To all those attending John Stewart’s rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial last week, who were asked if they thought the President was a Keynesian and answered that no, he was born in the United States, this election was about you.
There were other issues of course, with health care reform at the very top of the list. But at the end of the day, the palpable damage to the American economy of the “stimulus” package has been the core problem. Had the US entered recovery after a short sharp recession, there may have been lost seats here and there but not the rout we have seen. But with the American economy floundering, having no momentum and unemployment at deep recession levels with no sign of a return to more prosperous times, this was the result.
There is no question that the Republican majority in the House and its increased numbers in the Senate will be doing what they can to bring the deficit down and limit, as much as possible, the growth in the level of debt. This is the practical side of economics. The theory that says cut spending when unemployment is high is not found in 99% of your standard macroeconomic texts. But this is what will now happen. The walking back of so many of these unproductive stimulus expenditures will create a level of pain but if they manage to grasp the nettle of restraint, recovery will come.
Bad timing for Quiggin’s new book on zombie un-dead ideas. There are none zombier or deader than Keynesianism.
C.L.
4 Nov 10 at 12:19 pm
It’s w a wonderful day and the reason I never gave up on the US is because of this election and the way the Tea Party organized itself to defeat this monstrosity.
Yes Steve, the recovery will come and it may be even better after 2012.
JC
4 Nov 10 at 1:07 pm
Unfortunately, C.L., Keynesianism is indeed a zombie which will never be totally subdued. While there remain politicians weak enough to respond to demands to “do something”, Keynesianism will retain a place at the table.
Mother Hubbard's Dog
4 Nov 10 at 1:34 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Keynes actually advocate paying back the borrowed money during good times? These guys have taken it to a whole new level where money is borrowed on an ongoing basis with no attempt or even plan to repay.
Chris M
4 Nov 10 at 2:39 pm
Vulgar Keynesians, Chris M.
.
4 Nov 10 at 2:58 pm
There is no question that the Republican majority in the House and its increased numbers in the Senate will be doing what they can to bring the deficit down and limit, as much as possible, the growth in the level of debt.
hhahahahahahahahahahahahah good lord you are one gullible SOB.
Tillman
4 Nov 10 at 3:07 pm
Tillman,
You seem to infer the US is doomed. Maybe you’re right.
.
4 Nov 10 at 3:17 pm
I wonder how big the next US boom would have to be to rescued the US from its current mindboggingly indebtedness.
Actually, JC, just how ‘mindbogging’ is the current US situation? In real terms, is it historically that bad?
Peter Patton
4 Nov 10 at 3:23 pm
PP, however much minds may be boggled by the US’s current indebtedness, it is certainly not so large that they cannot inflate their way out of trouble. Speaking of which, I note that the Fed has announced a $600 billion buyback of treasury bonds http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/US-Federal-Reserve-Announces-Second-Wave-Of-Quantitative-Easing-600bn-Cash-Boost-In-America/Article/201011115792652?f=rss
The US is in the amazing position that, if they inflate, there are very few domestic savers to hurt. Most of the pain will be felt in Japan and China. Inflation will also lower the currency, making their exports more competitive. A no-brainer, really.
Mother Hubbard's Dog
4 Nov 10 at 3:55 pm
You can either inflate or you can just grow the fucking economy.
You know, by investing and shit like that.
Tillman
4 Nov 10 at 4:03 pm
Peter
It’s not a given that it will work. The Fed’s balance sheet has risen from $800 billion to around $2 trillion I think and now they’re adding another $600 billion to the monetary base. If the banks don’t use the money to lend it’s not going to work.
The problem I think is that people haven’t wanted to borrow for a couple of reasons.
The US corps are stuffed with cash .. around $1 trillion.. and have no great need for debt.
The smaller firms are not that credit worthy and the banks are scared to lend to them.
lastly people don’t know what this administration was going to do to fuck up commerce even more.
Morgan Stanley’s latest research on the QE suggests it will only buy them around 3 basis points off the jobless rate.
Look I think next year could be a little better then it is now.
