| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Caution: Exploding Heads Likely
Wall Street Journal:
The Obama administration, under pressure to show it is serious about tackling the budget deficit, is seizing on an unusual target to showcase fiscal responsibility: the $700 billion financial rescue.
The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341 billion estimated in August.
The idea is still a matter of debate within the administration and it is unclear how much impact it would have on the nation's mounting deficit levels. Still, the potential move illustrates how the Obama administration is trying to find any way it can to bring down the deficit, which is turning into a political as well as an economic liability.
The White House is in the early stages of considering what bigger moves it might make for next year's budget. The Office of Management and Budget has asked all cabinet agencies, except defense and veterans affairs, to prepare two budget proposals for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct 1, 2010. One would freeze spending at current levels. The other would cut spending by 5%.
Politico:
President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning.
Andrew Sullivan (headline: Obama, Deficit Hawk):
To treat the stimulus package as if it were something he just felt like doing - because he's a big government maniac - is a lie, a piece of propaganda that has seeped into the lazy Beltway desire to describe everything - even now - into the big government/small government, red-blue paradigm.
Item two: The health insurance reform almost painfully tries to pay for itself - something that Bush's Medicare entitlement didn't even pretend to do.
Item three: there's a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.
The way in which cynical and amnesiac Republicans have tried to portray this as classic big government liberalism is a lie. You can debate the merits of each initiative, but this is obviously not an administration as fiscally reckless as the last one. Mercifully, they have a chance to show it in earnest next year. And to call the bluff of those Republicans yelling about spending while having absolutely no plans or ideas for cutting it.
- John Smith's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
This would be like Keith Richard supporting sobriety
First thing he does is spend a trillion we don't have on "stimulus" , now he promises to be more careful. Like,whatever. We ran a $176 billion deficit just last month. That's way more than a whole year of the Iraq War costs.
Post again when this guy keeps a promise, not waste bandwidth when he makes one.
Some facts for Ironman
The cost of the stimulus bill, in terms of the increase in the deficit, according to the CBO, is $787 billion over ten years.
According to the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal:
One wonders what the cost of letting the economy fall off the cliff edge that W pushed it up to would have been. Given that tax revenues would have absolutely tanked while most expenditures would have remained in place, I'd say ginormous - and that is a conservative estimate.
Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has calculated that the Iraq fiasco is going to end up costing us in excess of $4 trillion.
And this is why the 2010 elections are going to be crushing for Republicans - it is going to be the party with the courage to make tough decisions about the nation's finances vs. the party of "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter".
Good policy = good politics.
Meanwhile back in the real world
If deficits mattered to these people
Why would they be expanding government over the long term?
Please look up the concept of "bait and switch"; oh credulous one.
Why is the Obama Administration insisting that the HCR
bill pay for itself? Contrast that to Bush, who did not work out how to pay for Medicare Part D or the war he started.
Right
Then why are they supporting the deficit laden House bill instead of issuing a veto threat?
Joe Lieberman's not buying the snake oil. Neither am I
Another fact for Ironman
From the CBO:
No one's buying that
If you are going to rely on that. please explain what taxes and Medicare cuts you think Congress is really going to enact to hit that mark.
I've seen estimates that Obamacare's real cost is $3 T over ten years.
That estimate came from would-be Obama Cabinet member Judd Gregg., by the way. Notice I am not quoting the great right wing conspiracy, unless it now includes Democratic career politicians like CT state comptroller Nancy Wyman.
If you can make that deficit neutral, please ask Paul Krugman to turn over his Nobel Prize.
Perhaps you should have read further down that link
Please explain to me why Judd Gregg is authorative on this subject and the CBO is not. Is it, by any chance, related to the fact that Judd Gregg gives you the answer you want to hear? Otherwise known as the Heritage Foundation model (e.g. write the soundbite, then find and manipulate data to fit the soundbite.)
Perhaps you should have read further down that link to the part where it notices that Gregg has not realized that revenues offset outlays.
Here is a quote from Barack Obama.
