New report shows Obama is spending more than GWB.

[Rob's House]

Disagree. His "Mission Accomplished" moment -- a moment that will dog him as long as the economic falters -- is the "Summer of Recovery" plan; a plan so embarrassingly stupid on so many different levels, that not even putting it in the hands of Joe Biden can help it from looking less stupid.

 

This Friday the August unemployment numbers will be released. Those who follow those things predict it is likely to remain at 9.5%. Even if it goes down a point or two, it won't matter. The "Summer of Recovery" bashing will go through the roof, especially when the president stands in front of the microphone Friday afternoon with "Let me remind you, when I took office, we were shedding 750,000 jobs a month. Now we're only shedding 20,000/month. The stimulus is working. We're on the right track. No, it's not as fast as some would like, but it's precisely what we expected before we told anyone it was what we expected."

I wonder if next month Olbermann will start counting the days since the summer of recovery.

[whateverdude]

The article is about how we wasted almost 800 billion on Iraq, most of it following the Bush "surge."

 

How did you get your headline?

How did you get 800 billion? its 709 billion including tax

[OCinBuffalo]

If we are going to spend money we don't have (or haven't printed yet)why not just cut taxes? Cash for clunkers really worked, didn't it? If I remember right, it actually cost about $24000 per vehicle that wouldn't have been purchased anyway. Homebuyers credits just put the housing market into a slump in July and August. Now Obama wants to make credit easier for small businesses. It's going to cost the government (us) anyway, so why not just cut taxes?

Because these idiots think that messing up the used car/mortgage market, and competing with business/picking winners and losers is a good idea. Government competing with any business is always a bad idea. Since the government can always print money/tax it's way out of losing the competition to business, which is always does, it "loses" but it won't die. Eventually the business loses, or it can't afford to re-invest and improve, or moves its concerns elsewhere, which ALWAYS costs, rather than creates, jobs.

 

Government hiring takes away from the labor pool, which means employees cost more, which means employers can't afford to hire as many people as they need, which reduces their plans and slows growth, or forces the employer to re-consider taking the risk of hiring new people in the first place. Sound familiar? It should, because making employees cost more, and, employers re-considering the risk is exactly what is happening right now.

 

This is the fundamental flaw in Keynesian economics, and no serious economist will deny it, because it is undeniable.

[IDBillzFan]

I wonder if next month Olbermann will start counting the days since the summer of recovery.

A little off topic, but the best news I've heard about Olbermann recently was that he's no longer going to be showing his moronic mug on Football Night In America.

 

Talk about addition by subtraction.

[Wacka]

When i hear the "Summer of Recovery" all I can think about is George Costanza being wheeled through the hospital saying "This was supposed to be the Summer of George, the Summer of George."

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Present.

 

Just like most of his Senate votes.

 

ouch! lol

 

glad our president had so much experience as a community organizer

[Fezmid]

Exactly, the point I was trying to make is that idiot #1 (GWB) wasted a lot of money on the war in Iraq, then along comes the new guy, idiot #2, (Obama) and instead of learning from idiot #1 about not wasting our money he decides that he wants to waste even more money (stimulus). I guess that makes him an even bigger idiot.

 

I really would like to see what Obama's grades were in economics and business classes at Harvard......

 

Serious question:

 

People say the $700-$800B on the war in Iraq was a "waste" and didn't help the economy at all... Yet where does that money go? Doesn't it go to companies to build weapons, tanks, etc? And to the troops (ie: jobs)? And other similar things? It's not like we just had a big bonfire with the money in Iraq, is it?

 

Does anyone know whether that's correct or not? Seems to me that it have SOME effect on the economy....?

[OCinBuffalo]

Serious question:

 

People say the $700-$800B on the war in Iraq was a "waste" and didn't help the economy at all... Yet where does that money go? Doesn't it go to companies to build weapons, tanks, etc? And to the troops (ie: jobs)? And other similar things? It's not like we just had a big bonfire with the money in Iraq, is it?

 

Does anyone know whether that's correct or not? Seems to me that it have SOME effect on the economy....?

I believe the correct answer is: most of the Iraq money went to US companies/military and yes, that did provide some demand. However, the government spending did increase the deficit and made money in general cost more, which hurts business as well. IMHO, you have to pay for wars if you are going to fight them. On the other side, though, you don't want to tax the economy if a recession is looming. Bush's decision to go to war without raising taxes was fine for a year or 2, but he should have found a way to pay for these wars IMHO. Also, there has been some documented waste in terms of giving money directly to the Iraqi government, and letting them spend it. However, when you are talking $800 billion, that fraud amounts to less than 5%. And, when you compare that loss with how much the US taxpayer has been defrauded by the UN, it's peanuts.

 

Ultimately, there can be no doubt that the war in Iraq stimulated the economy. However, because it took money away from liberal programs it could have been wasted on, it has been characterized by them as "wasted".

Edited September 3, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Here it is, since it is foxnews, it must be another right wing conspiracy.....

 

linky

Wow, I actually looked at the link, and yes,it is a Fox news hatchet job on the truth.

 

Those deficit figures are misleading because the Iraq War was never in the budget! It was funded by supplemental spending. Do we have that short of a memory? What the hell is the source "US Statistical Abrastract" anyway?

 

Left out of the "analysis" was how the war caused oil prices to rise,hurting the economy, the medical costs of the soldiers that will live on long after the war ends and the fact we still haven't left Iraq yet.

 

And how about the fact that Bush's economic policy flooded an already decent economy with boat loads of cash in tax cuts, military spending and cheap credit? And people wonder why we had a crash! Voo Doo Economics

[Simon]

 

Ultimately, there can be no doubt that the war in Iraq stimulated the economy. However, because it took money away from liberal programs it could have been wasted on, it has been characterized by them as "wasted".

Yeah, thank gawd we chucked almost a trillion dollars to our woefully underfunded military and their withering support system. I don't know how they were making ends meet before we went imperialist.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah, thank gawd we chucked almost a trillion dollars to our woefully underfunded military and their withering support system. I don't know how they were making ends meet before we went imperialist.

Yes, and the 750+(we can't seem to get an exact #) billion stimulus bill? Nah, that doesn't completely back up what I am saying at all. The fact is that both parties have wasted money, and therefore, we need to remove those in power and get some new people in.

 

Defending the current government is like defending Dick Jauron. You keep thinking he's learned his lesson, and then he does something even worse.

Edited September 6, 2010 by OCinBuffalo