Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

goldminingXpert (29.52)

Obama's Budget Makes Even Bush Look Responsible

Recs

35

March 03, 2009 – Comments (22) | RELATED TICKERS: L , AME , O

That is the title of my article that appeared in the Rocky Mountain Collegian today. I recommend reading the whole article (I wrote it after all.) But after the Democrats got on their high horses and condemned the Repubs for spending too much, what do they do? They run a budget deficit 4x as big. Good work, you hypocrites. What a bunch of lying weasels. Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's Chief of, um, tax-evasion? Oh sorry, chief of staff, that's right, I remember now, said, "President Bush . . . ran up record deficits and added nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. Mr. President, we will be forever in your debt," Well, Mr. Emmanuel (and his name certainly shouldn't be intrepreted in a messianic way), look what your boss is doing. Anyway, enough ranting, read the article and leave your comments and criticisms please.

P.S. Shame on you Turbotax Timmy for lying through your teeth throughout the questions today.Trying to defend the indefensible (Obama's budget claiming GDP will only fall this year by 1% when we're already sinking at 6% per annum?) by saying quote, 1% is within a range of estimates. I'd like to know who is estimating better than -1%--even Mao would be ashamed of trying to put lipstick on this pig. At best, Mao's latest 5-year plan would have GDP growth flat--whereas real economists are looking at GDP growth of well under -5%. But whatever, I should have known the change would be cosmetic only.

22 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 04, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Option1307 (30.06) wrote:

Well put GMX...

This basically sums up my whole outlook on our current political system. Both parties are a shame, and there is essentially no real difference between them. 

Even though I did not vote for Obama, I honestly was hoping that he would turn out to be a great president, and maybe he somehow will drastically change his course and become one. Time will tell. But his current trajectory is perfectly aligned with more of the same crap this country can ill afford right now. His picks for cabinet members have been an absolute joke. Seriously, could he have chose any worse?

I know many people dismiss these "tax cheats" as honest mistakes, whatever, but if you were picking members for your presidential team in a time like this. Wouldn't you want your choices to be absolutely clean, perfectly spotless? Ya, you would think.

My main problem is that we as a country need real leadership. We as a country need real people to tell us the truth and not continually lie and distort the facts. We voted for a different path, we voted for "change". But all we got is another four years of thoughtless and reckless spending with no concern for the future or horrible consequences we are leaving behind to future generations.

I do not like republicans because they are a shame. They claim small government while constantly adding more programs behind our backs in order to "protect us". 

Unfortunately the Democrats seem to have memorized their playbook in its entirety...

Report this comment
#2) On March 04, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Option1307 (30.06) wrote:

Wow, sorry for the errors, long day.

*shame = sham

etc. 

Report this comment
#3) On March 04, 2009 at 1:02 AM, redneckdemon (< 20) wrote:

Well, folks seemed fairly eager to overlook the fact that change is not required to be positive. 

I wouldn't comdemn a leader for making the best decisions he can with limited time or information, but plenty of people have put for solutions far better than anything the government has come up with.  Limiting your accepted input to just a handful of politicians to solve an economic problem is the kind of "Harvard-Stupid" I have come to expect from Washington.

If anyone is suprised by the route our president is taking, they really didn't spend much time thinking about things beforehand.

Report this comment
#4) On March 04, 2009 at 1:39 AM, goldminingXpert (29.52) wrote:

Well, folks seemed fairly eager to overlook the fact that change is not required to be positive. 

Rimshot. I hadn't thought of that. Kudos--Obama is bringing change, his voters should be pleased. He's brought change we can believe in--he's managed to make things even worse--an accomplishment that took great skill. I thought Bush had set record lows, but what do I know?

Report this comment
#5) On March 04, 2009 at 1:44 AM, usmilitiadude (31.85) wrote:

We got fooled again. Good article. It is sad when someone defends these bailouts and says, "Well, we gotta do something!" Sometimes not doing anything is a good course of "action". Thinking and reflection is what I'm talking about.

How long will the bailout take to pay off? Thirty years? So then we end up paying double.

This really pisses me off that our elected officials can't balance a budget. Will I go protest? Probably not. The people carrying the slackers are too busy making money. Maybe that needs to change. 

Report this comment
#6) On March 04, 2009 at 2:33 AM, RainierMan (74.30) wrote:

I read it. It's very long on partisan rhetoric, triple short on reality. (it's late, so pardon my lack of editing here...)

"Obama will cause more fiscal harm to our nation in three years than Bush did in eight." --I disagree. I think the current crisis, which happened on W's watch left the country with essentially a lot of responses with bad side effects. Thanks to Bush, and various other politicians from both parties, not to mention Greenspan, Obama was handed a blown up financial system.  

"Why cut any taxes in a time like this? I know, he's trying to win votes with stale economic class warfare, but it isn't cute anymore."--partly because that's what the Republicans wanted. Remember? They HAD to have that in the stimulus. Partly because Americans seem to expect it. Who gets elected by promising to RAISE taxes acros the board. Partly because there is an economic argument that we should lower taxes. Oh, and let's not forget who initiated the first tax-cut stimulus last year.

"Like California, we will soon have to make draconian budget cuts if Obama's monetary madness continues unchecked."--Well, THAT story was written years ago. The national debt has been the subject of "your grandchildren will pay" stuff for a very long time. Is it going to be worse? Of course. Would it be worse if we didn't spend a dime on stimulus or bailouts? Of course, because tax revenues a taking a hit. Plus, you're kidding yourself if you think any Republican President would just tell the nation, "Hey, I'm just gonna let the system tank. You'll be screwed in this process, it will be a great way to encourage a real depression, but we have to keep the deficits down". I mean, you can't be serious.

"Maybe Obama doesn't think debt ever has to repaid."--If deficit spending is the measure of a politician's ability to "get" that, then we have a long line of Republicans and Democrats who don't "get" it. That would include Reagan as well as "deficits don't matter" Bushies. 

"I can assure Obama that the Chinese and the Saudis who have lent us money won't be so merciful as his good buddies in the Chicago government; they'll demand repayment of their money with nasty consequences should we fail to pay up".--Gee do you really think so? Huh, mabye someone should tell Obama. That might be why Hillary was off in China saying soothing words about how important it was to ensure soundness of China's financial reserves. This was a total play to their concerns. I think basically the whole world knows that if we default on our debt it will essentially mean that the "reset" button just got pushed. And I think Bush knew that when he was racking up the debt as well. The reality here is that the country is addicted to deficit spending (though not Clinton, as I recall). Granted is starting going through the roof....during Bush's last few months in office.....and now Obama...but this not a Democratic trend.

"Anyone who voted for change has got to be disappointed. More failed bailouts, more wasted money on banks and now even worse deficit spending than Bush, who Democrats attacked as the worst ever."--Anyone who thought we were going to just let the likes of AIG, major banks, and other major financial institutions collapse was clueless. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation as to how we would allow this to happen, and NOT suffer a financial collapse like never before. I do hear a lot of "OH, just let them all fail", but I hear nothing about how this will all be ok, beyond, "yes, it will be painful". And let me just point out the obvious fact that the bailouts didn't start with Obama, they STARTED with Bush. This is a pretty bipartisan response.

I know you'll come back with various qualifying counter arguments about why Obama is worse, then I could (but won't) come back with arguments against your counter arguments. But that's pointless, as is assigning most of the blame to the guy who inherited a gigantic debacle of historic proportions. 

 

Report this comment
#7) On March 04, 2009 at 2:39 AM, goldminingXpert (29.52) wrote:

It's very long on partisan rhetoric, triple short on reality.

I'm a libertarian, I spent the last year and a half at the paper ripping Repubs a new one.

And let me just point out the obvious fact that the bailouts didn't start with Obama, they STARTED with Bush

Couldn't agree more.