At the end of the day, our disagreement is this: I believe him when he says this. You do not. I believe that organizations like the BEA and the CBO are staffed by non-partisan career professionals who turn out reliable numbers. You prefer to cherry pick. You believe Hannity's crowd estimates. I do not.
The Democrats are on the verge of taking the Republican's signature claim - the party of fiscal responsibility - and making it their own. When that happens you've got nothing left but social intolerance to run on.
::blinks::
That's one of the most strikingly illogical things I've seen said here. Kudos.
Just to help you out: there's literally nothing about big government that correlates with deficits. Deficits are purely a matter of outlay minus income. A big government with a lot of income can have big surpluses. A small government that brings in little to no income can have big deficits.
Rove's delusions to the contrary the right is not actually allowed its own math.
OK, math whiz
You want to add a trillion or two dollars to federal outlays for health care, a trillion plus for stimulus (Round II is.already being worked up) and hundreds of billions for "climate change" and "infrastructure"
How are you going to raise the cash?
(Pre-emptive warning: The Bush tax cut over 10 years was like $1.6 trillion; repealing the whole of it; including the middle class cuts; barely pays for the stimulus)
You want Big Government, better sell the public on Big Taxes. Good luck with that.
You could use a math whiz. Or maybe just a 5th grader.
Given that the cost of the stimulus bill, in terms of the increase in the deficit, according to the CBO, is $787 billion over ten years, then repealing it would pay for the stimulus twice.
Can you remind me what provisions the Republicans made to pay for the war they started, the massive new entitlement program they created, and the brand-new cabinet-level department they started?
Did you account for the debt service on the $787 billion?
Since there were no offsetting revenues, it was all borrowed cash. Dunno, when I used to work on making sure the underwriting on mortgage deals worked you had to include construction interest into the total cost. My bad.
Then again, usually revenue in the out years would pay off the construction expenses. Not seeing that going on. Unless the stimulus generates a permanent delta of about 3% of GDP we are going to be paying this debt service out of pocket.
By the way, please run on raising middle class tax rates. I kinda like the sound of "Speaker Boehner"
And how big is the gap
between the treasury rate and mortgage rates???
Tell me again about the Republican provisions for paying for Iraq, Medicare Part D, and the DHS?
If Boehner becomes Speaker, can you make sure on his first day someone explains the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to him?
So you did understand
that increased spending and increased taxes result in no change in the deficit? Your initial statement was wrong and suggested you didn't unerstand this simple little equation. So you're not going to repeat that nonsense again, right?
Ok, I missed something
What taxes are your rasiing to cover the annual $1 T deficits?
Just let me know. If you want to grow government faster than Bush 43 or Clinton, explain how it is going to be paid for. All I hear is the last guy skated on the tab.
That doesn't mean you don't have to pay for your own drinks, pal. Especially when your tab is way larger
What you are missing
is the difference between arguing the general case and arguing the specific.
You said that big goverment requires big deficits. This is a general argument and a false one. My pointing that out does not mean that you cannot have a big government with big deficits, merely that it is not required.
What people outside the press are saying
Here's the official State of CT economic forecast for 2010. More lost jobs, lower family incomes. Tax receipts continue to plummet.
The public is not buying your story
That's the real world. Not stats cooked up by DC bureaucrats. You have to pay your state expenses with real dollars, not wishful thinking.
But hey, you want to believe that prosperity is around the corner, fine. Enjoy your financial "RINO"-- "Recovery in Name Only"
Right. The WSJ just made that story up.
Because they lurve them some Obama.
The economy is in bad shape because of the Bush Administration.
Half of the lost jobs were axed in just the last quarter of the 2008, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
% change, quarter over quarter, in GDP, according to the BEA:
Bush pushed the economy right up to a cliff. It is going to take a very long time to fix all the damage. But without the stimulus bill, it would have been one hell of a lot worse. Even the WSJ grudgingly acknowledges that - because, unlike you, they have their credibility to worry about.
And I find it interesting that "stats cooked up by DC bureaucrats" are suddenly inherently unreliable whereas stats cooked up by "official State of CT" bureaucrats are golden. Why do I have the feeling that if the BEA were finding that GDP were still declining, you'd have no problem quoting them?
Nancy Wyman is a Democratic elected officlal
And she has a constituional obligation to make sure the State pays its bills. And the various economists cited weren't CT state employees.. So, mind getting your facts straight.?
We know Judd Gregg bailed out of Commerce because the Obama crew wanted to cook the books for the Census, so spare me for having ....hmmmm....skepticism about the present self-serving federal statistics.
In any event, the Wall Street Journal hasn't always been quite on target as to its economic expectations of late. From January 2008
As Maxwell Smart would say..."missed by that much"
There you go again
So, Nancy Wyman is a Democratic elected official and she has a constitutional obligation to make sure the State pays its bills, and therefore she is to believed, whereas Barack Obama is a Democratic elected official and he has a constitutional obligation to head up the executive branch, and therefore what he is says is never to be believed?
Regarding the WSJ - you are comparing a report on events that have happened (the article that I linked to) to a survey of prediction. See the difference - facts, reality, observable phenomena vs. predictions, estimates, best guesses? Understand the difference?
And how can one tell the economy actually "expanded"?
Please cite some demonstrable emprical evidence (like, hmmm,,,tax receipts) that supports the spin out of DC. Everything I;ve seen indicates that if anything happened, it was a one-off "Cash for Clunkers" blip
The alleged "economic recovery" is inconsistent with the observed pattern of state tax receipts. If other data do not support a theory, either the theory is worng or the data is wrong. I think Nancy Wyman is able to count money. The Obama Administration...not quite so sure
% change, quarter over
% change, quarter over quarter, in GDP, according to the BEA:
Of course tax revenues are down - we've still got that massive whole created by 4 consecutive quarters of contraction to climb out of. The stimulus stopped the rot - but there is nothing but time and continued careful, prudent management that can fix all the damage that was done in those 12 months. When bubbles are allowed to expand till they burst, the result is messy. Is this news to you?
You do know GDP includes imports.
IE oil and gas.
And when businesses more overseas it does not improve the local US economy.
Yes the cash for clunkers did register profits for automakers, however many of those autos were imports.
After all is said and done, people will look at their own wallets to determine if the economy is doing better or not.
What more?
When businesses what more overseas? Sell more? That helps quite a bit. Buy more? Well that depends - but if people are using more oil and gas that is a symptom of increased economic activity.
You must think you are selling ice to eskimos
I assume that to be a yes that you know GDP includes imports and you think it is wonderful.
I hope you do not explode when reality sets in.
Um, no.
Imports are subtracted from the GDP calculations, and in addition to that, I do not understand what the point is that you are trying to make.
simple observation
http://forecasts.org/sales.htm
I assume the computer you are using was purchased in the US therefore included in GDP and the saleman did a lot of work but where was it made? Yes the FOB price was subtracted from the GDP and then the retail price was added and that employed one sales person who gets how much an hour?
You seem to be trying very hard to sell the idea that the economy is very
very
good. or the idea that things could not be better
with the economy. But people live in their own industries the economy may be doing well for K-street lobbyist and bad for autoworkers. At the end of the day people will look at how the economy effects them. And the numbers of people who are being hurt by the economy is increasing.
Eskimos are not going to buy ice cubes when they know they can get them for free. It is a metaphore, that relates to your arguements about how wonderfully the economy is doing. People know if they don't have a job the economy is not doing them any good.
Ironman struggles with economic indictors
Ironman - back in March, when the Dow was at 7,000, you were trumpeting it as an indicator of the performance of the Obama administration. It is now over 10,000, a level that hasn't been seen since the Lehman collapse. So - were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? Or - was it a rock-solid indicator back then (when it gave you the answer you wanted) and is it a corrupted-by-DC-insiders indicator now (when it gives you the answer you hate)?
Given the likely unemployment rate.....
over the next two years , maybe the Dow @7,000 wasn't all that bad a leading indicator after all.
