TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Color me blonde, but I don't get this...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Color me blonde, but I don't get this...

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Maybe I'm just not seeing the forest for the trees.

Obama just signed the $871 billion stimulus package into law, essentially giving us a $1.2 billion annual budgetary deficit without even considering an actual budget yet.

But today, he brings together a "Fiscal Summit" meeting and

Quote:
Obama declared at the top of the meeting Monday afternoon that he will cut the country's budget deficit in half by the end of his first term.
Um, how can he do that with the MASSIVE amounts of new spending he just signed into law, that he insisted on getting out the door? Seriously, I don't get this concept because the two ideas (massive stimulus and decreasing the budgetary deficit) don't jive together in my brain. If someone can actually explain this, I would really appreciate it, because to my mind it seems like he's asking us to forget the stimulus since it happened last week, and this week we're talking about the budget.

Oh yeah, and he also seems to think that getting all these people together and having them go into "breakout groups" can solve the economic problems of the country in 3 hours. We've recognized that there are problems with Social Security and Medicare, etc. and the budgetary deficit for years now, decades on some counts, but he can solve it in 3 hours by multiple committees? Wow, if he can do that, he must be a Messiah! (That said by someone who has been on multiple committees, and knows firsthand how ineffective they are!)
post #2 of 18
Wait til he rolls out his "tax the wealthy and businesses" proposal tomorrow night, then it'll become clear what his plan is. IMO it's not to help the economy, but to since us into a complete collapse of the free market.
post #3 of 18
I cannot wait Neet. Oh yeah, let's tax to death the people we are praying will hire us. We are doomed.
post #4 of 18
Actually, this is not that far off from what Mark Zandi, McCain's economic advisor had recommended in November, 2008!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/bu...1stimulus.html
So maybe this thing is more than a Repub/Dem puppy fight
post #5 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Seriously, I don't get this concept because the two ideas (massive stimulus and decreasing the budgetary deficit) don't jive together in my brain.

Believe me, you're not the only one who doesn't get this. It's absurd.

Incredibly, they're considering a "stimulus 2", another TARP, and lord knows how many other bailouts.

Maybe the "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" should have come before trillions were handed out. Just a thought.
post #6 of 18
One problem in the original post in this thread. The deficit will be $1.2 TRILLION, not billion.
post #7 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
Actually, this is not that far off from what Mark Zandi, McCain's economic advisor had recommended in November, 2008!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/bu...1stimulus.html
So maybe this thing is more than a Repub/Dem puppy fight
That article only addresses the stimulus package, which is already passed and a moot point.

What I'm asking is how does Obama rectify spending almost $1 trillion in new spending with the stimulus package over the next 4 years with decreasing the budgetary deficit by half?
post #8 of 18
This is from The Oregonian's February 22nd editorial page. Because we are expected to be in a bigger hole next year...

Quote:
Much of the federal simulus money sent to the state also would be saved and spent during the next year, rather than on the current budget.
Good thing they shoved that stimulus through immediately.

And, my favorite.

Quote:
Kulongoski (our so called governor) and the Democrats who control the Legislature already have signaled that they will try to raise taxes on corporations, tobacco, gasoline and hospitals to bring in more revenue. Moreover, it is increasingly likely that the Legislature will levy an income tax surcharge in a desparate bid to balance the next state budget.
Personally, I think BO should just have our extra few dollars each paycheck sent directly to the state.
post #9 of 18
If you subtract the 787 billion from the deficit, you get the 535 billion he's shooting for. So if we'd not done the stimuls, we'd be at the same place already. What a plan!
post #10 of 18
Oh sorry, the question was about the deficit. Perhaps, like in Oregon, where they have just proposed increasing the excise tax on a barrel of beer from $2.60 to $51... maybe the federal government can place a massive tax on those little everyday things that we can either pay for, or do without. Beer. Gasoline. (Just imagine how much an extra buck a gallon would bring in) Tax corporations more too. Heck, it's not going to cost you and I anything...right?
post #11 of 18
I don't have a clue. But the total cost of committed economic rescue stuff is now $11.5 trillion: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/s...ard/index.html

Laurie
post #12 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
I don't have a clue. But the total cost of committed economic rescue stuff is now $11.5 trillion: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/s...ard/index.html

Laurie
Well, I feel better now! If Laurie can't get through the rhetoric to make sense of what he's talking about, then he's doing a lot of double-speak, I think.

How are we supposed to pay for all of this, when the budget starts out in a $1.2-$1.4 trillion deficit? And how does he expect to decrease the yearly deficit with all these expenditures? Is he just basically forgetting the stimulus in the equation of the deficit, like they aren't really spending that money? Talk about cooking the books!
post #13 of 18
Oooo, Heidi - I found this one that explains how they can at least fudge a bunch of the numbers to make it look like less of a deficit: http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/23/news...ion=2009022311

Laurie
post #14 of 18
I should add that many of the "smartest" economists around the world agree on one thing: throw money at the problem and don't worry about the deficit. Why that won't end up creating hyperinflation in an otherwise deflationary environment, I haven't figured that one out either.

Laurie
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
I should add that many of the "smartest" economists around the world agree on one thing: throw money at the problem and don't worry about the deficit. Why that won't end up creating hyperinflation in an otherwise deflationary environment, I haven't figured that one out either.

Laurie
I guess I would honestly feel better about Obama if he just said "Look, we need to get this economic crisis under control before we think about the deficit. I know I said that I was going to cut the deficit during my campaign, but that was before the full extent of the crisis was realized. We feel this stimulus package is the right way to approach it, and there are many economists who agree with us. So with transparency in mind, we're going to look after the most pressing issue right now." (I could be a speech writer! )

But I feel like he's just talking out of both sides of his mouth with the "throw money at the problem" and "let's balance the budget" at the same time.
post #16 of 18
I still don't think they have any clue what they are doing (which goes back to the almost blank check bailout for failing banks). It's like they are talking a wet ball of paper, throwing it against the wall, and hoping it sticks.
post #17 of 18
I just read that the head of Citigroup was seen entering the White House at 6:00 P.M. E.S.T. tonight. Oh joy
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I cannot wait Neet. Oh yeah, let's tax to death the people we are praying will hire us. We are doomed.
I'm just curious, but if giving the rich people a tax break will cause them to hire us, why are there so many people out of work right now (my DH and my sister included)? And why is it a tax hike when it's just letting the tax breaks expire to the same level they were at when Clinton was president, when everyone was doing pretty darn good?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Color me blonde, but I don't get this...