Michelle Malkin » The Generational Theft Act of 2009

The Generational Theft Act of 2009

By Michelle Malkin • January 7, 2009 09:28 AM

My syndicated column today takes on Obama’s stimulus Trojan Horse. It’s for the children. Mitch McConnell, are you there?

And just in: 2009 budget deficit is estimated at $1.2 trillion.

***

The Generational Theft Act of 2009
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

Barack Obama has dubbed his behemoth fiscal stimulus proposal the “American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” But if truth in advertising were required of White House plans, only one title would fit the trillion-dollar-plus-and-growing bill: The Generational Theft Act of 2009.

President-elect Obama was at his most candid when he told the country Tuesday that we face massive deficits for the foreseeable future. “Potentially we’ve got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come,” he said, “even with the economic recovery that we are working on.” But one word is glaringly out of place in that warning. It’s the word “even.” Washington will saddle future generations with unprecedented debt because of the economic recovery interventions Obama is planning, not despite them.

Think this through. We are now thirteen months into the current recession. Since World War II, none of the recessions that have hit the U.S. economy have lasted more than two years. Most have lasted 12 months. The new mega-injections of government “investments” championed by Obama are intended to “break the momentum” of a recession we’re probably more than half-way through suffering.

This is not to suggest that the economic picture is all sunshine and roses. Quite the opposite. Our fundamental ill is too much spending and borrowing and too little saving. It’s going to take years to recover from the housing mess. Washington continues to encourage ever more ill-considered lending in a misguided attempt to stave off needed market corrections. The currently proposed combination of a nationwide infrastructure spending orgy plus tax-cut bribes does nothing to remedy that.

To paraphrase a previous Democrat administration: It’s the timing, stupid. Keep in mind that the Democrats’ stimulus timetable pushed through the House last fall proposed $34 billion in new, “ready to go” infrastructure spending — only $9.8 billion (30 percent) of which could be spent in 2009. As writer Brian Faughnan points out:

“While it’s unclear so far exactly how much infrastructure spending will be included in Obama’s stimulus package, it will clearly run into the hundreds of billions. As Democrats broaden their definition of projects that are ‘ready to go,’ they will by definition slow the rate at which funds are spent. When President Obama signs his stimulus bill into law, it will already be 5 months further into the recession than when [the Congressional Budget Office] reported on the last Democratic bill — and thus 5 months along toward being wasteful and counterproductive spending. He will also be signing a much larger bill, with a much smaller percentage of ‘front-loaded’ spending.”

Moreover, despite Obama’s earnest-seeming pledge to block all earmarks, there will be an inevitable lard-up of the stimulus. When has there not? Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled openness to the plan over the weekend as long as the GOP gets nominal input and kabuki hearings. The lard-up will guarantee that future capital is diverted to superfluous pork projects (”green jobs”) and away from productive private enterprise. Instead of basic roads and bridges, infrastructure spending will go to bloated unions overseeing pie-in-the-sky construction projects like the $30 billion-plus high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, which California officials fully expect to be funded.

Bottom line: Obama’s prescription for economic pain will at most be useless in encouraging short-term growth, while ensuring anemic longer-term growth for the next decade (and beyond) at the expense of Obama’s kids and my kids and yours.

The truly bold thing for Obama to do would be to tell the panic-mongers and boondoggle-seekers to shove it and to tell taxpayers to ride out the rest of the tough times while he got Washington’s own economic house in order.

Instead, it’s more of the same old, same old mortgaging of our children’s future for the sake of present political crisis management.

Posted in: fiscal stimulus

Printer Friendly

comments (166)

trackbacks (68)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

Newer Comments »

#585250

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm, edb said:

As a Canadian who has admired the U.S. for many years, it is terribly sad to see these events unfold. The Obama/Congress spending spree is just the latest step in a downward spiral that has gone on for over a decade.

In Canada, the Reform Party, a populist, right-wing group that went from 1 MP to Official Opposition made such a strong case for balanced budgets that we have had 11 years of significant surpluses and managed to pay off about 20% of the Federal debt.

Ross Perot’s American “Reform Party”, in reality his personal vehicle for publicity, not a genuine movement, only managed to make the idea of balanced budgets seem ludicrous.

When the international community stops buying U.S. Treasury bills (in one to two years, max) the only alternative for the wild spenders will be to debase the money supply. Obama might as well cut to the chase and take on Robert Mugabe as Treasury Secretary – might as well have an expert in making the currency worthless right from Day 1.
#585253

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, Socky said:

I think we’re going to have to be patient in waiting for payback. The Democrats are insulated from public opinion by a thick layer of MSM sycophancy. It is likely to take a while for the public to wake up to how corrupt and irresponsible the Democrats are. Look at Michigan, New Jersey, and Chicago; run into the ground by hopelessly corrupt Democrat machines… and they just keep electing more of them.
#585257

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm, Mister P said:

For a few decades now I have been saying that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is which pocket they steal from. Both are guilty of stealing from the tax payer.