JC
4 Nov 10 at 4:10 pm
Steve forgot to link the vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU
New Gold Dream
4 Nov 10 at 4:10 pm
According to John Hussman of Hussman Funds, QE2 won’t boost the economy, though it could create “a bubble in risky assets”.
…
The belief that an increase in the money supply will result in an increase in GDP relies on the assumption that velocity will not decline in proportion to the increase in money. Unfortunately for the proponents of “quantitative easing,” this assumption fails spectacularly in the data – both in the U.S. and internationally – particularly at zero interest rates.
…
Likewise, real economic growth has no observable correlation with growth in the monetary base (the correlation is actually slightly negative but insignificant). Rather, economic growth is the result of hundreds of millions of individual decision-makers, each acting in their best interests to shift their consumption plans, saving, and investment in response to desirable opportunities that they face. Their behavior cannot simply be induced by changes in the money supply or in interest rates, absent those desirable opportunities.
You can read the whole thing (including charts) here:
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc101025.htm
Capitalist Piggy
4 Nov 10 at 4:32 pm
How “mindbogging” is the current situation? Check this:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-726447-146823.html
Capitalist Piggy
4 Nov 10 at 4:40 pm
It’s not just savers who get hurt by inflation. Anybody in a long term contract denominated in US dollars that is expecting payment is exposed. If you have leased out a building over 20 years without an adequate inflation clause you get hurt. And the adjustment process itself can be disruptive. Riding a wage price spiral is never fun.
TerjeP
4 Nov 10 at 4:46 pm
It would be interested to know where this base money is now sitting. Is it just being stocked by the banks as added reserves?
TerjeP
4 Nov 10 at 4:51 pm
Yes. The banks hold it with the Fed and the Fed pays them .25%.
JC
4 Nov 10 at 5:18 pm
(Hail Mary, Full of grace….)
One can only hope, Cap. One can only hope and pray
JC
4 Nov 10 at 5:19 pm
[...] Steve Kates at Catallaxy Files, self-styled as a ‘libertarian and centre-right blog’, has a similar view from a very different perspective: There were other issues of course, with health care reform at the very top of the list. But at the end of the day, the palpable damage to the American economy of the “stimulus” package has been the core problem. Had the US entered recovery after a short sharp recession, there may have been lost seats here and there but not the rout we have seen. But with the American economy floundering, having no momentum and unemployment at deep recession levels with no sign of a return to more prosperous times, this was the result. US Election a Referendum on Keynesian Economics [...]
Australians Weigh the US Midterm Elections :: Elites TV
4 Nov 10 at 5:29 pm
Terje,
Most of that money is held in reserves, see this chart:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTRESNS?cid=123
Capitalist Piggy
4 Nov 10 at 5:45 pm
Well at the very first signal they intend to inflate their way out, I am going VERY long on defence stocks.
Peter Patton
4 Nov 10 at 6:06 pm
Considering the major cause of the rise in the deficit is increased transfer payments and falling tax revenues it remains to be seen just how the Republicans envisage getting US government finances under control.
Considering the budget position was in pretty poor shape when Obama got in the Republicans haven’t got a great record.
sdfc
4 Nov 10 at 7:50 pm
SDFC>
No one put a gun to that moron’s head to put his name up as a candidate for the US presidency. He chose to so the moment he was sworn in he owned the problems.
In addition to that, he added to the deficit and made it worse.
So get off your knees and stop bowing to hopeychange who will at the rate he’s going be a worse president than Carter.
JC
4 Nov 10 at 7:59 pm
JC
Why the vitriol to the simple facts I have put on the table?
A more balanced response would have been to acknowledge the US have been fiscal deadbeats for the best part of 50 years, but that you don’t agree with Obama’s policies because…
sdfc
4 Nov 10 at 8:05 pm
It’s not vitriolic, SDFC, it’s basically annoyance when i see bullshit.
I wouldn’t agree the US have been deadbeats over that period of time. There have been periods when Debt to GDP has been ok. Not great but okay.
I think though we’ve now reached the point where even a smidgen won’t be acceptable.
You blame it on the others and this fucker has gone right out and added far more debt, yet you wanna look back “50 years”.
JC
4 Nov 10 at 8:11 pm
Fucking hell. Be realistic and look at how Obama turned a shitty situation into a nightmare.
.
4 Nov 10 at 8:14 pm
F
I know. typical left winger that he is, SDFC always looks to blame others or suggest “they’re all the same” when things really get hot in the kitchen and unable to blame anyone else.
JC
4 Nov 10 at 8:17 pm
So am I correct in thinking Mark that you are of the opinion that taxes should not have been cut and household income should not have been supported by welfare payments.
How do you think that would have gone? And what evidence to you have for your belief.
JC as usual you have nothing to offer.
sdfc
4 Nov 10 at 8:22 pm
They should have cut spending.
I know you can’t bring yourself to say this, men in white suits will be around with some sodium thiopental and some cheek retractors.
They might supply some nitrous if you think whole affair is wholly uncomical.
“How do you think that would have gone?”
You would have opposed it.
“And what evidence to you have for your belief.”
Unempoloyment has risen slightly since Obama’s innaugaration, the complete failure of the stimulus and FEDERAL Government debt alone now reachin 100% of GDP.
Get a grip of yourself.
.
4 Nov 10 at 8:29 pm
Considering the major cause of the rise in the deficit is increased transfer payments and falling tax revenues it remains to be seen just how the Republicans envisage getting US government finances under control.
Here’s a start, Griswald.
JC as usual you have nothing to offer.
Lol.
I’m not like you Griz. 17 hours after victory I’m not turning around and hinting that the other side hasn’t done anything yet.
There.. earmarks are out the fucking window for a start. Banned. Finito.
What do think of that?
JC
4 Nov 10 at 8:35 pm
Mark
You are starting to sound like JC in your hysterical responses.
For someone who prides himself on his economic knowledge you sure are averse to discussion of the concepts.
You are taking the current unemployment rate as being some sort of upper bound yet you offer no sound reasoning for that belief.
Why don’t you try again. Given you think the tax benefit component of the stimulus was a positive, what effect do you think the cutting of welfare payments would have had on PCE?
sdfc
4 Nov 10 at 8:38 pm
“For someone who prides himself on his economic knowledge you sure are averse to discussion of the concepts. ”
Grow a brain and look at the rise in U6 and the debt.
“Given you think the tax benefit component of the stimulus was a positive, what effect do you think the cutting of welfare payments would have had on PCE?”
Who gives a shit?
“You are taking the current unemployment rate as being some sort of upper bound yet you offer no sound reasoning for that belief.”
No I’m not you dolt. Obama and Zandi want more stimulus and I expect more joblessness from that, and a prolonging of a period of 1970s style malaise and slow growth.
.
4 Nov 10 at 8:42 pm
SDFC:
The other annoying thing about you is that we help you understanding things a little better and you then abuse us when we do. You never display an ounce of gratitude.
Look griswald, in 2009 the Demolition Congress reached a bi-partisan agreement with the GOP that any future spending initiatives would have to be met with offsetting cuts elsewhere. That is what they agreed to and Mr Harvard in the White House signed the bill.
It was no more than 60 days later that the irresponsible fuckers were back and broke the agreement blaming the GOP for wanting to stop financing jobless benefits when all the GOP did was want to hold those degenerates to the agreement.
So they lied and got the extra money by overriding their previous commitment.
Here’s what the GOP will do.
The benefits are ending pretty soon and they will fund the jobless benefit but they will make that bullshit artist in the White House live up to his promise of cutting spending elsewhere.
How do know? I’m just guessing that’s what they will do. They’re going to finally hold his knackers to the fire and make sure he doesn’t walk away from what he signed… and the American public will back them to the hilt because they know they made an awful mistake putting him in the White House.
JC
4 Nov 10 at 8:48 pm
JC
I’m not an American. There is no other side for me. I was simply pointing out that the Republicans don’t have a great track record of fiscal restraint.
I never said they hadn’t done anything yet, that’s just the voices in your head. You really need to get your paranoia under control.
What I said is that remains to be seen how they envisage getting the budget under control.
sdfc
4 Nov 10 at 8:50 pm
It’s not me who doesn’t understand why the budget position has deteriorated it is you and your belief that it is the result of some huge increase in government consumption and investment when in reality it has been mainly rising welfare payments and falling tax revenue.
Wasn’t the story that the Democrats wanted to close a tax loophole to fund the extension of unemployment benefits?
sdfc
4 Nov 10 at 8:56 pm
I’m not an American.
Doesn’t matter. You’re commenting on the place.
There is no other side for me. I was simply pointing out that the Republicans don’t have a great track record of fiscal restraint.
They once did. I think you’ll find these are different GOP’ers and if they are the Tea Party will leave and form their own party. This the only life line they will get and if they give this up they’re gone for a generation.
I never said they hadn’t done anything yet, that’s just the voices in your head. You really need to get your paranoia under control.
No voices. That’s what you were suggesting in your first comment.
If you had no idea why comment?
What I said is that remains to be seen how they envisage getting the budget under control.
No you didn’t. You alluded to how difficult it would be and you don’t think they will be able to do it.
JC
4 Nov 10 at 8:58 pm
It’s not me who doesn’t understand why the budget position has deteriorated it is you and your belief that it is the result of some huge increase in government consumption and investment when in reality it has been mainly rising welfare payments and falling tax revenue.
$800 billion is stimulus. Fucking earmarks coming out of their ears. A healthcare bill they can’t afford. Continuing with the wars when he promised he’d be out of there…I’m not sure if I agree with leaving Afghanistan, but then he made the commitment not me. Real increases in every sector of the budget.
Yea right it wasn’t huge at all.
Wasn’t the story that the Democrats wanted to close a tax loophole to fund the extension of unemployment benefits?
Why don’t they cut spending?
JC
4 Nov 10 at 9:02 pm
From Right-thinking.com, a blog I like to pop over to on occasion. some excerpts.
daddy dave
4 Nov 10 at 10:22 pm
JC
I’m afraid it does matter that I am not American, I am commenting on the ecomomics of stimulus spending. I’ll leave the petty party politics to you.
If you’re getting upset because I pointed out that the great saviours have a long history of running deficits then you need to get a grip on yourself and face up to the fact that they have a poor track record.
My first comment is quite clear. If you have problems understanding it that’s not my concern.
You really are confused aren’t you. You repeat a statement I made and then remark that I didn’t say it. Bizarre even for you.
What spending do you want them to cut? Welfare payments? You really are a knobhead. We already know the impact of a do nothing policy. It was called the Great Depression.
The $800 billion in stimulus spending was largely tax benefits and entitlements. In case you missed it the US had its worst recession since the 1930s. Tax revenues declined and transfer payments went up, what a surprise.
If you want to cut spending I suggest defence is a prime candidate. Defence spending was about 67% of Federal Government consumption and investment in Q3. But no you’ll probably cheer cuts to unemployment benefits thinking it will make all those lazy arse unemployed get back to work. What a joke. Sorry I meant jerk.
sdfc
5 Nov 10 at 12:36 am
I’m afraid it does matter that I am not American, I am commenting on the ecomomics of stimulus spending. I’ll leave the petty party politics to you.
WTF are you about, SDFC? You comment on American politics all the time and you just did by comparing the relative spending habits of the two parties and you’re now talking about not getting your delicate hands dirty with petty party politics. You have the memory recall of a retarded gnat. You also recently went all political on us out of blue dissing Reagan. So don’t give us this crap you’re above the pettiness of it all as that isn’t going to fool me or anyone reading your rants.
If you’re getting upset because I pointed out that the great saviours have a long history of running deficits then you need to get a grip on yourself and face up to the fact that they have a poor track record.
So what? It’s certainly not as bad as what the demolitionists are now running and adding. Hopeychange inherited a bad situation and made it worse. He’s fucked up big time.
My first comment is quite clear. If you have problems understanding it that’s not my concern.
You really are confused aren’t you. You repeat a statement I made and then remark that I didn’t say it. Bizarre even for you.
I have no idea what you’re talking about and when you get into these druken incoherent stupors of yours can I suggest you don’t go picking up your wife at the casino, as you’re clearly drunk and in no fit state to drive.
What spending do you want them to cut?
The rest of the stimulus.
Revoke the appalling healthcare disaster.
Freeze spending on entitlements.
No more earmarks
Get out of Iraq,
Cut chunks off the Pentagon budget
That’s a start after which they can introduce a means tested pension system like ours raise the working age of the pension like ours. Increase co-payments on Medicare like ours. And remove those moronic farm subsidies.
Welfare payments? You really are a knobhead. We already know the impact of a do nothing policy. It was called the Great Depression.
If you bothered to read my earlier comments you would have noticed I said they should keep jobless benefits going by cutting other spending you dickhead, but seeing you never read stuff and aren’t able to comprehend well most things have to be repeated to two a few times before they sink in.
The $800 billion in stimulus spending was largely tax benefits and entitlements. In case you missed it the US had its worst recession since the 1930s. Tax revenues declined and transfer payments went up, what a surprise.
Dickhead the largest part of it was making sure public sector workers were kept on at the same rates of pay they enjoyed well before the GFC.
If you want to cut spending I suggest defence is a prime candidate. Defence spending was about 67% of Federal Government consumption and investment in Q3. But no you’ll probably cheer cuts to unemployment benefits thinking it will make all those lazy arse unemployed get back to work. What a joke. Sorry I meant jerk.
Please don’t be mean to me, SDFC. You really make me cry.
You bozo. Try and keep up with the comments otherwise you end up looking like a complete dolt.
JC
5 Nov 10 at 12:57 am
“If you want to cut spending I suggest defence is a prime candidate. Defence spending was about 67% of Federal Government consumption and investment in Q3. ”
Are you obtuse or illiterate? What do you think “get out of Iraq” means?
.
5 Nov 10 at 7:37 am
This is for the gullible imbeciles who think the GOP is serious about cutting spending:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/bachmann-outraged-over-made-up-cost-of-obamas-india-trip-video.php?ref=fpa
Tillman
5 Nov 10 at 8:12 am
Anderson said that “frankly, no one really knows the cost, because for security reasons, they don’t disclose the costs, so this idea that its $200 million or whatever is simply made up.”
In other words: you’re wrong but we won’t tell you the real figure. We won’t even say if it’s higher or lower than your estimate.
Accountability! That’s what I like to see in a politician.
daddy dave
5 Nov 10 at 9:21 am
In other words: you’re wrong but we won’t tell you the real figure. We won’t even say if it’s higher or lower than your estimate.
Accountability! That’s what I like to see in a politician.
yeah, because of course the US Secret Service should be obliged to disclose secrets regarding Presidential visits to foreign capitals where there is a major Qaeda presence upon demand by some hysterical congresswoman.
DD, you totally ignore the fact that Bachmann had a golden opportunity to identify where real spending cuts could be made and instead she blathered on about total irrelevancies.
Let me make this clear:
Anyone who thinks the GOP is serious about cutting spending is a MORON.
Tillman
5 Nov 10 at 10:53 am
The GOP aren’t. The Tea Party probably are.
There is nothing wrong with across the board cuts and efficiency goals.
.
5 Nov 10 at 10:57 am
There is nothing wrong with across the board cuts and efficiency goals
Even if that’s the case, across the board cuts (which necessarily means cuts to medicare and social security) are electoral suicide.
No one is going to touch that – not GOP, not Dem.
Even Rand Paul and Angle had to back off cutting SS and Medicare.
So instead the GOP persists with its insane tax cuts for hedge fund managers and no spending cuts.
I repeat, anyone who thinks the GOP is serious about spending cuts or has a real plan for fixing the deficit is a MORON.
Tillman
5 Nov 10 at 11:02 am
Anyone who thinks the [Dems] is serious about cutting spending is a MORON.
Fixed that for you.
dover_beach
5 Nov 10 at 11:16 am
Nancy Pelosi: ‘No regrets. We cut the deficit and created jobs.’
Psychologically unwell.
C.L.
5 Nov 10 at 11:25 am
Perhaps DB but the Dems didn’t run on a platform of cutting spending. In fact, I wish they had run on a platform of increased spending.
But dim bulbs such as Kates are deluded enough to think that GOP is about to embark on a good faith effort to cut spending.
Tillman
5 Nov 10 at 11:28 am
Palin humiliates critics:
C.L.
5 Nov 10 at 11:31 am
WTF?
34 warships sent from US for Obama visit.
C.L.
5 Nov 10 at 11:37 am
Has anyone told St Nancy that she’s out of a job yet?
tal
5 Nov 10 at 11:39 am
Good lord CL!!!!
Do you mean to say that the US Navy has a presence in the Indian Ocean???
This is just madness by Obama! He is truly drunk with power.
Any reasonable president would immediately recall all US naval vessels to port in the Good Old US and A where they can defend the Heartland.
How many aircraft carriers are there in Lake Michigan? None! The Heartland is wide open for our enemies to seize it. Fucking Canucks.
Sending the US Navy on patrol is just proof that Obama hates America, isn’t it.
Also glad to see that you are relying on strategic genius Matt Drudge for your geopolitical insights.
Tillman
5 Nov 10 at 11:41 am
Perhaps DB but the Dems didn’t run on a platform of cutting spending. In fact, I wish they had run on a platform of increased spending.
Then you got what you wanted in spades.
dover_beach
5 Nov 10 at 11:49 am
WTF are you about, SDFC? You comment on American politics all the time and you just did by comparing the relative spending habits of the two parties and you’re now talking about not getting your delicate hands dirty with petty party politics. You have the memory recall of a retarded gnat. You also recently went all political on us out of blue dissing Reagan. So don’t give us this crap you’re above the pettiness of it all as that isn’t going to fool me or anyone reading your rants.
Actually no I don’t comment on US politics JC. Never have. All I have done is point out that both sides have a shocking fiscal record. That is the point of my comment that the US has run deficits for the best part of 50-years. You are the one who thinks one side is the epitome of fiscal rectitude. My comments on Reagan are a reference to your obvious admiration for him being contradictory to your abhorrence of fiscal deficits. It’s not that difficult surely.
So what? It’s certainly not as bad as what the demolitionists are now running and adding. Hopeychange inherited a bad situation and made it worse. He’s fucked up big time.
Obama inherited a shit economy and a shit fiscal situation. He ran a deficit to prevent the economy from spiraling further. Government spending has had a positive impact unless you think the household sector can run on thin air.
Let’s have a look at the national accounts.
Household spending growth has been positive for the last four quarters largely as a result of transfer payments. In case you missed it the US household sector receives more in transfer payments than it pays in tax and social security contributions.
Business investment has been positive for the last four quarters. Fiscal deficits support private sector cash flows.
I have no idea what you’re talking about and when you get into these druken incoherent stupors of yours can I suggest you don’t go picking up your wife at the casino, as you’re clearly drunk and in no fit state to drive.
You’re going to have to clarify the above comment. It seems you’re hearing voices again.
The rest of the stimulus.
Revoke the appalling healthcare disaster.
Freeze spending on entitlements.
No more earmarks
Get out of Iraq,
Cut chunks off the Pentagon budget
Do you want entitlements and tax benefits cut. Or is it just the grants?
Why is healthcare more of a disaster than the previous policy?
Get out of Iraq. Definitely it was a mistake to go in the first place.
I agree cut defence spending, it is a huge deadweight loss.
That’s a start after which they can introduce a means tested pension system like ours raise the working age of the pension like ours. Increase co-payments on Medicare like ours. And remove those moronic farm subsidies.
I agree.
If you bothered to read my earlier comments you would have noticed I said they should keep jobless benefits going by cutting other spending you dickhead, but seeing you never read stuff and aren’t able to comprehend well most things have to be repeated to two a few times before they sink in.