I know you'll come back with various qualifying counter arguments about why Obama is worse,

Nope, they both are terrible leaders. New boss, meet the old boss.

But that's pointless, as is assigning most of the blame to the guy who inherited a gigantic debacle of historic proportions.

If you're in a hole, quit digging. Turning in $1.8 trillion and $1.2 trillion deficits after promising fiscal responsibility is the idea of trying to head to china.

"Maybe Obama doesn't think debt ever has to repaid."--If deficit spending is the measure of a politician's ability to "get" that, then we have a long line of Republicans and Democrats who don't "get" it. That would include Reagan as well as "deficits don't matter" Bushies. 

Agreed fully.

Report this comment
#8) On March 04, 2009 at 3:01 AM, UncommonSense242 (< 20) wrote:

What a lousy article. Regurgitated and clueless rhetoric that fails to grasp the CURRENT SITUATION. The entire banking system is failing and everything else is coming apart with it. Your deficit means NOTHING if our entire system collapses. Hey guys, conserve the water because we have a drout... don't mind the out of control fire that is burning your home and everything around you. Great logic.

 Major spending is necessary to revive the economy. That has been already agreed upon by almost every expert on the subject.  I really find it amusing that people already whine and blame a guy that has been in office for less then 90 days for the gravity of the situation. Obama has done more good in 30 days then Bush did in 3 months. In case everyone missed the obvious, this economic crisis started on Bush's watch and was passed onto Obama. This guy is working his darnest to repair the "business as usual" political and financial system that has failed us for so long. Those of you saying that this man is no different then the rest are a pathetic judge of character. Obama has the integrity and selfless conviction do go against the grain for the good of common man. I don't recall another president (in my lifetime) that has stuckhis neck out this far or has had such a burden bestowed upon him.

Report this comment
#9) On March 04, 2009 at 3:33 AM, goldminingXpert (29.52) wrote:

I don't recall another president (in my lifetime) that has stuckhis neck out this far or has had such a burden bestowed upon him.

What is it that he's done? Other than sticking his neck out to create the boldest group of tax dodgers I've ever seen, I can't think of what he's done that is so good. I'm still hopeful in areas like foreign policy, but the unstimulating stimulus is the exact same medicine we got from Bush. More money for useless banks. More money for AIG. Oh, this is different, $650 billion for health care. What exactly is he doing that is so marvelous?

Regurgitated and clueless rhetoric that fails to grasp the CURRENT SITUATION.

Posting in ALL CAPS doesn't prove your point. You are guilty of using rhetoric rather than evidence.

 Your deficit means NOTHING if our entire system collapses.

Hey guys, we've got a problem with there being way too much debt in our economy. Oh, here we go, let's pitch another $3 trillion of debt into the crisis over the next two years... yeah, that will work.

Report this comment
#10) On March 04, 2009 at 3:38 AM, FleaBagger (28.28) wrote:

UncommonSense -

That's a great metaphor. Sometimes you just have to get your family and yourself out of the house. Why risk the lives of your children for a house? Houses can be rebuilt, but human life is irreplaceable. That is, why destroy the economy and the opportunities of the next generation so that we can save something that was structurally unsound anyway? Our banking system is plagued with inefficiency from gov't regulation married to private greed. Our real estate prices were way too high for our supply (and you should never get high on your own supply). Let them crash. If we lose Wall Street, Detroit, and 80% of the price of the houses of Main Street, we will be able to rebuild an honest, sustainable system. If we keep trying to save those houses, we will ruin our future.

It's like those osteoporosis drugs that prevent resorption of old bone mass, but also prevent the mineralization of new bone mass. Yes, it would seem like a good idea to keep as much of the old mass as possible (banks), but the ability regenerate new bone mass (an economy unfettered by government assistance) would be preferable.

Recommending a government solution, in light of the track record of government solutions, is like hearing a drug company saying you need their osteoclast inhibitor because you can't mineralize new bone mass, only to find out that they've been secretly dosing you with their osteoclast inhibitor all along. Thanks, Big Pharma!

Report this comment
#11) On March 04, 2009 at 3:53 AM, dejonese (< 20) wrote:

goldminingXpert,  

Any student of history, or basic macroeconomics, should know that TAX CUTS ARE NECESSARY  DURING ANY MAJOR ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. Running a large deficit could have prevented the great depression, instead, tax increases probably intensified it. 

Also, you mention California's budget cuts in your article, but you forget one fundamental fact... California cannot print money! The government can and will print all the money it needs. The world financial system is built on paper, not assets, and it is controlled by the US, so trust me, we will never run out of money. what will happen is that the value of that money (USD) will fall when the blind realize that the printing presses are running at 150%. HYPERINFLATION WILL PAY OUR DEBT FOR US. Now to be fair, such inflation will also cripple true economic growth, but most 3rd world countries survived hyperinflation with flying colors, why not us?!?!?! 

By the way, unlike deflation, which is beneficial to savers, INFLATION IS BENEFICIAL TO RISK TAKERS!!! So if the housing market ever does rebound (hopefully within 3 years), such a rebound will only be  amplified by any hyperinflation. That will generally not make a difference if you're buying property during the inflationary period, but if you lock your rate in before, at possibly 5-6%, your property will pay for itself.

Report this comment
#12) On March 04, 2009 at 4:36 AM, DaretothREdux (36.80) wrote:

Goodness gracious people...sometimes the stupidity of the human race still amazes me. Most days I expect it and it doesn't surprise me.

Everyone has the answer, but no one knows the problem. Does that not seem like a problem to anyone but me?

What caused this? There have been many answered offered:

1. Wall Street Greed

2. The President (current or past...who knows?)

3. Banks

4. Speculators (Homebuyers mostly)

STOP BLAMING THESE THINGS BECAUSE THE MEDIA TELLS YOU TO.

You want to know what caused our problems?

The Government.

You want to know the solution proposed by every government to fix problems they caused?

More Government....

hmmm....wait a minute (smacks self on forehead)

The solution is LESS GOVERNMENT.

(whiney voice) But...but...but...we can't let the banks fail...we can't let the biggest insurance company in the world fail....we can't let the autos fail...that would be THE END OF OUR ENTIRE FINANCIAL SYSTEM.

HELP ME GOV'T! HELP ME!

Yes. Help me. Save me from the monster your created in some secret lab somewhere. Please your the only one who knows how to stop it.

Listen people. And listen very carefully. If the worst of the worst of the worst happens i.e. all banks fail, the government resigns, the US dollar is reduced to nothing...

Then life will go on.

But don't tell me that I need the government to stop this from happening because that is a total lie. In fact, if it happens, it will be because of government intervention, regulation, taxes, fiat currency, and all other government programs that STEAL your money.

But hey. Do what you want. I certainly can't stop you. I'm just the kid screaming that the emperor has no clothes. What do I know?

I'm not about any political party, I'm about the people. Let the people keep what they earn. Audit the Fed, legalize competing currencies, and abolish the income tax (hell all taxes). If the system is what is destroying you, then maybe it should be replaced before it fails.

Report this comment
#13) On March 04, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Mary953 (77.10) wrote:

Just two thoughts - Obama inherited one huge economic mess.  Not nearly as big a mess as large airplanes flying into buildings (a bigger burden) or a country that split into two different sovereign nations and went to war with each other (which is the biggest burden so far, UncommonSense).

I think that he had the opportunity, with his very large election win, to come in with an economic plan and change things.  He had a plan.  He told us so during the election - change we could believe in - or was that McCain?  I truly didn't believe either would be able to deliver on anything so I didn't bother to listen.  I did hope though.  His team has zig-zagged so many times, that it is obvious they don't have a clue as to what to do.  Not the way to calm the masses or the market.