GW Bush has taken money we did not have with (medicare drug plan, no child left behind, Iraq not funding the Iraq war, not enforcing the immigration laws, and blatant transfer of wealth to other nations, bailouts) Add these to the massive budget and we already had, and we are not facing bankruptcy.
#585258

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:28 pm, Mister P said:

In Canada, the Reform Party, a populist, right-wing group that went from 1 MP to Official Opposition made such a strong case for balanced budgets that we have had 11 years of significant surpluses and managed to pay off about 20% of the Federal debt.

Good for Canada. But will happen to their budgets when the US can no longer defend them?
#585266

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:37 pm, Ahh a Lion! said:

Good for Canada. But will happen to their budgets when the US can no longer defend them?

Fortunately Canada is defended by 2 oceans. Although, they might have a pretty major problem with their southern border when Americans start mass emigration.
#585267

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pm, olsantaroy said:

Afraid Socky is correct. It may be many years before any democrat (socialist) says to quote a character from the old Carol Burnett miniseries Fresno: “I knowed what I done was probably wrong,” but I needed to get reelected.
#585269

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:41 pm, Socky said:

Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose the USA were to dissolve and split into, say, four countries. (The People’s Republic of New England, The People’s Democratic Republic of Pacifica, New Aztlan, and The United States of Jesusland), what would happen to the international debt?
#585273

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, right_on said:

Problem #1:
Trying to pin down Obama on his definition of “earmark” to include “pork-barrel” spending, proved fruitless. There will be pork!

Problem #2:
Obama asserted that “spending” would have to take place in order to get us out of this “crisis.” The then added that it would “potentially” save us money in the long term. Potentially? Really? Potentially? The additional spending is going to spiral out of control, with Bush getting the blame for starting it all.

Meanwhile (and you watch), certain powerful Democrats will not only enrich themselves through these “programs”, they will consolidate power to ensure future electoral victories to keep the party in power. The lot of the “impoverished” that they cavalierly use repeatedly to rationalize legislative action, will not improve. Should it, they would lose the majority of the Democrat Party platform.
#585276

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pm, happy2behere said:

Right – he goes to a private school with parents from all over the ideological map. There was just an interesting survey about civics I read where most Americans surveyed were not fluent with basic econonomics.

Back to the point – Historians and econmists debate the details but most say it was a combination of lowering taxes and raising defense spending that created the Reagan deficits. Many say that lowering tax rates was necessary to get us out of “stagflation” and raising defense spending was necessary to win the cold war. It took both Congress and Reagan to pass those plans. During that time, we went from a creditor position to a debtor nation.

People on this blog have often placed blame on the stereotypical dumb Republican president and absolutely fail to see the big picture that it took a bunch of dodo heads from both parties to mess this up.
#585281

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:51 pm, Socky said:

Meanwhile (and you watch), certain powerful Democrats will not only enrich themselves through these “programs”, they will consolidate power to ensure future electoral victories to keep the party in power.

It’s the Chicago Way.
#585284

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

If one assumes (and half the country doesn’t) that millions of businesses and individuals will put their money to more productive use than our Politburo can, then a few hundred billion dollars in stimulus in the form of tax rebates to all genuine income tax payers, and a reduction in corporate and individual tax rates across the board, would do far more for the economy than massive spending programs.

And I have a feeling we are not yet at the point, especially in corporate tax rates yet, that reduction in rates might not stimulate the economy enough to more than “pay for themselves”.
#585288

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:55 pm, Fenguri said:

We look at Zimbabwe with their wagon-loads of valueless dollars but fail to see our future is not much less bleak. The government will spend whatever it wants to, but dollars will be worth less (worthless?) and we will work most of our lives simply to pay taxes.

The Dems will see to it that those that contribute nothing get more and more (since that is their voter base) until such point where the rest of us give up. Why work your buns off so that your neighbor can sit on the sofa all day and watch the big-screen TV you bought for him?

I have never in nearly 60 years been so depressed about the future of my country. It seems to me that as I feared, we are lost and will likely (in my lifetime) be the late, great U.S.A.
#585289

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm, dominigan said:

I can understand deficit spending under Reagan to build back up our military (although I don’t necessarily approve), since it is a Constitutional obligation.

What I cannot fathom, nor tolerate, is discriminant massive spending on items that the Federal Government isn’t even supposed to touch, according to the Constitution that every one of those our Congressmen and Presidents have sworn to uphold.

The only way I see out of our troubles, is to return to basics and strongly embrace our Constitution.

If it is not a Constitutional obligation, it needs purged from the Federal budget. Every other excess should be the domain of the states to decide whether or not to handle, and not the Federal Government.
#585290

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm, Ahh a Lion! said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:41 pm, Socky said:

Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose the USA were to dissolve and split into, say, four countries. (The People’s Republic of New England, The People’s Democratic Republic of Pacifica, New Aztlan, and The United States of Jesusland), what would happen to the international debt?

Isn’t that what happened to the Soviet Union? I think their debt basically had to be written off by their creditors.
#585297

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm, madchef said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm, Mister P said:

For a few decades now I have been saying that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is which pocket they steal from. Both are guilty of stealing from the tax payer.

By the time politicians reach national office they are all corrupt. Scum always rises to the top of the pot.
#585298

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm, Weary Citizen said:

Well, IMHO, I beleive it will take another 30-40 (maybe 20)years before the US is bankrupt (through spending or hyperinflation from a devalued $), not 1-2 years as others believe. We are still the economic superpower and ohter nations have no interest is seeing their investments lost. It will be combination of things that breaks our economy. Escalating entitelemets and socialists policies, brought on by an ever growing liberal voting base, which is partially fed by continued 3rd world mass immigration policies, will drive deficits up even more. As the US becomes more diverse, trust among the groups will break down, which will lead to social strife. Social/civil instability is a primary deterrent to economic investment. Finally, the Chineese took notice of the fall of the Soviet Union and the tactics we deployed. So they will continue to buy up bonds and use those as weapons against us. In the end they will dump $T of bonds on the open market and crash both the bond market and the $. With no place left to borrow to support the “entitled” due to a worthless $ and hyperinflation, the economy will spiral down quickly, and civil strife between the “diverse” groups will become much worse. The Chineese will defeat us through economic policy. Hey, just my guess.
#585311

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, Socky said:

At this point, is there any way short of a complete collapse of the system, to restore constitutional governance? The Democrats are corrupt and contemptible, and the Republicans are useless.
#585317

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm, rightisright said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm, dominigan said:

You hit the nail on the head, the way it was intended 230 yrs. ago.
#585323

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pm, Mister P said:

Well, IMHO, I beleive it will take another 30-40 (maybe 20)years before the US is bankrupt (through spending or hyperinflation from a devalued $), not 1-2 years as others believe.

You could be right, I hope we have that long (because then I will be gone). I think we are on a sinking boat, and the water is quickly coming in through multiple leaks. Now the government is creating more holes in order so that it has a place for the water to go. Unfortunately most of these holes are already under water.

Now maybe a smart person will take charge and fix the leaks without drilling more holes. I am dubious.

China has the cash. At any point it can decide to put down the US, and the only thing we can do is bomb them to death with our Nukes.
#585330

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm, madchef said:

Hey, libtards, overturn ROE V. WADE!!

You are going to need evry taxpayer you can get to pay for the debt you are about to create!
#585331

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm, orlandocajun said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 11:34 am, chapoutier said:

lgm, only Congress can spend federal dollars. Presidents can only veto Congressional spending bills. You must have skipped out on social studies.

Apparently, MM did too, then because she doesn’t mention Congress once.

chapoutier, the following quote is from the second paragraph above:

“Washington will saddle future generations with unprecedented debt because of the economic recovery interventions Obama is planning, not despite them.”

Who do you suppose “Washington” is if not Congress?

You owe MM an apology.
#585337

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, Weary Citizen said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pm, Mister P said:

You are correct on all accounts. It will never be fixed though. The only way a pol can get elected these days is to promise everyone (ie every group) everything. Especially $ for their consitutency. “United we stand” is replaced by “what’s in it for me”. Again driving home the point that the devisiveness of diverse groups will grow as resources become more restrained without incurring more debt.

But if we bomb China, they can bomb us back. The front line new warfare is economic based. Break their economy and they can no longer compete militarily. A people becomes dispirited and unable to invest in it’s own defense when the gov’t is simply trying to quell domestic violence. Then you can threaten conventional warfare, if needed.
#585340

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm, Socky said:

Who do you suppose “Washington” is if not Congress?

Especially since the Democrats own everything now.

BTW: Obama’s first deficit is going to be at least 8.3% of GDP, which makes it a third larger than Reagan’s biggest deficit (which held the previous record).
#585344

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:45 pm, chapoutier said:

You owe MM an apology.

Fool. I was not criticizing MM. I was criticizing your inane comment that Presidents do not set spending policy. Actually your comment abotu going back to social studies class is especially ironic because that is about the level of sophistication your dig at lgm had–a fourth grade social studies student who this week learned ALLLL about the three branches and who next week will watch a super cool cartoon with singing characters about how a bill becomes a law.
#585348

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, granite said:

A little OT:

Just got an email request for a contribution from John McCain

“My Friend (of course),

In the time since the 2008 presidential campaign ended….”

“I have decided to launch a new grassroots organization called Country First.”

“…becoming a Charter Member of Country First with an online contribution.”

It came from this email address:

john@countryfirstpac.com

to which I replied that would he please just go away.

Michelle, have you (or has anyone else) received such a solicitation?
#585350

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm, graysonret said:

I’ve always believed that to “stimulate” the economy, you deregulate, cut spending, and lower taxes. The less government involvement, the better it is for businesses (esp. small). It helps them to use profit to expand and hire more workers. The regulations today, are prohibiting small businesses from opening. Most give up, before the doors open. Cut and limit the entitlement programs. For example, welfare for 1 year, with mandatory training. That won’t win votes, but it will get people off their butts. Less money in the government, more money for the economy. Less regulations, less spending means less taxes and more money for the taxpayer. To spend and spend and hope for a recovery is the same philosophy that kept the country in a depression back in the 30s. The New Deal was a failure, and the new “New Deal” will fail too.
#585352

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:56 pm, JeffH said:

Michelle, you should know better. A recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Until 4Q2008 numbers are in we don’t know if we’re in a recession or not (ok we probably are), but that’s like saying Barack Obama is President. He’s not until Jan. 20th. We’re not in recession yet.
#585353

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:57 pm, jjmurphy said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm, Weary Citizen said:

I agree with your analysis, and your bleak outlook. However, I give it maybe four year until things start to come apart economically for the USA. Once it starts I think it will go downhill very fast. I said it earlier, and I’ll say it again. As a country we are financially bankrupt. Period. It will only take one country to say “the Emperor has no clothes”, sell their t-bills, and then the fun begins.
#585366

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:05 pm, rightisright said:

It will only take one country to say “the Emperor has no clothes”, sell their t-bills, and then the fun begins.

I don’t ask this to be argumentative in any way, that said, who’s going to buy these t- bills, the rest of the world is in the same sinking boat.
#585387

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:13 pm, granite said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 11:25 am, orlandocajun said:

…only Congress can spend federal dollars. Presidents can only veto Congressional spending bills.

orlandocajun, to clear things up, are you referring here only to what branch, legislative vs executive, has the power to apprpriate government money, and the power to authorize the spending of governemnt money?

Or, are you making a blanket statement that the President has no influence on spending policy, with the exception of his veto power?
#585389

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pm, jjmurphy said:

who’s going to buy these t- bills

good point. I probably should have said “stop buying them”.
#585390

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:15 pm, granite said:

…appropriate… + …government…

And “Preview” is working today.
Apologies.
#585401

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm, DBNinKY said:

And for what its worth, if you ever say anything correct, I will be sure to defend you as well .

Please tell me Chapoutier is not an e-nom de plume for LGM!

Btw, it’s only LGM’s politics I dislike, not the man; I would feel privileged to be in one of his math classes and even wished him luck at the start of the fall semester.
#585409

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm, Joe Bren said:

This is it folks, just what you’ve been waiting for -Socialism 101 – right here in the US of A. Did you hear any republicans object to bailing out the banks, AIG, the cars companies.They’re all too important to fail – yet. This giant bailout is no worst and no more than another Madoff ponzi scheme, taking taxpayer money to repay lost money in failed financial plans. Where is the American system of letting the strong business survive and the weak disappear?
#585410

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm, chapoutier said:

Please tell me Chapoutier is not an e-nom de plume for LGM!

I could never fake liking math.
#585434

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm, huggybear said:

Bottom line: Obama’s prescription for economic pain will at most be useless in encouraging short-term growth, while ensuring anemic longer-term growth for the next decade (and beyond) at the expense of Obama’s kids and my kids and yours.

Uh, yeah. You mean like the last 8 years of unregulated spending with no increase in taxes to pay for it? It’s nice that you suddenly care about this now that a Democrat can be blamed, but it’s beyond too late. Your kids are screwed.
#585443

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pm, right4life said:

but it’s beyond too late. Your kids are screwed.

not just our kids…
#585493

On January 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

Now we care about saddling our kids with debt? But when Congress tried to get a present day tax hike to pay for our wars, that was not kosher. I guess future generations should only pay for what conservatives think is important.
#585519

On January 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

You mean like the last 8 years of unregulated spending with no increase in taxes to pay for it? It’s nice that you suddenly care about this now that a Democrat can be blamed

Almost everyone here has complained about the profligate spending of the last 8 years. Bush was not a fiscal conservative, and neither was the Hastert/Frist Congress.

spending with no increase in taxes to pay for it

Ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Ever look at what happened to revenue collections when taxes were cut by Kennedy, Reagan, Bush?
#585530

On January 7th, 2009 at 3:25 pm, chapoutier said:

Ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Ever look at what happened to revenue collections when taxes were cut by Kennedy, Reagan, Bush?

The Laffer curve just says that there is an optimal point at which revenues will be maximized. It just as easily stands for the notion that cutting taxes does not necessarily raise revenue. Otherwise, decreasing taxes to zero would thoeretically lead to infinite revenue.
#585539

On January 7th, 2009 at 3:28 pm, tiredofit08 said:

larry flynt and Joe Francis (girls gone wild) are asking for a bailout ($5 billion) for the industry…geeze what sleeze…
#585552

On January 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pm, Member-VRWC said:

infrastructure spending will go to bloated unions overseeing pie-in-the-sky construction projects like the ~~$30 billion-plus~~ $3 trillion high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco

Fixed.
#585580

On January 7th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

The Laffer curve just says that there is an optimal point at which revenues will be maximized. It just as easily stands for the notion that cutting taxes does not necessarily raise revenue. Otherwise, decreasing taxes to zero would thoeretically lead to infinite revenue.

True, but I think it has been proven by past revenue increases following tax cuts that we are on the right side of the curve; i.e. cutting taxes = increased revenue. We’re past that optimal point.
#585589

On January 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, emjem24 said:

Good article, Michelle. However, I think you needed to step deeper into the root causes of the economic abyss we currently find ourselves in.

First off, the trolls on here complaining how conservatives have suddenly found a backbone on fiscal discipline. I guess Red State Skeptic forgot the last 8 years of pointed criticism of Pres. Bush by conservatives.

Second, the complaints by folks like lgm and others about “deficit spending” by Reagan for things like the military. Has anyone every asked themselves what it takes to maintain a modern military? As a military spouse, I realize that there is a lot of waste at the DOD but we still need to modernize our military nonetheless with new equipment, ships, and planes. Or, should it all just fall apart for your amusement and pleasure, lgm?

Third: The part that Michelle didn’t bring up is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The “us” in the US. Lovely, self-seeking, me me me taxpayers who can’t resist living on the dole and being bribed every election season. That’s the real problem. Why is it that many ER’s are closing especially in places like CA? Was it just wasteful fiscal management at the CA state level, federal level, or just plain permissiveness at the local/citizen level?

How many Americans are guilty of the following:

Not saving enough to weather storms like this current financial “crisis.”

Basing one’s identity on material objects like McMansions, clothes, cars, etc.

Overrelying on credit to such an extent that it’s become a liquid “asset.”

Tolerating things like corruption, theft, and turning a blind eye to illegal immigration (as much as I love Reagan he threw open the door to illegals).

Defining oneself by one’s race so that they can get goodies and freebies.

Not being responsible enough to take care of individual problems instead of asking Big Daddy Government for help.

Being a lazy/irresponsible parent and letting one’s kids do whatever they want at the expense of healthy social/academic/individual development.

The real problem that Michelle barely touched isn’t just our lovely federal government. It’s the “us” in US. It’s civic disinterest, cravenness, and ignorance. It’s a civic willingness by a majority of bafoons (and I include independents, Republicans, and Dems) to sell every last principle down the drain in the hopes that their pet issue such as gay marriage, illegal immigration, better treatment of terrorists, will be addressed and the country will be “cleansed” at the expense of national health as a whole.

Rome had its bread and circuses. The US has social security, public education, medicare/medicaid to keep the dupes happy and harmonious.
#585590

On January 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, chapoutier said:

True, but I think it has been proven by past revenue increases following tax cuts that we are on the right side of the curve; i.e. cutting taxes = increased revenue. We’re past that optimal point.

Debatable. There have been studies that put the most efficient revenue raising marginal rate at 65% or even as high as 80%. Of course, the underlying assumption is that government SHOULD be maximizing its revenue in the first place.
#585611

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, Zaz said:

As “Fritz” Hollings said “There is too much consuming going on out there!” I always like that line. It is a reminder that too much of our economy depends on retail sales rather than manufacturing of products to sell.
#585628

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:28 pm, Weary Citizen said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:05 pm, rightisright said:

That is the point. When there is an excess of bonds dumped on the market, and there are not enough buyers to soak them up, the market crashes (happened many times to bankrupt 3rd world countries). The bonds become worthless on the secondary market and the gov’t can no longer issue more to fund itself. Game over. I fully believe China is postioning itself to do just that (they aren’t there yet but will be in a decade or 2). It is a huge bargaining chip. If we don’t “play along” they will wait for the opportune time in the future, like when the world economy is already stumbling, to dump the bonds and watch the aftermath. Power and control is more important to the Chicoms than $. $ is the means not the end to them.
#585634

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:32 pm, right4life said:

Debatable. There have been studies that put the most efficient revenue raising marginal rate at 65% or even as high as 80%.

please..why work at that point? I’d just go on welfare..

we had high rates in the past (50s-60s) but we also had huge deductions…now those deductions are gone…
#585640

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, right4life said:

Rome had its bread and circuses. The US has social security, public education, medicare/medicaid to keep the dupes happy and harmonious

and have MMA/football for blood sports!!
#585641

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pm, Flyoverman said:

The problem is not revenue. It is spending and hand in glove with that is systemic inefficiency.

When the cost of educating a pupil in a public school in NY or NJ is equal to the annual tuition at a typical non-elite private college, it has reached the point of ludicrous.

The response from the Left? We need more money for education. Why, when according one third of all education dollars are wasted? How much of the remaining two thirds is directed towards students? That’s just education.

I will predict with confidence that based on the amount of the expenditure, the haste in which it was enacted and the way it is being administered, AT BEST 50% of the $700-850 billion bailout funds will be effectively used. OBTW, I consider my estimate to be highly optimistic.

Recessions are a time when government should be CUTTING spending and using that to fuel the economy, not growing exponentially the debt exponentially.

The aurgula crowd has never managed a household budget or has long forgotten how.
#585643

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:37 pm, chapoutier said:

please..why work at that point? I’d just go on welfare..

we had high rates in the past (50s-60s) but we also had huge deductions…now those deductions are gone…

I definitely do not want to get into a debate about what the right tax rate is or what the goal of our tax policy should be. I was only trying to make a small point with respect to the Laffer Curve (the idea of which was actually more attributable to Keynes, btw).
#585647

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pm, Flyoverman said:

ALSO, if our enlightened leaders want to also do something to raise the living standards, help business, and get the economy rolling, they should totally reverse course and make it a national priority to DRIVE DOWN the cost of energy in this country long-term.

Deliberatly making Americans pay more for energy is national suicide.
#585676

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, right4life said:

Laffer Curve (the idea of which was actually more attributable to Keynes, btw).

The Laffer Curve, by the way, was not invented by me. For example, Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Muslim philosopher, wrote in his work The Muqaddimah: “It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.

this is rather intuitive…look at what happened to rehoboam when he raised taxes…
#585678

On January 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, right4life said:

oh that quote from laffer was from:

‘The Laffer Curve: Past, Present and Future’ published on the web site of Heritage Foundation on June 01, 2004,
#585704

On January 7th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, thetoysurgeon said:

Not to worry, the world ends Dec. 21, 2012, during Husseins last month in office.. thats why the Feds are spending so much money now. They can’t take it with them. So sit back and don’t worry. Its gonna be over soon enough.. Enjoy these last few years on earth and totally ignore the Federal Government.
#585765

On January 7th, 2009 at 6:29 pm, Patronedheart said:

I’ll keep my freedom, guns and money. Obama and congress can keep the “change”.
#585776

On January 7th, 2009 at 6:48 pm, Kevin K. said:

Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said: (#11)

…especially if you decide having children would be too big a burden on your lifestyle.

My lifestyle has nothing to do with my being childless. I never found the right woman to be my wife, which I consider absolutely imperative to my being a father. (I am, however, an uncle and godfather. But I grant that the effort is MUCH less than being a real dad.)

——————–
chapoutier said: (#84)

And for what its worth, if you ever say anything correct, I will be sure to defend you as well .

May I get this deal, too, please?
#585778

On January 7th, 2009 at 6:51 pm, FloatingRock said:

I’ve been hoarding toilet paper for a while now. Before long a square of toilet paper will have more value than a dollar bill because it’s much softer and flushes better.
#585793

On January 7th, 2009 at 7:06 pm, tarpon said:

Well everybody but the Democrats seem to see that it is not possible to print money in these quantities without consequences. We are now moving into the next bubble, government spending. And when it crashes there will be no bailout.

When they come for the guns, you will know …
#585794

On January 7th, 2009 at 7:08 pm, Socky said:

I’m seeing economic forecasts, and seeing predictions for 2009 of 8% unemployment and 2-3% GDP contraction. In 2010, 10% unemployment and 1% GDP growth. Federal spending in this period will reach a postwar high of 24-25%of GDP.

The left wanted European style socialism, and damned if we aren’t going to get it.
#585840

On January 7th, 2009 at 8:00 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

Maybe they will NOT be able to continue these spend thrift ways: Chinese banks are balking at taking on more US Government paper. Talk doomsday enough and you just might cause a panic.

Are we hanged on are own petard? After they take our 401s and replace them with paper what next? Force us to buy bonds and cancel the bonds? Stalin did. Print billion dollar notes as with the Weimar Republic?

I have seen us talk ourselves into recession before–but not as bad as this. Just maybe Williams Ayers dreams may come true. What better way to control panic than with some big show trials, mass executions and plenty of labor camps?

China may balk at buying more US debt… Developing… Drudge
#585948

On January 7th, 2009 at 10:21 pm, TanyaB said:

Why be chinzy? Give every adult American citizen one million dollars?? They wouldn’t spend any more, and everyone would sure be stimulated!!
I know I would!!
#586039

On January 8th, 2009 at 1:57 am, FloatingRock said:

Apparently there are 4.5 million people drawing unemployment benefits in the U.S. right now. Even if three times that many are unemployed but no longer qualify for benefits, it’s still probably less than the number of illegal aliens employed here right now.
#586041

On January 8th, 2009 at 2:21 am, FloatingRock said:

Even if three times that many

I meant twice again as many, for a total of three, but who knows….
#586081

On January 8th, 2009 at 6:59 am, rplatt said:

Don’t be sucked in to this Marxist/socialist scam. Obama is intentionally attempting to create as much fear and panic as possible to grease the gears for his massive government spending programs. If he can neutralize the frightened masses and cause them to believe he will save them from economic destruction, his goal of building a socialist state could well be achieved. The only real and enduring power within this country was its free market economy and the capitalist engine that propelled it. Wake up and speak up people, your liberties are disappearing and this once great Republic is about to tumble into an abyss. This is not leadership . . . it’s a psychological blitzkrieg.
#586123

On January 8th, 2009 at 8:20 am, orlandocajun said:

On January 7th, 2009 at 1:45 pm, chapoutier said:

You owe MM an apology.

Fool. I was not criticizing MM. I was criticizing your inane comment that Presidents do not set spending policy. Actually your comment abotu going back to social studies class is especially ironic because that is about the level of sophistication your dig at lgm had–a fourth grade social studies student who this week learned ALLLL about the three branches and who next week will watch a super cool cartoon with singing characters about how a bill becomes a law.

Moron, read your post below. I’ll leave it up to the conservative posters (you know, the ones with brains) to decide whether or not your owe MM an apology.

On January 7th, 2009 at 11:34 am, chapoutier said:

lgm, only Congress can spend federal dollars. Presidents can only veto Congressional spending bills. You must have skipped out on social studies.

Apparently, MM did too, then because she doesn’t mention Congress once.

Finally, you won’t be able to find any post by me that suggests that Presidents don’t set spending policy. Nevertheless, they can “set” policy all they want, but only Congress can approve spending. That was my original point and no amount of liberal spin will change that undisputable fact. Please go back to the KOS where your double-digit intellect will make you seem like a genius.
#586136

On January 8th, 2009 at 8:36 am, chapoutier said:

Orlando,

I have read it and have determined that you are clearly oblivious and have yet to acknowledge that your original post was stupid. You were trying to make your bones taking a cheap shot at lgm by implying he doesn’t possess a basic understanding of the role of the branches of government. That is stupid because it is entirely obvious that he was trying to make the exact same type of argument MM was with respect to former presidents and their spending policy as MM was about Obama.

Other posters, even conservative ones, have hinted at the same thing. So kindly take your feigned outrage on behalf of our host, your peon-sized brain, and poor attempts at establishing yourself as an e-toughie and stuff them.
#586145

On January 8th, 2009 at 8:43 am, orlandocajun said:

chapoutier

I don’t have to make any bones. I state facts and the liberals, like yourself, go into incoherent rants. lgm has been the #1 liberal idiot on the site for a long time, but you’re gaining on him fast.

Your comment about MM is plain enough English for a first-grader. Either you didn’t read your own words or you can’t understand them.
#586150

On January 8th, 2009 at 8:50 am, chapoutier said:

‘Kay sport. Whatever you say.

Maybe we could work this out over a bowl of nice hot bowl of gumbo and be friends?
#586156

On January 8th, 2009 at 8:56 am, TK-421 said:

@136 I agree with most of what you say, except on your saving issue and the illegal aliens problem.

Maybe in your area thats true, but here hardly anyone makes enough money to make ends much less save. Like some people I know barely keep $200 at the end of the month, given high bills and insurance, and not from some “high grade life styl” And are in fact at times to poor to move from the Rural area’s to as you or some other person here would say “Get a job that pays more”.

Some of us get shafted in our income, as to corruption steaming in from our illegals, where the F have you been all these years? Disney Land? I seem to have seen corruption WAY before that, and in fact I still see pelnty from our non latino community, and police among others. Then again maybe its my region. Keep in mind the US is a monolith and the gap between regions and wealth is massive.

Head to Utah you’ll find buildings from the 1800’s head to newer area’s in Texas you’ll see new buildings. In my area I can drive down one stretch of road and find these things. Long standing homes (and familes) and large land owners. A trailer park thats starting to look like a slum, down the road from it a private property housing area, that mainly has mobile homes and only dirt roads. Down the road from it, a upper middle class area full of brick homes, paved roads. Down the Road from it a housing development.

This is not a simple matter of not saving, or Mexicans. Some people just can’t save, not as the blow money left and right, but as they have none to spend once bills have ripped them apart. And most Mexicans just want to be left alone in my area, it seems. Though they may cause trouble the decay and corruption in the US has been here long before them.
#586199

On January 8th, 2009 at 9:44 am, RedDog said:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59217.html

With his party controlling both the House of Representatives and the Senate, Obama’s still likely to get the OK for spending and tax cuts that cost $1 trillion or more over two years and are designed to jump-start the economy and create or save 3 million jobs…. “The deficit estimate makes it clearer than ever that we cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity when we’re already running an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion,” said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the House Republican leader.

How do you take a gun out of the hand of an insane lunatic? It is obvious that these Democrats are determined to destroy the country and remake it in a Marxist image. There can be no other explanation. With finance and basic economics fully understood in these matters, no one in their right mind would propose anything but wholesale shutdowns of government agencies and programs right now. The last thing we need is the government printing more fake money. Dramatically cutting the size of the federal bureaucracy is the only answer to this crisis. The feckless and willful ignorance of these politicians is staggering.

The Democrats are primarily responsible for this disaster and they must be prosecuted for their crimes. The subprime theft and tranfer of trillions of American taxpayer dollars WAS their “stimulus” giveaway package. The party is over, now the American people want jailtime for the Congress and their Wall Street lackeys. Rafts of politicians need to be on their way to a federal pen.
#586217

On January 8th, 2009 at 10:02 am, Weary Citizen said:

On January 8th, 2009 at 8:56 am, TK-421 said:

I am not quite sure where you were going with the “mexicans” and “illegals” thing (not being a smart *ss here). Are you using the term synonomously? Citizens of Mexican decent (or hispanic of any kind) is WAY different than “illegal” aliens. I was born and raised in Texas and have had many hispanic friends. But your argument about wages being low and nothing that can be done about it, then saying how “mexicans” (I assume by “mexican” you mean illegals) work hard and want to be left alone, implies you have no problem with illegal immigration and that it is the greedy employers who are solely to blame for wage gaps. When in fact, a HUGE reason wages in blue collar jobs have not risen at even the rate of inflation over the past 30 years is illegal immigration. My father, a carpenter contractor, earned $15/hr in 1980 (a decent wage). A contractor today with the same skills makes $15-$20/hr. The reson is simple. Illegals would offer their services at a fraction of US workers since they were willing to live a much simpler life and send the money home. Employers found the gov’t was never going to enforce immigration laws so they hired them. Forcing US workers to work for less or find another industry (that was also probably subject ot illegal wage pressures). Fact is, illegal immigration (ignoring the criminal elements of which there are many), has a disproportionate negative impact on the working class citizens. The upper middle calsses and above don’t have to worry about job competition (they benefit form paying lower wages) nor do they live next door to a house of 15 illegals whose yard is trashed with loud mariachi music blaring, or soaring crime rates or find themselves in what feels like a differnet country since few speak english, etc. The very first thing that should be done to help the American working class is to remove the illegal aliens. Businesses would then have to pay a liveable wage (not to mention the savings from welfare, education, health care etc that we all pay for and subisdize the employers cheap labor).
#586267

On January 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am, nlebou said:

Very well said Weary Citizen. I too have many family members affected by the illegal aliens. Just look at what is going on in New Orleans.
#587042

On January 8th, 2009 at 10:10 pm, TK-421 said:

@164, You are a very very naive person if you think making the illegals go would bring the prices down. It won’t and for one some people don’t need to make $15+ an hour, thats BS that makes homes cost small fortunes. For instance a House built in 1950’s America would cost nearly 50 times as much to build.

Its Greed, its corruption, so yes there are things to blame, and not all Illegals are hispanic and some of them if sent back would be shot. My problem is the system is a corrupt money grubing W**re. Thats the American way, 50-80 years ago, pledging loyality and entering goverment related work was good enough to enter the US or even military service, I had ancestors who all were down on there luck or poor.

Look at whats going on now. Its hard times coming, Some people cut back on jobs to keep the pay of the CEO, others just jack the prices up to make up the differance. This will doom this nation, what good is it for wages to go up a few cents when prices shoot a few dollars all around? So much for the little man when his check only ties him down, JUST able to keep him alive.

Under Current US Laws to escape the oppression of there homelands they would have to be illegal, and by your rules thrown out. Be it true oppression on force of death, or escaping hunger. So yes I DO feel with some of them (Reguardless of race) as a number of them would love to jump in to be a part of this country, but could not pay the new age fines and meet the requirements which includes being able to make at least 23,000 a year. Among others. The Militants I have no feelings for and see as a danger who must be removed.

Greed is this nations problem and a generation of a$$ hats who think they DESERVE to have huge salaries the never will spend, or own a mansion. This country is a mockery of its former self, be it money, be it in honor, be it in military might, THATS MY PROBLEM.