculator. And it resulted more from necessity (a war), than pure research funded during peacetime by pie in the sky liberals *hoping* they'll discover something. The first freely programmable computer was developed in Germany by Konrad Zuse (http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/zuse.html ) in 1935. He developed it independent of others and received little support from government (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/05/dayintech_0512 ).

 

[BeAChooser]

How does that get the economy moving again?

It allows a restructuring of the assets into good ones and bad ones. It is critical to separate out troubled assets. Then the good ones can begin to operate like they are supposed to again. And the bad ones can be liquidated. It also allows bad management to be removed from the system.

Look at what they did with the Mellon Bank back in 1987.

www.mofo.com/news/updates/files/20090218GoodBankBadBank.pdf

Good Bank-Bad Bank: A
Clean Break and a Fresh
Start

... snip ...

In 1987, although not insolvent, Mellon Bank Corporation (a predecessor of The Bank of New York Mellon) faced significant liquidity and other issues as a result of a decline in real estate values and the price of oil. Mellon Bank Corporation (Mellon) created a new institution, Grant Street National Bank (GSNB), which purchased Mellon’s bad loans, valued at $1.4 billion when originated, and written down 53% when sold to GSNB. GSNB was capitalized with $123 million from Mellon and with $513 million in short-term bonds sold by Drexel Burnham Lambert. GSNB hired a non-bank subsidiary of Mellon to manage the troubled assets with a goal of liquidation. Mellon’s earnings increased following the sale of the bad loans to GSNB. GSNB liquidated all of the loans and wound down in 1995.

This is significantly different than what is now being done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01holmes.html

 

[Upchurch]

and what do you say when small businesses crash and burn while you're mucking around with AIG because the economy has stagnated to nothingness? 'em?

 

[joobz]

Want to try again, joobz, since you CLAIM to know sooooooo much about research?

Very good. I was wrong about Gibbs.


See how easy it is, to correct yourself when a mistake is made.
Now, your turn. Admit you were wrong regarding Obama's statement on the economy.

 

[joobz]

ENIAC was really just a giant calculator. And it resulted more from necessity (a war), than pure research funded during peacetime by pie in the sky liberals *hoping* they'll discover something.

Of course.
Because Gliadisc wasn't invented by government funding.
Neither, was fullerenes. Neither was woundstat. Neither was RNAi. Neither was RT-PCR. Neither was doxil, or any other countless medications. and countless materials advances...

You still haven't explained why america doesn't have the KBBF crystal.

 

[jaydeehess]

So bogusly claiming that we've spent $3 trillion on a failed war wasn't your point? Those claims are exactly what I labeled them.

No, it was not my point. I thought my point was adequately stated by me. You chose to cherry pick one sentence from the article I quoted.

The deficit figures that I cited for FY2008 and earlier do indeed include the cost of fighting the Iraq war over the last 6 years. And Bush's FY2008 budget, as an example, included both $481.4 billion in discretionary funding for the DoD AND $142 billion to continue the War on Terror, of which Iraq is a part. Both were submitted in February of 2007, so how can you claim that he kept fighting the war out of the budgets he submitted?

Bush's budgets did not include the monies you cite. His supplemental budhets were where he added in the cost of the war(s)

However, continue along. The discussion is ,,,interesting.
For the record I believe that AIG and GM should be allowed to fold. However if they are to be proped up then it would behoove the administration to ensure that no one in those companies earns more than any civil servant until such time as the company is again in the black.

That just might provide incentive for execs missing their life style to actually concentrate on the functioning of the company. What is the common rsponse in a round of 'belt tightening'? They lay off the people who actually produce or sell products.

I would be interested, since you use the word so often, what causes you to say that Obama is trying to make the USA a Socialist government.

 

[gdnp]

Here, let's see what the next name you threw out, Paul Krugman, has had to say about debt and deficits (and for those who don't know, he's another one that really hated Bush and severely criticized Bush for running up the deficit):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01krugman.html

You really like to cherry pick your quotes, don't you? Why don't you post what Krugman says about the stimulus bill?

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said during a press conference Friday at Willamette University that investment in universal health care and infrastructure, along with temporary nationalization of the country's banks, are the most viable paths to economic recovery.

But the Obama administration isn't proposing to spend enough, added Krugman, the winner of a Nobel Prize in economics for his work in world trade patterns.

...

The $819 billion spending package passed by the House of Representatives this week is about $1 trillion short of what's needed, Krugman said. Achieving sustained recovery will probably require spending $600 billion per year for three years on projects that put people to work while building a lasting infrastructure to support ongoing economic growth.

Yeah, that sounds like someone who thinks our primary concern right now should be the deficit, not the shrinking economy.

You should have quit while you were behind. Each post just makes you look more foolish as you try to twist the words of Nobel Laureates who could hardly disagree with you more to support your libertarian philosophy.

 

[BeAChooser]

and what do you say when small businesses crash and burn while you're mucking around with AIG because the economy has stagnated to nothingness?

Where do you draw the line, Upchurch? Once you start down this path, how do you stop the momentum? Hmmmmmm?

 

[BeAChooser]

Admit you were wrong regarding Obama's statement on the economy.

No. Unlike you I wasn't wrong. Unlike you, I proved I was right.

 

[joobz]

No. Unlike you I wasn't wrong. Unlike you, I proved I was right.

Your inability to admit an obvious error (which anyone can plainly see) is clearly an example of what you like to call "stuck on stupid".

I choose not to be.
Perhaps so should you, BeAChooser?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So bogusly claiming that we've spent $3 trillion on a failed war wasn't your point? ... snip ...

... snip ... You chose to cherry pick one sentence from the article I quoted.

I picked a sentence that constituted 1/3 of what you quoted in your post. That constituted the basis for the claims made in the other 2/3rds. And tell me, why did you quote claims you don't even seem willing to defend? If those claims aren't defensible, then the claims in the rest of what you quoted may be undefensible too. Then what point are you making?

Bush's budgets did not include the monies you cite. His supplemental budhets were where he added in the cost of the war(s).

FALSE. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FY_2008_Defense_Department_authorization . Furthermore, when the media described his budget to the American people, they included Iraq/WOT costs. To claim that Bush tried to hide the cost of the war by not including it in whatever you think the budget was is simply nonsense. And again, note that the FY2008 balance sheets for deficits include the Iraq, Afghanistan and other WOT spending.

Yes, there have been supplemental bills during an FY to fund the war ... costs that were not included in the initial budget requests because spending in a war can change as circumstances change (surely democrats grasp that reality). But there were even social spending items in some of those supplemental bills (items put in by democrats) so I guess by the same logic one could argue that the democrats were trying to hide social spending. Like I said, to claim that Bush tried to "hide" the cost of the war by not including it in *budgets* is simply more BDS nonsense.

I would be interested, since you use the word so often, what causes you to say that Obama is trying to make the USA a Socialist government.

Sigh. I think I explained that in my post to Darat (#20) where I quoted portions of the section in Wikepedia on socialism.

Let me repeat some of that:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly

Obama clearly believes these things. Do I really need to quote his speeches where he has voiced this sentiment? The "unequal society" and "redistribution of wealth" mantras were a major part of his campaign and continue dominate his statements AND those who got him elected.

Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Surely you can see this is what Obama and his supporters have been advocating ... not with regard to all capital in society but they have to start somewhere. And they have already been talking about managing (exerting control over) a very large proportion of the nation's capital. Like I asked above, "once you start down this path, how do you stop the momentum?"

Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies and tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets.

That's exactly what Obama has been advocating. Do I really have to quote his statements to that effect for you? I will if I must, but if I have to do that, you will only have demonstrated how uninformed you are about the man and his policies.

Another reason for believing that Obama wants to make the US socialist are his friends and supporters. There must a reason why EVERY major socialist and communist organization in the US and abroad endorsed his election and then applauded when he won. There must a reason why proportionally so many of his associates over the years have been avowed socialists or communists. His parents were communists and communist sympathizers. He has siblings who are communists. His teenage mentor (Frank) was a communist. He has willingly associated with NUMEROUS socialists and communists over the years in his various endeavors. His entry into politics occurred in the house of a socialist/communist. Do you know ANYTHING about the New Party that Obama initially joined? It's a collection of socialists and communists. The church he attended for decades was a hotbed of socialist ideas. Now you can shut your eyes to all this but I think you would be foolish if you did. In any case, as things develope, don't claim there were no warning signs.

 

[BeAChooser]

You really like to cherry pick your quotes, don't you? Why don't you post what Krugman says about the stimulus bill?

When are you going to wake up and realize that this thread isn't about the stimulus bill? I suggest you re-read the OP. Do that and you'll discover that my quote from Krugman is spot on the topic regarding the MASSIVE deficits and National Debt that will build under Obama over the next ten years if OMB projections are correct. It is you that is cherry picking statements from Krugman and the others in an obvious attempt to derail the topic into a discussion solely about the efficacy of the stimulus bill.

And as for me looking foolish ... all I hear from you about the actual topic of this thread is *crickets*. Let me ask you again, gdnp, is a budget that projects deficits not dropping below $500 billion a year over the next ten years and in fact climbing to over $700 billion a year by the end of that period anything but a permanent policy of running large deficits? Are you going to answer the question ... or run from it?

By the way, I'm not a libertarian.

 

[Upchurch]

Where do you draw the line, Upchurch? Once you start down this path, how do you stop the momentum? Hmmmmmm?

If you can stimulate the economy without raising taxes or government spending, I'm all for it. As you have been unable to suggest a method to do so, can I assume that you just don't care about the economy, small businesses, and/or the general welfare of the country?