President Obama calls his budget outline a guide for the nation’s path back to prosperity. But it looks more like a path to immense debt.
Under the Obama plan, federal spending will rise faster than national income over the next decade. He projects the nation’s debt will rise from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $15.4 trillion in 2019.
Indeed, his budget plan, which includes a record $3.55 trillion in spending next year, shows no exit from a dependency on debt, despite higher taxes. The plan estimates that federal revenues will grow 76 percent by 2019, while the nation’s gross domestic product grows only 60 percent.
Mr. Obama’s budget offers a clear contradiction of his assertion, in Tuesday night’s speech to Congress, that he doesn’t believe in “bigger government….”
Paying down the debt doesn’t ensure prosperity. Bush didn’t believe it. It’s responsible, but it doesn’t help people.
“Instead, he’s vowing to provide universal health care, widely expanded college-tuition programs, mortgage assistance and many other costly federal benefits.” It is precisely these things that empower people and businesses to have the skills and manpower in a commercial society. They are benefits to all of us, and we will reap the rewards later.
Wrong again, John. Those things empower the State, and no one else. They are hay and a barn for human cattle.
I was one of those conservatives who was disappointed when Bush failed to veto spending bills. Naturally I oppose this current government spending spree, the largest in history. Could someone explain to me how the Bush deficit spending was bad, but the much more extensive Obama deficit spending will be good? This sounds sort of like the line that says the calories in that chocolate dessert won’t hurt because I love it so much. As far as indebtedness goes, spending is spending, whether it’s on programs we like or programs we don’t.
Does anyone remember that I postulated that some markets were already over-stimulated and that additional stimulation was like trying to stimulate the comatose? Not my exact words but I’ll not repeat the sermon.
Anyway, all this fiscal viagra is going to kill the patient. The markets know that.
Don
#4. DonGander,
“Anyway, all this fiscal viagra is going to kill the patient.” Great metaphor Don!
JW-afraid we will reap the wind instead – and sooner rather than later…
Matt, I don’t think Katherine is taalking about the bailout here, but the “stimulus” law.
[blockquote]…we will reap the rewards later.[/blockquote]
Our kids and grandkids will indeed.
7. Matt Thompson:
How’s ignoring the balance sheet working to help us in this crisis? I mean, how is it working? I’d say that it was counter-productive. The evidence seems to support my (our) side. We still refuse to deal with the real problem. Our current government seems to have that disease that often inflicts people, the old “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up”-itis. We will all suffer because of it.
Don
There is an unhelathy co-dependancy between the people and their government.
Don
I fail to see how the stimulus bill helps the banks’ liquidity problems (the topic of your original post, though you try to change the subject later on). In addition, the banks had balance sheets that were dire because they had non-performing assets…now they’re supposed to be lending hand over fist in a rotten economy? Isn’t this like getting rid of a hangover by tossing back a few Long Island Teas? Banks [i]should[/i] be shoring up their balance sheets.
There is so much political pork in the stimulus bill, it’s impossible to say it’s to spur economic activity. There is zero reason to believe that it will. It’s mostly designed to turn DC into Chicago, politically.
Everyone is deleveraging, so why not speed that process by, say, cutting payroll or marginal tax rates for a period of time? As it is, all the monies poured into government make-work and pork will soon hit the wallets of those favored to receive those funds. At that point, those monies will be hoarded in the deleveraging process, will they not? The Keynesian “multiplier” will be 1.0.
So what purpose is served by this bill? Only one: To concentrate power in DC. Hence the rush to pass the bill without review, without debate, without amendment.
I think you’re right about Obama being a strategic thinker, at least politically. The vast majority of the funds are disbursed in out years, years that just so happpen to have elections. How does $200 billion spent in 2012 stimulate today’s economy? Answer: It doesn’t, but it does make a lot of government bureaucrats and union members happy at just the moment they’re being asked to punch a chad for President.
DonGander in #11 is spot on. And this has been scaring me for the last year to year and a half.
What we need to do is hit bottom on that addictive tendency – and only then can we dry out and grow up.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is poised to be Enabler-in-Chief.
#3 Katherine says:
I’m one of those liberals who voted for Obama, and I don’t regret it. But I am not happy about the “stimulus” package and the budget. It’s true that I like the things that Obama is spending money on more than I liked Bush’s spending priorities, but the sheer magnitude of deficit spending going on here frightens the crap out of me.
I’m prepared to cut him a little slack for having to burn enough money to kickstart an economic recovery… but not this amount of slack.