As far as I can see you never commented to me that you think the unemployment benefits should stay. Just that the Republicans should use the unemployed as a bargaining chip.
Dickhead the largest part of it was making sure public sector workers were kept on at the same rates of pay they enjoyed well before the GFC.
$512 billion of the package was entitlements and tax benefits. You’re either misinformed or bullshitting.
You bozo. Try and keep up with the comments otherwise you end up looking like a complete dolt.
Sorry if it’s inconvenient that I research what I’m arguing but you’re just going to have to live with it.
sdfc
5 Nov 10 at 8:07 pm
Sorry the above comment was to JC.
sdfc
5 Nov 10 at 8:08 pm
• Actually no I don’t comment on US politics JC. Never have. All I have done is point out that both sides have a shocking fiscal record. That is the point of my comment that the US has run deficits for the best part of 50-years. You are the one who thinks one side is the epitome of fiscal rectitude. My comments on Reagan are a reference to your obvious admiration for him being contradictory to your abhorrence of fiscal deficits. It’s not that difficult surely.
You frequently comment. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest.
Reagan wasn’t just about budgets Griswald. If those dishonest reprobates on the other side of the political fence had slowed spending the budget would have easily balanced. But because they were lying dishonest dirtbags they were making invalid comparisons between defense spending to win the Cold War and the preposterous notion that the President was allowing black babies to go hungry. He chose the most expedient way to win the Cold War rather than fight with those douchebags. He should have fought with them, but that’s hindsight,
Obama inherited a shit economy and a shit fiscal situation. He ran a deficit to prevent the economy from spiraling further. Government spending has had a positive impact unless you think the household sector can run on thin air.
Let’s have a look at the national accounts.
Household spending growth has been positive for the last four quarters largely as a result of transfer payments. In case you missed it the US household sector receives more in transfer payments than it pays in tax and social security contributions.
Business investment has been positive for the last four quarters. Fiscal deficits support private sector cash flows.
Genius, the budget deficit is 10% of GDP. If that amount of spending can’t hold the economy even slightly about zero growth there really is a problem.
Obama took a bad situation and totally fucked it up. He deserves to railroaded out of the White House and ought to apologize to the American people for the damage the fucking moron has caused. The deficit is 10% of GDP. Does it even register with you or not, Mergatroid? Do you understand the size of that and the consequences America following the budget projections laid down by the CBO? They’re fucked. Greece beckons.
I have no idea what you’re talking about and when you get into these druken incoherent stupors of yours can I suggest you don’t go picking up your wife at the casino, as you’re clearly drunk and in no fit state to drive.
You’re going to have to clarify the above comment. It seems you’re hearing voices again.
WTF. You’re asking me to clarify a request for you to clarify and now you’re asking me to clarify the request for a clarification? Lol. You really are a bozo.
Why is healthcare more of a disaster than the previous policy?
Because it’s a fucked policy and they need to start over again.
As far as I can see you never commented to me that you think the unemployment benefits should stay. Just that the Republicans should use the unemployed as a bargaining chip.
There’s no bargaining chip. Obama signed Democrat legislation called Pay Go. Pay Go committed those bozos that new spending could only be met with cuts elsewhere. Three months didn’t pass before the fucktoids were breaking that agreement and saying the GOP wanted to cut benefits to the jobless, which was total and complete crap.
Jobless benefits should and must be continued, but they can only do so by cutting elsewhere and abiding by the Pay Go law
$512 billion of the package was entitlements and tax benefits. You’re either misinformed or bullshitting.
3% went to “shovel ready” infrastructure spending. The rest of the money was blown on keeping public sector workers on the salaries and the benefits they were accustomed that the states and localities could no longer afford. Also very little were tax concessions in comparison.
JC
5 Nov 10 at 8:34 pm
SDFC:
The other annoying thing about you is that we help you understanding things a little better and you then abuse us when we do. You never display an ounce of gratitude.
I’ll interpret that for you SDFC:
“If you don’t think like us you are a fucking idiot.”
John H.
5 Nov 10 at 8:40 pm