Obamanomics Won't Help Anything

>> Monday, November 23, 2009

A great analysis is found here regarding why the economy can't thrive under Obama and the many goofy ideas from him and his minions.


Bloviating Zeppelin November 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM  


Better yet, why not ask THIS question:

In YOUR household, if you're in horrible debt, will spending MORE seem to extricate you from your predicament? WHY is the federal deficit ANY different?

It's just that simple.

Jesus people, your Free Cheese heads have gone SO soft over Mr Obama.

ELAshley November 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM  

Agreed. I can't understand how anyone on the Left could possibly find any merit in 'Spending to Reduce One's Deficit' trope. I guess it makes sense in a Laputan sort of way, but then, nothing ever really makes sense there anyway, does it? Even gestalt-Liberalism can't adequately defend the kind of nonsense that passes for wisdom in Obamaland. Sad to think that only Gulliver could manage to get anything useful out of the Jabberwocky coming from our "Laputan-in-Chief," monsieur presidente.

For those who don't know who the Laputan's are I left a clue in the paragraph above. As to what they represent, the Laputans do not symbolize reason itself but rather the pursuit of a form of knowledge that is not directly related to the improvement of human life. Or American life for that matter.

That's Obama and his turd-eating toadies to the tee.

Obamanomics? An oxymoron if ever there was one.

ELAshley November 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM  

From NewsMax...

New York Times: U.S. Racing Toward Debt "Shock"

Monday, November 23, 2009

A page one, top-of-the-fold New York Times report Monday warns that U.S. debt is rising so fast that the federal government is careening toward a "payment shock" in the not-too-distant future.

The Times lead headline read: "Federal Government Faces Balloon in Debt Payments: At $700 Billion a Year, Cost Will Top Budgets for 2 Wars, Education, Energy."

The Times headline appears eerie just as the Senate moves to push forward on a radical healthcare reform-- with CBO estimates for a final bill costing nearly $1 trillion dollars over the next year.

The national debt now stands at over $12 trillion and the White House estimates that the cost of servicing the debt will rise to more than $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year. The Times suggests that $700 billion annual payment cost may be conservative.

The additional $500 billion a year in interest payments would surpass the combined budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security, plus the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Times observes.

Treasury officials face not only huge new debts incurred in response to the economic meltdown but a balloon of short-term borrowings coming due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are certain to return to normal levels when the Federal Reserve concludes that the fiscal emergency has passed.

"Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today's low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages," The Times reported on Monday.

Interestingly, the alarming Times analysis comes as the nation is in the midst of a debate over healthcare reform proposals that could add many billions of dollars to the overall debt.

Record deficits have arrived just as payments for Medicare and Social Security benefits are set to explode, with the oldest Baby Boomers approaching age 65. This will result in what experts have long warned will be a "fiscal nightmare" for the government, the Times article notes.

"What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter," William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco, a bond management firm, told The Times.

"The United States is not only not saving nuts, it's eating the ones left over from the last winter."

As for the balloon of short-term borrowings coming due, that debt now accounts for 36 percent of overall debt, compared to the historic average of less than 25 percent, and more than $1.6 trillion is due by March 31.

Another problem: The Federal Reserve's purchases of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities to prop up the economy pushed down long-term interest rates by about half of a percentage point, but the Fed is set to reverse those policies-- that alone could add $40 billion to the government's annual debt service expense.

The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a group of market experts that advises the Treasury on debt management, declared this month: "Inflation, higher interest rate and rollover risk should be the primary concerns. Clever debt management strategy can't completely substitute for prudent fiscal policy."

And The Times warns: "There is little doubt that the United States' long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone."


Is the president OBLIVIOUS to fiscal commonsense? Or is it all according to plan?

Mark November 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM  

This is just common sense. I'm far from any kind of economics expert, but even I know you can't spend your way out of debt.

If I go over the spending limit on my credit card, I cannot make the overage disappear by charging more. I can't even make the original amount disappear by charging more.

It's simple first grade math. If Johnny has 50 cents, and spends 50 cents on an apple, how much money does he have left? What happens if he then spends another 50 cents for another apple, when he doesn't have 50 cents left to spend?

Obama seems to think Johnny will generate more money to continue to buy apples that way.

Mark November 24, 2009 at 9:11 AM  

Eric, it's been about a half century since I read Swift, but are you referencing Liliputans?

'Cause I don't remember Laputans.

ELAshley November 24, 2009 at 9:45 AM  

Actually, there were several groups of people Gulliver visited; the Lilliputians but one.

If memory serves me correctly-- and I'm Googling some of this --there were the Lilliputians who were egotistic, vainglorious and smug.. all this in spite of their diminutive size.

Then there was the Brobdingnagians who symbolized all the odious aspects of the human condition, like urination, excrement, sexuality, body odor, etc... a nasty lot those Brobdingnagians!

Then there were the Laputans who were puffed up with their own ridiculousness. To quote SparkNotes: "They have few material worries... But they are tormented by worries about the trajectories of comets and other astronomical speculations: their theories have not made them wise, but neurotic and disagreeable." Sounds like Liberals to me!

Lastly, the Houyhnhnms who represent the ideal of rational existence... a life governed by sense and moderation....... Conservatism, anyone?

Amazing how Swift can still have relevance in today's society?

Jim November 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM  

"It's simple first grade math. If Johnny has 50 cents, and spends 50 cents on an apple, how much money does he have left? What happens if he then spends another 50 cents for another apple, when he doesn't have 50 cents left to spend?"

Nobody is suggesting that spending today will decrease the deficit TODAY. That's your strawman of the week, I guess.

It's actually NOT as simple as first grade math. Since none of you apparently are economists nor read any articles on economics other than from WND and NewsMax, you are apparently unaware that Johnny doesn't deal with the same issues that (Uncle) Sam deals with.

When Sam spends 50 cents, he is creating demand for goods and services, a demand that otherwise would not exist due to fear, lack of confidence and world-wide recession nearing depression. That demand for goods and services produced by people who otherwise are not employed, does several things:

1) It increases employment which puts money in the pockets of NOW employed people so that they can spend money on food, goods and services that they need which creates demand for those goods and services which creates more jobs for unemployed or under employed, which puts money in their pockets to spend which creates demand, and so on.

2) All those previously unemployed people are now paying taxes and the people that are now employed because of the demand created by the first people are also now paying taxes. This actually will help to reduce the deficit which is IN PART caused by reduced tax revenue brought on by the recession.

3) It employs these people to build things which repair and maintain crumbling infrastructure, make buildings more energy efficient, educate children who become higher-paid wage earners and more, all of which benefits ALL Americans.

If your understanding of macro-economics is at the first grade math level, it's no wonder you can't understand why most economists believe stimulus spending will help to get the economy back on a solid footing.

Marshall Art November 26, 2009 at 2:30 PM  


What your, oh so advanced understanding of economics doesn't figure, is that what you describe only works, if it works at all, for as long as the gov't can continue to spend that 50 cents, which he gets FROM US!! What your, oh so advanced understanding forgets is that we don't freakin' need the gov't spending what we can spend ourselves, and spend more efficiently. If taxes were lowered across the board, businesses and individuals would have more to spend and expand and hire, all without Uncle Sam doing a damned thing but what he's Constitutionally mandated to do. His interference in other things is what has so burdened the economy.

Japan spent like Uncle Sam and now considers that time "the lost decade" of the 90's. It didn't work there.

Ireland, in the early nineties lowered their corporate tax rates to 12.5% and their nation thrived.

Your oh so advanced understanding of economics should have informed you that Uncle Sam cannot sustain anything because he cannot create anything. Only WE can through free market activity unencumbered by high taxation and draconian regulation.

Obamanomics won't help anything because it is artificial. Obamanomics DOESN'T help anything, it causes the fear and uncertainty that you think it will overcome.

ELAshley November 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM  

Not only that, Marshall, but Jim's points aren't based in reality... for one, no REAL jobs are being created, let alone SAVED. Unemployment is above 10%... and expected to rise (and that's only if you count those who are actively looking for work. The REAL number is above 20%). Nothing Obama is now trying has ever worked long term, if at all. Never. The government doesn't produce ANYTHING. It only taxes. Nothing Obama is doing is going to create jobs. In point of fact, more than half of the stimulus isn't even slated to be spent until 2011... just prior to the next election. Obama doesn't care about stimulating anything except his next campaign, which he will buoy with empty promises of 'change we can believe in' and the over-done trope 'hope'. What real 'hope' has his administration brought thus far?

And talk about strawmen! Anytime a liberal is presented with thought or opinion from sources that don't kowtow the party line they deem it suspect... just like Team Obama claiming Fox isn't a legitimate news agency. What hypocrites. Folk like Jim will lecture you incessantly about how you don't know this or that, as if only those he agrees with ever go to college or study such esoteric subjects as Economics.... LOL! I studied Economics in college. Hated it, but I studied it all the same. I even studied American Government! So what? Doesn't make me an expert, but neither does it make me the rube folk like Jim like to portray those who see through their lunacy.

Jim touts "most economists" as proof of Obama's sound judgment in stimulating our economy. But the only economists he includes in his use of "most" are those who eat every inanity Obama defecates.

Just like with "man-made" Global Warming, proven to be the obvious hoax many have claimed it to be, so too has Keynesian Economics been proven to be more detrimental to a nation's economy than boon.

What has ALREADY been proven to work, and demonstrably so... repeatedly... is lowering taxes. Obamaland seems to think (and not just Obamaland, but every Democrat/liberal licking his butt) that if taxes are raised more money will come into the governmental coffers. This is proven utterly false. Tax revenues are currently DOWN... out of fear of Obama's promises to raise our taxes. More money came into the coffers under the Bush tax cuts than are coming in now out of fear of what Obama hasn't yet done, but is assuredly coming!

No strawman of the week here. Only simple truth. Obama has not created or saved any jobs. THAT's a strawdog if every there was one... a distraction from the truth... placatory statements designed to assuage a growing national sentiment of doubt... so he can blame all his failures on Bush.

What a coward our president has turned out to be. HELL! Even that liberal bastion of comedy, Saturday Night Live, has seen through the facade! But die-hard liberals all seem to have their noses permanently attached to this president's scrotum. They seem to have no shame left... assuming they had any to begin with.

ELAshley November 26, 2009 at 10:14 PM  

NewsMax? Discounting NewsMax? which simply reported on what the NEW YORK TIMES has already printed? That's pretty lame. The uber liberal TIMES is trashing Obama, but NewsMax is the fallguy?

What's RULE 13 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals ?

RULE 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Don't like the message? Attack the outlet. Call anyone who sources it a simpleton.

We're onto folk like you Jim. You're not the preening superior intellects you would have us all believe.

Marshall Art November 27, 2009 at 1:25 AM  

Whoa, Eric! How do you REALLY feel? Getting kinda nasty in your prose, but I feel ya, bro. To have to keep hearing how little we on the right understand from those doing the damage is quite the pisser.

But I will disagree somewhat. We DO bring in more when taxes are raised...the first year. From then on, it begins to plummet, as businesses back off on their plans due to less income, as businesses and individuals alter their buying habits to lessen the hit from higher taxes, as cuts all around occur due to the increased burden. Some companies move outside the city, state or country that raised their taxes and then all the revenue once generated by that company evaporate and are enjoyed by the new location; a different city, a different state, or a different country.

But reduce taxes, and the gov't loses revenue...the first year (which ain't really bad if it forces the gov't to reduce spending). After that, as companies and individuals enjoy the smaller deductions from their hard earned income, they spend more, businesses thrive, demand for goods and services go up creating a need for more of those goods and services, new companies form to meet those needs, more business, more people working, more tax revenue to the gov't coffers.

What doctorate is needed to understand this basic and proven concept?

Craig November 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM  

So, what exactly does the government produce?

ELAshley November 27, 2009 at 10:30 PM  

Our present government? Fear. Racial tension. Joblessness. Poverty. Debt. Burden. And unconstitutional mechanisms for the destruction of personal Liberty, personal responsibility, and ultimately self-determination... slavery, ignorance and weakness.

Oh! And fuzzy math.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP