Comments on: Obama Administration Has No Clue.

By: RodZ

RodZ — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:56:43 +0000

Bridgid I don’t think you understand, I know you read what I have been posting but you continue to try to tie me to previous administrations and their policies. The simple truth is I don’t like social programs, excessive spending or wasting tax dollars. I want a government that protects the American people from all enemies and unscrupulous business practices.
I want spending to be tied to a specific program and not the general fund to be used as fun money for our special interest congress. I believe it is counter intuitive to think one can borrow money at this level without consequents far beyond those we would have experienced with out the massive borrowing. Remember they are not spending “banked money” but borrowing it to spend. This is what you seem to be missing.
Try running your own budget in this manner and see what happens to you.

By: Bridgid

Bridgid — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:49:33 +0000

Forgot to attach the chart, which, despite being reproduced in the New York Times (gasp!) all the data is from Haver Analytics, Standard and Poor’s, and Bloomberg.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/23/business/0124-biz-websubCHARTS.gif

By: Bridgid

Bridgid — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:38:14 +0000

Rod
If you find Moody’s conservative economic model to be faulty, what economic model do you agree with? Did you agree with Reagan’s massive deficit spending to get the economy out of recession, even though it resulted in a tripling of the national debt? Did you support Bush II’s massive deficit spending to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? His legacy was a doubling of the national debt.

Despite many politicians and voters conveniently becoming born-again fiscal conservatives the moment Obama entered the White House, it is near impossible to find a single news story showing these same “angry” people throwing tea parties left and right while Republicans practiced unrestrained borrowing and spending and tax cutting under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Things that make me go “hmm.”

By: RodZ

RodZ — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:56:57 +0000

Bridgid, I don’t think I am ill-informed on the subject. I would say I just don’t believe the model. I know that borrowing and spending will not reduce debt. I think the borrow and spend plan has been tried before in many forms, not just government, it never works.
If one is to control ones budget one must reduce debt and control spending. I have always believe Bush made a hugh mistake with the bailout and I believe the current stimulus bill is more of a political movement towards government control and promotion of a liberal agenda than a stimulus bill. I have read the Recovery act and find billions of dollars targeted to said agenda items and will produce no jobs and very limited infrastructure spending as it relates to the size of the bill.
As for the tax cuts, well lets just say that the small targeted cuts do very little to stimulate job growth and nothing to reduce the growing deficit.

By: Bridgid

Bridgid — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:25:05 +0000

Rod

I’m curious–on whose economic analysis do you base your comments about the stimulus package? Can you give me the names of the leading economists who support your conclusions? To me, you sound very ill-informed on this subject, passionate, but ill-informed.

Did you look at Moody’s Economy.com and review their forecast model for the stimulus bill? Did you see what categories of the stimulus bill provide the biggest bang for the buck? The table is on page 9 of the forecast (linked below)

“Every dollar of additional infrastructure spending means $1.57 in economic activity, according to Moody’s, and general aid to states carries a $1.41 “bang” for each federal buck.

Even more effective are increases for food stamps ($1.74) and unemployment checks ($1.61), because recipients quickly spend their benefits on goods and services.

By contrast, most temporary tax cuts cost more than the stimulus they provide, according to research by Moody’s. That is true of two tax breaks in the stimulus law that Congress, pressed by industry lobbyists, recently extended and sweetened — a tax credit for homebuyers (90 cents of stimulus for each dollar of tax subsidy) and extra deductions for businesses’ net operating losses (21 cents).

Economists said Republicans’ recent proposals to rescind unspent money would be a mistake.”

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf