Patterico's Pontifications

3/31/2010

Obamanomics is a Disaster

Filed under: Economics,Obama — DRJ @ 10:39 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

If this Doug Ross post came with labels, they would be Cloward-Pivens, Deficit, and Disaster:

“The Cloward-Piven tactics of the Obama administration have borne fruit.
***
Everything Obama’s doing is obvious: implementing a value-added tax, throwing sludge into the economy, transforming the society, rejecting the limits in the Constitution, cramming liberal activists throughout the judiciary, massively expanding the federal bureaucracy, and moving rule-making power to unelected bureaucrats.

It’s not change, it’s not hope, it’s a disaster.”

***** What Disaster looks like: *****

Deficit

— DRJ

46 Responses to “Obamanomics is a Disaster”

  1. my advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  2. Remember, the ’07 Budget Year was the last budget submitted by a GOP President, and approved by a GOP Congress – you know, those idiots that were spending us into penury. Then came Nancy, and the ’08 & ’09 Budget Years – except all of the discretionary spending in the ’09 Budget was passed on 22 Jan 09, and signed by BHO, after they ran a continueing resolution for 6-1/2 months so Bush couldn’t reduce the spending by a veto.
    Now, we get to the frugal spending of BHO and the explosion of the National Debt, with a shock-wave that is pushing into 2020, and a renewal of the Carter years’ stagflation.
    If, as Peter Jennings described it, in 1994 White-Males had a hissy-fit and elected the GOP to control of Congress, in 2006 & 2008, Indy’s and Moderates had a complete brain-cramp to give us this, our Winter of Discontent.

    Political problems are solved on a continuum that has three levels.
    There is the soap-box;
    There is the ballot-box; and,
    There is the bullet-box.
    If we don’t solve this on level two, things will get very messy in a way we haven’t seen for 150 years.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6f84de)

  3. Never mind that a Republican was President?

    One of those “special” charts that you need to look at just so?

    The Democratss had to pass the spending bills for FY 07 because the Republicans never got around to it, btw.

    snips (6a0094)

  4. Comment by snips — 3/31/2010 @ 11:48 pm

    ya wanna try that again in coherent english?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  5. Cheney to Treasury: “Deficits don’t matter”

    Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

    O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.

    O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

    The vice president’s office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O’Neill, insisted that deficits “do matter” to the administration. source – Reuters – 1/11/04

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  6. The 07 year was passed by the 06 congress in Dec 06

    It was the third lowest deficit per GDP in US History going all the way back to Eisenhower

    Nixons years have to be adjusted since he froze wages

    EricPWJohnson (95a477)

  7. How can anyone defend the spending that is taking place now? DCSCA, you are nothing but a broken record. Do you believe deficit spending at this magnitude, or even the deficit spending while Bush or previous Presidents were in office, are bad?

    What @#$% O’Neill or Chaney said is irrelevant. What is your point?

    We couldn’t afford long-term deficit spending then and we can’t now. You are arguing that because it was done then it’s ok now??? What a @#$%ing moron you are.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  8. The telling numbers came out last week, I think – that our debt will be 90% of our GDP by 2020.

    If we keep along this path the US will be no more. We can not sustain that level of debt.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  9. I was greatly distressed by the deficits under Bush but there was some semblance of an plan for turning things around. The difference? The Bush bunch had bought into some bad ideas about how to secure the future but Obama bunch are true believers in the worst ideas in recent human history. (That is, unless your goal is mounds of corpses.) For them, the bigger the damage the better the environment created for implementing their true intentions. Break things badly enough and a panicking public will accept anything that offers stability.

    If you don’t know what Cloward-Piven means, you really need to learn. Is it still a conspiracy when the plot is openly detailed by its authors?

    epobirs (2522d2)

  10. The government should NEVER be allowed to borrow money. All it does is take money from those who don’t have disposable capital and gives it to those who do…obviously. It just makes the poor poorer and the rich richer…and it serves NO useful purpose.

    Government has the power to tax. They don’t need to borrow.

    That being said, it’s government spending, no matter how they raise it, that’s the real problem. Liberal morons have raised government spending from about 5% of GDP 100 years ago to over 35% of GDP, and by the time Obama and the morons in Congress get done, it’s going to be over 50%.

    That means that every American will spend at least half their lives working for government…which basically makes us 50% slaves.

    When the Republicans ran America (from the civil war on), we kept getting richer and richer compared to the rest of the world. Since the liberal Democrats took over in 1933, we’ve been getting poorer and poorer relative to the rest of the world. That’s the difference between laissez faire and totalitarianism.

    That’s the cost of liberalism and an ever-increasing government: less and less freedom…less and less prosperity.

    Or, I should say one of the costs, there’s also costs like liberalism and internal oppression (packing innocent American citizens off to concentration camps in WWII, for example), and liberalism and militarism.

    Dave Surls (e5cdbe)

  11. “ya wanna try that again in coherent english?”

    The chart says presidents aren’t to blame for budget deficits in a post blaming Obama for budget deficits.

    It’s rather schizophrenic.

    snips (6a0094)

  12. “The chart says presidents aren’t to blame for budget deficits…”

    What difference does it make if you don’t want to blame Bush or Obama, fine. Can you understand we’re spending too much? Can you grasp that?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  13. No, Corwin, snips can’t get that. He only posts to speak Twoof to Powder. He thinks he is “balancing” discussion by, well, sniping. But as we all saw with his laughable comments about Presidential approval polls, he is entirely reactive and mindlessly partisan.

    Eric Blair (a4dcaa)

  14. “Can you understand we’re spending too much? Can you grasp that?”

    Aaah, yes. The protests from the right were deafening when we were blowing a trillion dollars in Iraq.

    Republicans have no credibility on the deficits.

    Why even bother pretending that you do?

    More self-delusion?

    snips (6a0094)

  15. Eric, sorry, I do know he/she/it doesn’t really care. Part of me really wants the Left to be correct in how to fix things. I sit back and hope costs will go down and these sweeping changes will some how make things better. But I can’t see how any logical person can think this type of spending can be good. I can find no good evidence.

    It makes me wonder how a person like snips can live with himself.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  16. I was unhappy with Bush for not vetoing spending under Hastert. I believe, and have read somewhere, that Hastert convinced Bush to allow the spending for political reasons. He and DeLay thought they would have a permanent majority by spending. Hastert, like Ray LaHood Obama’s Sec Transportation now, are northern Illinois pols who are nearly as corrupt as Daley and the Democrats. It’s all a machine in Illinois. Peter Fitzgerald was an excellent Senator who decided not to run again because the party was so hostile to him. That seat has been a D ever since and gave us Obama.

    The fact that Bush and Hastert spent too much is like comparing Mussolini and Hitler. Obama will bankrupt the country and I don’t understand why he is doing it. He and Pelosi seem to be ideologues who do not understand economics. I think they may have a theory that they will mire the country in so much debt that the resistance to tax increases will vanish. The problem is that the European welfare states they admire are going broke even with the high taxes because they have such sluggish economies. That’s where economic ignorance comes in.

    I don’t think Obama is trying to destroy the country. I just think he is an ignoramus about how nations work and about economics. He will get us into an Iran-Israeli war and make the debt so large we will be 50 years getting out of the hole.

    MIke K (2cf494)

  17. Corwin, you have to admit that this troll accusing others of “self delusion” is pretty funny. In a rock solid kind of way.

    Eric Blair (a4dcaa)

  18. “Aaah, yes. The protests from the right were deafening when we were blowing a trillion dollars in Iraq.
    Republicans have no credibility on the deficits”

    What does that mean? Republicans spent too much before, so now, the Democrats are allowed to spend too much as well? (Not to mention 10x the rate)

    You, snips, truly are an idiot.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  19. nipping at the heels said:

    The Democratss had to pass the spending bills for FY 07 because the Republicans never got around to it, btw.

    Even IF that were true, it looks like Repubs “never getting around to it” is to be greatly preferred over what Dems do when they get the chance, esp. with both Congress and the W.H.

    Your “reasoning” is like claiming that when a doctor says “it’s not serious” to a temp of 99.5, it’s the same as saying “it’s not serious” to a temp of 104.5.

    Or claiming a mortgage that is 15% of your income is equivalent to a mortgage that is 65% of your income.

    Getting to be more like a particularly obnoxious chihuaha .

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  20. “What does that mean?”

    The first thing the Republicans did when they took control of the federal government was turn Clinton’s budget surpluses into record deficits.

    An infinite increase in the size of the deficits, btw.

    That’s why Americans just point and laugh when the Republicans suddenly start complaining about budget deficits now the Democrats are in charge.

    snips (6a0094)

  21. Not getting around to it is entirely better than what Congress does when they try to do, well, anything. snippy is a mental midget. Let’s give snippy an idea of how this works. Obama’s best year, his best year, is over twice as bad as Bush’s worst year. If you applied snippy’s “logic” in real life, cops couldn’t arrest people for murder if any jaywalker remains free.

    IMP has posted that same link about 7392 times now.

    JD (3b62be)

  22. I don’t think Obama is trying to destroy the country. I just think he is an ignoramus about how nations work and about economics.

    That is a reasonable opinion, Mike K. The other reasonable opinion, I think, is that he is purposefully doing the “Cloward-Piven” thing to bring about the “transformation” of society that he wants. It is hard to grasp, really hard, that friends of his like Bill Ayers seriously wished to bring anarchy to the US so the system would fall and a new version of society would emerge. SDS and Weathermen were not about stopping the Vietnam War, that was their recruiting tool to get masses of people involved. What they wanted was an overthrow of the government, and they have never renounced that.

    I think they are guilty of treason if looked at from their intent, which is NOT to uphold the Constitution of the US ( which is flawed, remember). But they have done nothing that would be prosecutable as such (that we know of). It sure would be interesting, though, to know what the transcript is of Obama and Ayers and others in their private conversations.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  23. I go back and forth between believing that Obama is just ignorant or Obama is doin’ the Cloward-Piven. I’m leaning towards “intentional” at this point. Even a dopey leftist could see that a destroyed country is a rebellious one, no? The left wants a docile nation, not an angry one! If I were him, I’d do it step by step…like the left has been doing for the past 50 years.

    Patricia (fa8e06)

  24. The first thing the Republicans did when they took control of the federal government was turn Clinton’s budget surpluses into record deficits.

    An infinite increase in the size of the deficits, btw.

    This is completely devoid of rational thought. The “surplus” was based on irrational dot com exuberance prior to the bubble bursting. It was based on assumptions, much like the CBO did in BarckyCare, that were so divorced from reality so as to make them meaningless, other than to provide people like you inane talking points.

    JD (3b62be)

  25. snips, you really aren’t very good at making stuff up. You claim that Republicans are not credible on deficits.

    Which evidently means that if I’m 10 pounds overweight, I can’t point out the 100 excessive pounds on the obese person will kill them.

    You are just a clown with this lame act of yours.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. I know the truth hurts, SPQR.

    And the sad things is, America probably won’t give the Republicans another chance to cut deficits for many many years because of their inability to admit that they started these deficits when they were running America.

    On second thought, keep up the self-delusion.

    snips (6a0094)

  27. Doing something a little bad gives someone else cart blanche to do things 10 times as bad is the basic underlying idea that the snippy one is advancing. It is preposterous.

    I already offered to bet you on the November elections, snippy. But you do not have the courage of your convictions.

    JD (3b62be)

  28. You know, snips, 4% of the people here think you aren’t a trollish prat.

    That’s rock solid support!

    But this is my favorite trollish comment of the morning:

    “That’s why Americans just point and laugh when the Republicans suddenly start complaining about budget deficits now the Democrats are in charge.”

    I guess that explains the polling about trust levels of the Democrats and the economy, snips. But then, polls aren’t your strong suite, aren’t they?

    You might, well, do some reading.

    Speaking of “self delusion.” You remain amusing.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  29. Clinton never had a budget surplus, since Clinton was the President and didn’t have the power of the purse. That was the GOP surplus, and Clinton was forced into it.

    And I actually think people are starting to understand that. We are a more informed society now than we were in the mid 90s. It’s not hard to track ridiculous budgets with democrats running congress.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  30. Keep up the self-delusion dustin and eric.

    Must be hard to say presidents have no control of the federal budget in a post titled Obamanomics.

    snips (6a0094)

  31. Snips

    The constitution gives congress the responsibility to pass and approve revenue and budget – The President is responsible for the Administration of what Congress passes

    Its been that way since 1787 give or take a few months

    EricPWJohnson (95a477)

  32. That’s why Americans just point and laugh when the Republicans suddenly start complaining about budget deficits now the Democrats are in charge.

    Ummmm….what? Some village is missing its idiot.

    Dmac (21311c)

  33. The Democratss had to pass the spending bills for FY 07 because the Republicans never got around to it, btw

    This statement is vaguely reminiscent of the tortured logic hehind “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.”

    Fess up Snips, are you Nancy Pelopsi’s speechwriter?

    elissa (e23c47)

  34. snips, obamanomics started in 2007. Obama was a Senator. So you kinda look crazy again.

    True, it’s not really Obama so much as the congress that is spending the money today. But they are one unified party, and it’s clear the Cloward Pivens insanity is actually being attempted. When I distinguish 1995-2000 and 2007-present from the times of single party control, I think reasonable people understand what I’m talking about.

    The much better spending under GOP congresses is something democrats love to credit Clinton with, and the much worse spending under Pelosi is something they love to blame Bush for. They also like to say Bush did ‘nothing’ to stop the Fannie Mae ACORN mortgage fraud bullshit.

    Just partisan insanity. Let it go, man. Your party isn’t worth this level of dishonesty.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    dustin (b54cdc)

  35. snips, the only self-delusion I see here is yours. The idea that budget deficits in the hundreds of billions means that Republicans can’t criticize budget deficits in the trillions as far as the eye can see is simple stupidity.

    Look in the mirror. See the big floppy shoes on your feet, and the big rubber nose glued to your face?

    SPQR (8475fc)

  36. The Clinton “surplus” was a projection that did not count the deficits in Social Security and Medicare. There never was a time when the budget was in surplus. As pointed out, it had a lot to do with imagining that the dotcom bubble would last forever. An old investment bit of advice reads “Trees do not grow to the sky.”

    Mike K (8df289)

  37. snips is in reality a Bobo Doll, with doll eyes denoting a lack of thought nor comprehension. We’re seeing a lot of that on the left these days, apparently.

    Dmac (21311c)

  38. Mike, I actually forgot that major aspect.

    But the accounting silliness then is nothing compared with what we’re going to be facing in the near future with Obama’s accounting.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  39. Nipping at the heels is of no consequence.

    Is our president:

    1. ignorant, mislead, stubborn, and just flat out wrong
    OR
    2. doing this on purpose in keeping with his promise to transform America?

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  40. And the sad things is, America probably won’t give the Republicans another chance to cut deficits for many many years because of their inability to admit that they started these deficits when they were running America.

    You’re kidding right? Do you know when the government last lowered the national debt?

    1957.

    Do you know when the national debt started going parabolic?

    1974–right after the oil embargo and inflation kicked our quasi-welfare state straight in the mouth.

    This has been going on for decades, and you want to put all this on the Republicans? Hell, look what happened to Carter when he tried to kill all those public-works projects because they were too expensive: his own party cut him off at the knees and he ended up folding rather than take the fiscally responsible stand. You don’t even have to believe me on that score–Marc Reisner wrote all about it in Cadillac Desert.

    Apparently, being part of the Reality-Based Community is easy when you can make up your own reality.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  41. But let’s go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely

    EricPWJohnson (95a477)

  42. : I just want to make this point, Jim. John, it’s been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits you voted for almost all of his budgets. So to stand here and after eight years and say that you’re going to lead on controlling spending and, you know, balancing our tax cuts so that they help middle class families when over the last eight years that hasn’t happened I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow

    .

    EricPWJohnson (95a477)

  43. We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens, not to mention, look at our economy. We are now spending $10 billion or more every month.

    And that means we can’t provide health care to people who need it. We can’t invest in science and technology, which will determine whether or not we are going to be competitive in the long term.

    EricPWJohnson (95a477)

  44. But I think it’s important just to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush came into office, we had surpluses. And now we have half-a-trillion-dollar deficit annually.

    EricPWJohnson (95a477)

  45. Well, I think it starts with Washington. We’ve got to show that we’ve got good habits, because if we’re running up trillion dollar debts that we’re passing on to the next generation, then a lot of people are going to think, “Well, you know what? There’s easy money out there.”

    EricPWJohnson (95a477)

  46. snips is alphie and is banned.

    Patterico (c218bd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3977 secs.