Wow, we've gotten back to where the Dow was six months into the recession. Order the Don Perignon!
Let's see who's struggling next November, mon freres
You mean "mon frere"
as there is only one of me. But given that double talk is your stock-in-trade, I'm not surprised. You completely avoided the question, and rather clumsily at that, given that what you dished up is a total non-sequiter. Just more evidence that you'll simply cherry pick whatever statistic or argument or excuse you feel like using.
However, I will agree with you that this issue will be settled in November. I'm looking forward to it.
I'm sure you have friends at your "think tank"
I'm thanking them too.
The nonsequitor here is taking an abstract number (GDP %) which I 've rather fully documented has shown zero "real world" manifestation and relying on it as the Holy Grail of prosperity.
Again, if amidst a sea of long -term unemployment, closed businesses and bankrupt states and local government you guys want to campaign on the Recovery In Name Only, fine. Maybe you don't have any other issues since GW Bush ran off to his ranch.
I missed that full documentation
please provide a link to it.
If GDP is meaningless, why did the Dow jump when the new figures came out? Or are we not allowed to talk about the Dow anymore now that it is on the way up?
What objective reference would you like to use to replace GDP for the purposes of macroeconomic discussions?
And what do you understand by the word "recovery"? Our economy was, in effect, mowed down by a drunk driver. The doctors were able to fix the major injuries and the patient is now off life support, but still in the hospital. That is what recovery is. Recovery is not cure. 4 consecutive quarters of declining GDP is 4 consecutive quarters of economic destruction that is going to take time to fix. You are betting on the American people not being smart enough to understand that. I'm betting you are wrong.
Hyperinflashion will make us all millionaires
Inflation is 30% in what...Wayne's universe?
Massive FAIL.
The US is actually in a deflation(in 2009), not an inflation (which used to be a healthy +3% on an average in the last 10 years.) Inflation rates by month and year (2000-2009):
hyperinflation
Wayne isn't referring to the status quo. He's referring to what's likely to occur if the Fed keeps on printing money while simultaneously keeping interest rates at zero and the value of the dollar keeps on falling.
"U.S. will go into hyperinflation"
"The U.S. economy is in an intensifying inflationary recession that eventually will evolve into a hyperinflationary great depression."
"Peter Bernholz (Professor Economics in Basel) studied the world’s 12 most important periods of hyperinflation and discovered that the tipping point occurs when deficits amounted to 40% of the expenditures.
For the United States we have arrived at exactly that point. The deficit of $1.5 trillion amounts to 41.7% of the $3.6 trillion in expenses." (source)
These aren't right-wing nutjob crazies.
Oh, and it's nice to know that Remains has found something "healthy" about George Bush's WORST ECONOMY EVAH of the past 8 years: the inflation rate.
We've been losing jobs for
We've been losing jobs for the past decade in the Midwest. Since the politicians wanted to ignore our problems and globalization, we are where we are. I just sit back and listen to all the lies and rhetoric of God and country and watch our country go downhill.
Hence the term "Bush was Obama-Lite"
nt
Oddly enough it is more
Oddly enough it is more laissez-faire by the republicans, who don't want to solve problems.
More like Wall Street Journal reporting economic support for HCR
"They do not support the public option"
Then this article tells me they do not support Obamacare.
Thanks for coming by. Please play again.
Ironman is an optimist.
He can make manure out of bullshit!
LOL. You are easily pleased.
Excuse me for not being shocked
That big business wants to use government to reduce labor expenses, but opposes a new bureaucracy they'd have to pay for. Maybe tomorrow you'll tell me the sun rose in the east.
It doesn;t seem like their employees want any part of this deal. If HCR is dropping like a stone in a swing state like Ohio, well, go ahead folks, press on .
The futility of being reasonable on a right leaning blog...
Here's an example. Go through the discussion (see the exchanges involving a member named "info" and site contributing editors Neil Stevens and Moe Lane): http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/09/28/nate-silver-becomes-the-...