Thursday, February 26, 2009

Stimulate This, Jimmy Carter

President Obama after meeting with, from left, National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). Image Credit: Bill O'leary/The Washington Post

Stimulate This, Jimmy Carter

The poor economic record of the Carter years ... and in particular, the unusual combination of high inflation and high unemployment ... was an important reason for Carter's loss of popularity and his 1980 defeat.

The 39th President of the United States has nothing on the potential for economic havoc that liberal federal government spending will have once the 44th President, Barack Obama, has his proposed $3.5 to $4 trillion dollar budget approved and placed into action.

The budget proposal released today is coming on the heels of the approval of $787 Billion dollars of tax monies to stimulate our economy ... the largest spending bill ever passed by our leaders in the U.S. Congress in the history of the United States.

Just try to understand how much money of our citizen supported spending, the Government has approved on our behalf, after hearing that the next budget President Obama wants to have approved may spend about $4 Trillion dollars.

This all becomes a little inconceivable.


If one was to spend only $1,000,000 (that's one-million dollars) a day and intended to spend this money until one had spent $1,000,000,000,000 (one-trillion dollars), one would not finish until three (3) thousand years from now.

So, TIMES FOUR (4) – that’s a million dollars a day for twelve-thousand years!

There are only three-hundred million (300,000,000) men, women, ... and children who live in the United States – do the math.

The Obama Effect - This chart, showing the utter devastation Obama has wrought on the stock market, is from Investor's Business Daily.

This excerpted and edited from Commentary Magazine -

How Big Is Big?

Jennifer Rubin - 02.25.2009 - 7:07 PM

The spending numbers become meaningless after awhile. This helpful guide puts things in perspective:

$787 billion would buy 4.6 million homes here in the US at the most recent median price of $170,300 for January 2008.

$787 billion would send a check for $2,623 to every man, woman and child in the US.

$787 billion would fund 7.7 million four year scholarships to the average private university in the US at current tuition rates.

$787 billion would fund 30 million full four year scholarships to the nation’s public universities.

$787 billion would buy 27.7 million cars at the average price of an automobile sold last year in the US.

$787 billion would fund four full months of a tax holiday in the US.

This not only helps clarify how much we are spending, but how poorly we are allocating taxpayer dollars. If we actually did a couple of these things there might be broader support even among conservatives for the stimulus or the other spending projects Democrats have in mind. However, who thinks we’re going to get much value or immediate productive economic activity from the $787B?

You have the sense that, if they tried, they couldn’t spend the money in a more inefficient and less productive fashion. And you’d be right. The Democrats’ goal is to expand the public sector and pet liberal projects, not to worry about efficiency and productivity.They’re doing a fine job.

Reference Here>>

Then there is this little budget of $4 Trillion dollars and the claim that it will reduce the deficit by half.

This excerpted and edited from The Washington Post -

In President's Budget Plan, Broad Agenda and a Few Gaps

By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post Staff Writer - Thursday, February 26, 2009

President Obama's spending plan is built on the assumption that lawmakers can resolve some hugely contentious issues -- and it relies on a few well-worn budget tricks.

The request he will deliver to Congress today proposes to provide what administration officials are calling a "down payment" on a major expansion of health care coverage for the uninsured. It identifies $634 billion in tax increases and spending cuts to cover the cost of part of the program, but does not say how the administration hopes to raise the rest of the money -- hundreds of billions of dollars more. "TBD" has been penciled into categories for cost savings and benefit reductions.

Obama's budget also would make permanent a tax cut for the middle class enacted in the recent stimulus package. But to pay for it, the president counts on a big infusion of cash from a politically controversial cap-and-trade system, which would force companies to buy allowances to exceed pollution limits. Even if that plan is approved, some lawmakers have other ideas about how to spend the money.
"They've painted the worst-case scenario in order to make it as easy as possible to improve on," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which champions deficit reduction. “But I'd like to see them go much further in terms of fiscal responsibility in actually closing that deficit gap."
"It's a bold plan. This is big strokes. This is not a budget about little things," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the House leadership.
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the budget has not been released, said the spending proposal is just a summary of a fleshed-out plan that will be complete in April. In addition, some details were intentionally left out of the document because the president did not want to dictate policy changes to lawmakers.

The health reform proposal, for example, "is the starting point of a conversation with Congress," the official said. "We're not going to go to Congress and say, 'Here's the plan.' We're starting a conversation and saying, 'This is what we want to get done.' "
The deficit is perhaps the trickiest issue in Obama's spending plan. He has pledged to cut it in half by the end of his first term. Specifically, administration officials say the annual gap between federal spending and tax collections will fall from something north of $1.4 trillion this year -- the highest since World War II -- to $533 billion in 2013.

But Republicans and some budget analysts noted that this highly touted goal is not particularly ambitious: This year's budget deficit is bloated by spending on the stimulus package and various financial-sector bailouts, expenses unlikely to be repeated in future years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that the deficit could be halved by 2013 merely by winding down the war in Iraq and allowing some of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration to expire in 2011, as Obama has proposed. That alone would cut the deficit to $715 billion, according to the CBO.

"It's easy to cut the deficit in half after you've quadrupled it," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The end of the recession, the drawdown of Iraq spending and the end of temporary stimulus spending will by itself cut the deficit in half. He should do more."
The official defended the administration's figures, saying they accurately represent recent war costs. "It's a change in our policy that is going to bring those costs down," the official said.

But several budget analysts criticized the speech as misleading.

"It's a hollow number," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who recently withdrew as Obama's nominee to head the Commerce Department. "You're not getting savings if you're assuming spending that isn't actually going to occur."

Reference Here>>

Ahhhh! The benefits of Central Planning ... it took only 12 Five-Year Plans to bring down the Soviet Union. How long will it take to dismantle the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States (many say the freedom train has already left the station).

Carter's Second Term ... on STEROIDS!!!

No comments: