PDA

View Full Version : Obama $50 Billion More. How out of touch can he get?


HonestChieffan
06-14-2010, 06:32 AM
Note to Congress....Just Say No.



Barack Obama requests $50 billion in emergency funding from Congress


By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 6:09PM BST 13 Jun 2010

Barack Obama has sought to shore up the US economy with a request for $50 billion (34 billion) in emergency funding from Congress to save the jobs of "hundreds of thousands" of teachers, firemen and policemen.

He said the aid, which also included measures to help small businesses, was essential to ensure that the country did not "slide backwards just as our recovery is taking hold".
"It is essential that we continue to explore additional measures to spur job creation and build momentum toward recovery, even as we establish a path to long-term fiscal discipline," Mr Obama wrote in a letter sent to party leaders in Congress.

Pointing out that 84,000 public sector jobs had been lost so far this year, he said keeping people employed in the short term would cost less than their unemployment.
The demand to inject further government spending into the economy puts America on the opposite course to its major trading partners in the developed world. Britain, Germany, Japan, France and Italy have all announced cuts after boosting spending to counter the recession in recent years.

Mr Obama is also likely to encounter stiff domestic opposition. Republicans immediately criticised the president for seeking to spend more money when the national debt has risen to 9.6 trillion.

John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, said spending more public money without offsetting the costs was irresponsible.
"The spending spree in Washington continues unabated, though the American people are screaming at the top of their lungs: 'Stop'."

Even Democrats acknowledged that it would be hard to find support for the request in Congress, where members are worried about re-election in November's midterm elections.

Steny Hoyer, the Democratic leader in the House, admitted there was "spending fatigue" on Capitol Hill and across the country. He said he had asked the White House to look at using funds from the 543 billion stimulus package that had not been spent yet.
The White House has been engaged in an ongoing tussle with the White House over spending. Last month the House of Representatives stripped a 16.5 billion request for state aid from a bill that would extend emergency benefits for jobless workers.
An earlier request for 15.8 billion to prevent up to 300,000 teachers losing their jobs has not passed either chamber.

Since the crisis in Greece unfolded, and other European economies introduced austerity measures, Mr Obama has faced even more pressure to control spending. Mr Obama has urged government agencies to compile a list of low-priority programs for elimination. He also proposed a three-year spending freeze on matters unrelated to entitlement spending or national security.

Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has additionally demanded major savings on weapons systems thought to be extravagant or unnecessary.

But the president and his advisers believe that selected stimulatory moves will remain necessary alongside cuts. "While some people say you have to spend and some people say you have to cut, the president wants to talk about both cuts and investing," said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff

Silock
06-14-2010, 06:54 AM
At least he's trying to save the right jobs.

jjjayb
06-14-2010, 07:01 AM
Just use some of the money from the "economic stimulus" allocated for random stupid shit like bridges for turtles. Problem solved.

The Mad Crapper
06-14-2010, 07:09 AM
Barack Obama has sought to shore up the US economy with a request for $50 billion (34 billion) in emergency funding from Congress to save the jobs of "hundreds of thousands" of teachers, firemen and policemen.

Hey, the votes just aren't going to come as cheap in 2012 as they did in 2008.

Chief Henry
06-14-2010, 08:26 AM
Wasn't that health bill they passed suppose to save us money :rolleyes:

InChiefsHell
06-14-2010, 08:30 AM
Wait, I thought they still had a bunch of "stimulus" money that had not been spent yet...wtf do they need even more money??

stevieray
06-14-2010, 08:38 AM
states are running surplus'!!!!!!

the worst is behind us!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

mikey23545
06-14-2010, 08:48 AM
He said the aid, which also included measures to help small businesses, was essential to ensure that the country did not "slide backwards just as our recovery is taking hold".
"It is essential that we continue to explore additional measures to spur job creation and build momentum toward recovery, even as we establish a path to long-term fiscal discipline," Mr Obama wrote in a letter sent to party leaders in Congress.


In other words, "The midterm elections of 2010 are coming fast and we Democrats are pissing down our legs"...

blaise
06-14-2010, 08:50 AM
Wait, I thought they still had a bunch of "stimulus" money that had not been spent yet...wtf do they need even more money??

They're saving that money to spend 8 months before the next Presidential election so they can say how great the economy suddenly is.

InChiefsHell
06-14-2010, 08:52 AM
They're saving that money to spend 8 months before the next Presidential election so they can say how great the economy suddenly is.

The fuckin' Republicans BETTER call them out on this...

ROYC75
06-14-2010, 10:01 AM
Now here here, just calm down, Obot and the Obots are in control of things, man it's going to be a hit.

FD
06-14-2010, 10:46 AM
The stimulus bill is winding down, and we are essentially running a contractionary fiscal policy right now. Long term interest rates are extremely low and because financing government spending is so cheap new borrowing for spending is much more likely to pass the cost-benefit test than in normal times. At the same time workers are massively unemployed and underemployed and capacity utilization is very low.

All this makes the case, in my view, for higher deficit spending this year and the next than we currently have planned. The medium and long term deficit are serious problems that need to be dealt with, but some short term deficits are just what the economy needs right now.

petegz28
06-14-2010, 11:10 PM
The stimulus bill is winding down, and we are essentially running a contractionary fiscal policy right now. Long term interest rates are extremely low and because financing government spending is so cheap new borrowing for spending is much more likely to pass the cost-benefit test than in normal times. At the same time workers are massively unemployed and underemployed and capacity utilization is very low.

All this makes the case, in my view, for higher deficit spending this year and the next than we currently have planned. The medium and long term deficit are serious problems that need to be dealt with, but some short term deficits are just what the economy needs right now.

Wrong. What we have learned is deficit spending does not = sustainable growth. It is a quick fix, if even that. There needs to be legitimate tax and labor law changes to set a foundation that businesses can grow on.

Let me put it this way, if you're out of a job you can borrow money from everywhere to pay your bills and you will get an artificial sense that things are ok. Hell, if you borrow enough you might even feel like things are getting better. Until the borrowed money runs out and you figure out that not getting another job to get sustained income was actually the best choice.

InChiefsHell
06-15-2010, 06:18 AM
Wrong. What we have learned is deficit spending does not = sustainable growth. It is a quick fix, if even that. There needs to be legitimate tax and labor law changes to set a foundation that businesses can grow on.

Let me put it this way, if you're out of a job you can borrow money from everywhere to pay your bills and you will get an artificial sense that things are ok. Hell, if you borrow enough you might even feel like things are getting better. Until the borrowed money runs out and you figure out that not getting another job to get sustained income was actually the best choice.

Exactly. And those bills will come due, and even if you finally wound up with a good job, your prosperity suffers greatly from the huge bill you have to pay...

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 07:35 AM
The stimulus bill is winding down, and we are essentially running a contractionary fiscal policy right now. Long term interest rates are extremely low and because financing government spending is so cheap new borrowing for spending is much more likely to pass the cost-benefit test than in normal times. At the same time workers are massively unemployed and underemployed and capacity utilization is very low.

All this makes the case, in my view, for higher deficit spending this year and the next than we currently have planned. The medium and long term deficit are serious problems that need to be dealt with, but some short term deficits are just what the economy needs right now.

You must be on meds. Where do you come up with such stuff? Winding down?

FD
06-15-2010, 09:41 AM
Wrong. What we have learned is deficit spending does not = sustainable growth. It is a quick fix, if even that. There needs to be legitimate tax and labor law changes to set a foundation that businesses can grow on.

I agree that deficit spending doesn't necessarily produce sustainable growth, but this isn't about sustainable growth, its about a short term boost to get under-utilized resources back to work. In normal times this growth from the deficit spending just takes up resources that would have been used somewhere else, and adds substantially to the debt burden. These are not normal times, though. Unemployment is massive, capacity utilization is extremely low, and we can borrow for essentially nothing. The calculus changes and a short term shot of deficit spending easily passes the cost-benefit test.

I also agree that in the medium and long run the Obama administration's budget is atrocious (with respect to deficits) and we very much need a plan to bring them down.

petegz28
06-15-2010, 09:53 AM
I agree that deficit spending doesn't necessarily produce sustainable growth, but this isn't about sustainable growth, its about a short term boost to get under-utilized resources back to work. In normal times this growth from the deficit spending just takes up resources that would have been used somewhere else, and adds substantially to the debt burden. These are not normal times, though. Unemployment is massive, capacity utilization is extremely low, and we can borrow for essentially nothing. The calculus changes and a short term shot of deficit spending easily passes the cost-benefit test.

I also agree that in the medium and long run the Obama administration's budget is atrocious (with respect to deficits) and we very much need a plan to bring them down.

Your first sentence is off base. We aren't talking about a short term boost. We are talking about multiple short term boosts. And therein lies the problem. A one-time short term boost was acceptable, I guess, though I was against it cause I knew it would be farted away on everything but what it is for. But when you have to keep injecting these types of short term actions then something else is wrong and you aren't doing anything to actually fix the problem long term.

Here are some ideas that could really help boost the economy long term.

1) permanent home buyer's credit for a primary residence
2) permanent tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles
3) tax credits for hiring American workers
4) tax penalties for sending labor out of the country
5) reduced overall corporate tax if not total elimination of such for companies that hire Americans
6) increased tax deduction for charity donations
7) reduce the ceiling for tax deductions on medical expenses
8) increased capital gains taxes. Sounds backwards I know but it encourages more long term investment
9) permanent tax credits for the purchase of energy efficient appliances and housewares, fixtures, etc.


Now, while some of these have been acted upon on a temporary basis they are just that. And what it all amounts to is putting more money in the pockets of the people. This of course means the Fed Gov would have to curb some of their frivolous spending habbits.

Anyhow, all of the above would be much better for our economy then a $50 bil shot in the arm here and there. Especially when the majority of those injected $'s don't really go towards a sound stimulus plan.

Count Alex's Losses
06-15-2010, 09:57 AM
"long term fiscal discipline"

http://yosoylachamuca.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/sickle1.jpg