Second notion, and this is an always, The founding fathers did not write the Constitution with a two party system in mind.  The two party system renders the checks and balances of the Constitution unsteady.  I don't really care who has the Congress and who has the Presidency so long as each party holds only one at any given time.  It keeps them honest.  The Democrats are much better at winning - they manage to get more stuff.  The Republicans look lost and come across as inept when in control of Congress.  Not enough practice, I guess.

Report this comment
#14) On March 04, 2009 at 12:35 PM, kdakota630 (29.64) wrote:

Your criticism of Obama reminded me of something I read last night:

If the president is going to cut taxes for something like 96 percent of the population, then he`s got to think that tax cuts are good. I mean, you don`t do something to 96 percent, unless it works.

So, why not just go to 100 percent?

Seriously: Imagine having a classroom full of kids waiting for a flu vaccine. Do you only give it to 96 percent of the class? No - if you believe there`s an antidote that repairs what's wrong, you don't leave any one out.

Report this comment
#15) On March 04, 2009 at 1:05 PM, goldminingXpert (29.52) wrote:

Very good point, Kdakota. If I thought we could afford tax cuts, I'd support them for everyone. However, due to the massive shortfalls we're running now, a policy of stable tax code combined with sharp spending cuts is the best course for the future (and don't tell me we need to DO SOMETHING NOW about the economy--we're going into a depression regardless. Let's not mortgage the next fifty years to make the next two slightly less painful.)

Report this comment
#16) On March 04, 2009 at 1:13 PM, kdakota630 (29.64) wrote:

I'm with you.  There should've been spending cuts 30 years ago! 

Report this comment
#17) On March 04, 2009 at 2:31 PM, jgseattle (30.47) wrote:

I would at least hope the public spending would be on something that would provide long term public benefits.  Not things like $600 rebates, extended unemployment.....

If the spending was truely investment in the future it could work but sorry to say just a small portion is for future growth and will keep dollars in the US.

 

Report this comment
#18) On March 04, 2009 at 2:38 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

I disagree that the economic problems started with Bush.  They started with Clinton,  Here is proof (from the left wing The New York Times, of all places) that the housing crisis and the massive debts started with Clinton.  Please read this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Report this comment
#19) On March 04, 2009 at 3:20 PM, outoffocus (23.24) wrote:

"It started under Clinton, It started under Bush, The Dems, the repubs," Blah blah blah.....

When will people wake up and realize what the 2 party system has done to this country?

Report this comment
#20) On March 04, 2009 at 9:04 PM, bostoncelitcs (44.23) wrote:

Dude, dude, dude........graduate college, get real job, pay off your student loans and then maybe you can write an intellegent column on what has happened to average "working" Americans and their retirement savings the past 8 years under the Bush Administration!!   Turning around the economic crisis handed President Obama is going to take time!

At this point in Dubya's first term he was already planning his vacation to Crawford, TX while his chief terrorism head, Richard Clarke, was warning him about the Al-queda threat.  He wouldn't listen to him because he was a Clinton hold-over!!    Let's start getting out of Iraq and the economy will turnaround with a little "bi-partisan" support.

Report this comment
#21) On March 07, 2009 at 10:06 PM, SideShowMel0329 (51.01) wrote:

Are you kidding me? You're going to compare Obama to Bush after less than 3 months in office?

Bush left Obama a shitty economy in the middle of a shitty war. He's had less than 3 months to deal with it and you're already marking it with a failure?

Also, congrats to DaretothREdux You win the worst comment of the thread award!

Report this comment
#22) On March 07, 2009 at 10:08 PM, SideShowMel0329 (51.01) wrote:

kdakota630

Your analogy is flawed. The kids who were left out already received a big flu vaccinne from the last president (in the form of upper class tax cuts) and they're living much more comfortable lives than everyone else in the class (that is, the top 5% in America control enormous amounts of wealth. The gap between megarich and the middle class has only widened with Bush's shenanigans).

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement