QuoteAt His First Official Cabinet Meeting, Obama Orders Cuts
Search for Savings of $100 Million Derided by GOP as Drop in the Bucket
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The brickbats were flying even before President Obama convened his first official Cabinet meeting yesterday. At the session, Obama ordered his agency heads to identify and shave a collective $100 million in administrative costs from federal programs in a budget of well over $3 trillion.
"At the same time they're looking for millions in savings, the president's budget calls for adding trillions to the debt," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "The nation's debt is at its highest level ever, but under the administration's budget, the amount of public debt will double in five years and triple in 10."
Framed by members of his Cabinet, the president himself acknowledged that the goal amounts to a drop in the bucket. "It is, and that's what I just said," he told reporters. "None of these things alone are going to make a difference. But cumulatively they make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone. And so what we are going to do is, line by line, page by page, $100 million there, $100 million here, pretty soon, even in Washington, it adds up to real money."
In a frenetic first three months in office, Obama has seen his $787 billion economic stimulus plan enacted and the outlines of his $3.5 trillion budget passed, while overseeing hundreds of billions of dollars in outlays to stabilize the nation's teetering financial system and its imploding housing market.
But that may prove to be the easy part.
With Congress back from its spring recess and many of the big, expensive pieces of Obama's plan for turning the economy around now in place, the president is pivoting to the nitty-gritty details of implementing his plans to expand health care, encourage production of renewable energy and improve education -- all while demonstrating he is serious about cutting the federal deficit.
With that in mind, Obama called his first official meeting of the Cabinet, which for modern presidents serves as less a policymaking session than a forum for conveying presidential authority. This is particularly true for Obama, whose White House has multiple policymaking "czars" coordinating activities on issues from climate change to health care.
During his years in office, President George W. Bush was known for seeding his Cabinet with people who were personally close to him, while running policy mostly through the White House, leaving agencies as purveyors of those ideas. Obama, meanwhile, has assembled a governing team notable for its independence and star power, but until yesterday he had never met with its members officially as a group.
"The Cabinet is for pictures and stories and publicity," said Bradley H. Patterson Jr., who has worked for three administrations and has written several books on the inner workings of the White House.
Yesterday was such an occasion. Surrounded by the top administration officials, Obama said his team is aware of the need to cut spending over the long haul. "One of the things that everybody here is mindful of as we move forward, dealing with this extraordinary economic crisis, we also have a deficit, a confidence gap, when it comes to the American people," Obama said. "And we've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely."
As a start, the president set the $100 million goal for cutting administrative costs across the government. The White House said that process already has yielded some savings: The Department of Veterans Affairs canceled or delayed 26 conferences. The Education Department is no longer allowing employees to have both laptop and desktop computers. The Agriculture Department is terminating leases and doing more to verify the income of recipients of farm subsidies. And the Department of Homeland Security is going to start buying its office supplies in bulk.
The relatively small savings from those measures have drawn ridicule from Obama's conservative critics, many of whom have been critical of his spending plans.
"To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall," Harvard University economist N. Greg Mankiw, a Bush administration official, wrote on his blog. "How much would he or she announce that spending [be] cut? By $3 over the course of the year -- approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year."
Meanwhile, the administration is learning that those small savings will come easier than the larger ones officials are eyeing. Administration plans to have the government directly administer all federal students loans, cutting out banks and saving $94 billion over the next decade, have run into bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's blueprint to shift billions in defense spending has also met with a mixed reaction from lawmakers. Obama's proposal to end automatic subsidy payments for big farmers and capping subsidy payments at $250,000 has been derided by some farm state lawmakers.
Today, the Senate Finance Committee will hold the first of three roundtable discussions on improving health-care services and improving efficiency, another step in Democratic leaders' plans to pass a health-care reform bill by the summer. In the near future, the House committees will begin work on cap-and-trade proposals to reduce carbon emissions. And Congress will also be working to fill in details of Obama's budget outline.
All of this will come against a backdrop of opposition from Republicans, who accuse the president of spending too freely -- a perception Obama hopes to dash.
"None of these savings by themselves are going to solve our long-term fiscal problem," Obama said. "But taken together they can make a difference, and they send a signal that we are serious about changing how government operates."
:lmfao:
We will pay $100 million each day just on interest on the money we borrowed for the stimulus package. What a fucking joke!
Why did it take 100 days for Obama to have his first cabinet meeting?
You have to admit this administration is a lot smarter than Bush at this PR thing: tragically there are probably a lot of Americans that don't understand $100 million is a lot smaller than $3 trillion.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 11:13:14 PM
You have to admit this administration is a lot smarter than Bush at this PR thing: tragically there are probably a lot of Americans that don't understand $100 million is a lot smaller than $3 trillion.
True..although that makes it easier to hate him more. He plays well the token gesture which distract people from business as usual (or worse).
But yeah, I was dying laughing when I saw this earlier.
Wow, that is even smaller than the $165 million that got the masses crying for blood with AIG.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 20, 2009, 10:58:26 PMWe will pay $100 million each day just on interest on the money we borrowed for the stimulus package. What a fucking joke!
Why did it take 100 days for Obama to have his first cabinet meeting?
He's still busy campaigning. :)
how easy do you think it would be to make cuts in the military budget?
*shrug*
Better than spending an extra 100 million.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2009, 11:20:05 PM
True..although that makes it easier to hate him more. He plays well the token gesture which distract people from business as usual (or worse).
But yeah, I was dying laughing when I saw this earlier.
Wow I am shocked and amazed. :mellow:
Boo! Spend more! Raise Taxes!
/me starts getting annoyed
It's incredibly easy to say "he's not saving enough money," but I'm going to clue you fucktards in on something. Running an effective government costs money. You're the same bitches who would whine incessantly about a lame, ineffectual government if we went through and gutted the federal budget the way you guys want. You want accountability for TARP, well Barofsky and his special investigators need food on the table. You want better international relations? Every diplomatic function of the State Department requires money. By the way, that "we'll pay $100M a day" thing is a cop-out, too... as of 2007, there are 138M taxpayers in the US. What's the matter, Hans? So broke from building your dream house that you can't afford less than a dollar a day to avoid an economy tanking?
EDIT: Heh. I'm somewhat less annoyed now; didn't realize SMF parses IRC commands.
Way to miss the point Carrot. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2009, 08:47:19 AM
Way to miss the point Carrot. :rolleyes:
What exactly was the point?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 21, 2009, 08:48:51 AM
What exactly was the point?
Once you stimulate the economy you are forbidden to try to cut costs anywhere else or you are worthy of contempt and laughter.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2009, 08:49:58 AM
Once you stimulate the economy you are forbidden to try to cut costs anywhere else or you are worthy of contempt and laughter.
Yeah you authorize billions in new spending (with no real knowledge that it'll help) and then cut a token amount of $100 million, people will laugh.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090421.htm
QuoteObama Cabinet Spending Cuts Ridiculed
Yesterday, President Obama ordered his cabinet to identify $100 million in budget cuts. The CBS Evening News reported that "critics say the amounts are so small," that "it's nothing more than a publicity stunt." CBS added that the President "admitted $100 million is a drop in the budget bucket, but insisted there's a lot more cutting to come." The New York Times says "budget analysts promptly burst out laughing. A reporter declared at the White House briefing that the initiative would become fodder for late-night talk show hosts," and "the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscal conservatives, put out a news release with the headline 'Obama's 0.0025% spending cut.'" The Cato Institute's Dan Mitchell, appearing on CNBC's The Kudlow Report, said, "I almost thought it was April Fool's Day. Talk about a kick in the teeth for taxpayers. ... And, oh by the way, these wouldn't be spending cuts the way you and I understand it. These would be reductions in the planned increases that are already built into the government budgeting baseline. This was a spit in the face to hard-working American taxpayers." Former labor secretary Robert Reich agreed that "this is pretty small potatoes. I mean, it's the beginning. It's at least a gesture, an important gesture. ... Yes, Obama needs to do more."
The Wall Street Journal reports "Obama has left himself open to the charge of overspending as he focuses on jump-starting the stalled economy with the huge stimulus bill and shoring up its foundations with big overhauls of health care, energy and education." And "anticipating the charge, the administration sought to build savings into its budget plans. But results so far have been modest." The AP says the Obama move "set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact." Adds the AP, "The bottom line: Not much." The Washington Post, however, reports that in addition to the $100 million, "many other planned reductions are already underway -- and with total savings of far more than $100 million." David Brooks, in his New York Times column, says that "Obama imposes hard choices on others, but has postponed his own. He presented an agenda that bleeds red ink a trillion dollars at a time. Now he seems passive as Congress kills his few revenue ideas (cap and trade) and spending cuts (agricultural subsidies)," and "huge fiscal gaps are opening this decade that can't be closed by distant entitlement reform."
So "critics" are *gasp* criticizing.
Hold the presses everyone, we've got a roll out a special edition on this one.
Ya know Hans, I don't understand. You criticize him when he spends money to combat a recession through a combination of tax cuts and government spending, you criticize him for cutting spending....
More spending cu...oh :(
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_national_service
QuoteNational service bill to get Obama's signature
The AmeriCorps program started by President Bill Clinton will triple in size over the next eight years, and tens of thousands of other Americans will soon see new opportunities to give back to their communities.
It's all part of a $5.7 billion national service bill President Barack Obama is scheduled to sign Tuesday to foster and fulfill people's desire to make a difference, such as by mentoring children, cleaning up parks or building and weatherizing homes for the poor.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2009, 08:06:03 AM
*shrug*
Better than spending an extra 100 million.
Not if the political capital gained from the gesture allows spending extra billions elsewhere.
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2009, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 21, 2009, 08:59:24 AM
you criticize him for cutting spending....
:lol:
Would you have prefered your Clinton girl did the cut?
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 20, 2009, 10:58:26 PM
Why did it take 100 days for Obama to have his first cabinet meeting?
As usual Hans misses the real point.
Full cabinet meetings are a waste of time. Crammming 16 people into a meeting where most of them are doing completely different things serves no substantive purpose. Obama at least got $100 million out of it by doing the only sensible thing in such a setting - giving them a little homework assignment to do.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2009, 09:10:18 AM
Would you have prefered your Clinton girl did the cut?
She can't disappoint me as president as she doesn't wear the crown. :)
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2009, 09:12:16 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2009, 09:10:18 AM
Would you have prefered your Clinton girl did the cut?
She can't disappoint me as president as she doesn't wear the crown. :)
No one can please King Garbon, anyway.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2009, 09:16:11 AM
No one can please King Garbon, anyway.
I find many people pleasing. :)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
Running an effective government costs money.
So does running an ineffective government.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2009, 09:02:41 AM
Not if the political capital gained from the gesture allows spending extra billions elsewhere.
Well he gains little political capital from me either way. After a couple years the results will speak for themselves.
I thought I'd enjoy Hansmeister having hissy fits under Obama but really, the thought of four years of his intellectual bad faith and idelogical zealotry is beyond tedious.
G.
I saw the point, but he was talking specifically about administrative costs. OMB recognizes
28 branches of the federal government, each with their own spending. Most things that people take for granted, IT for example, are not centralized, so essentially each branch needs to be run as a distinct agency entity.
Garbon, my point is that you and Hans like to cry "spending" at everything without acknowledging the sheer
scale of operations that are being affected. We're talking about.
Quote from: Bureau of Labor StatisticsWith more than 1.8 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service is the Nation's largest employer.
That's
excluding the postal service. Including the post office, you're up to about 2.4 million employees. If
every single non-postal federal employee was at GS1, the budget for their payroll
alone would be $29.9 billion.
Do you have a point? We already know that $100 million cut is chump change.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 10:04:28 AM
I saw the point, but he was talking specifically about administrative costs. OMB recognizes 28 branches of the federal government, each with their own spending. Most things that people take for granted, IT for example, are not centralized, so essentially each branch needs to be run as a distinct agency entity.
Garbon, my point is that you and Hans like to cry "spending" at everything without acknowledging the sheer scale of operations that are being affected. We're talking about.
Quote from: Bureau of Labor StatisticsWith more than 1.8 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service is the Nation's largest employer.
That's excluding the postal service. Including the post office, you're up to about 2.4 million employees. If every single non-postal federal employee was at GS1, the budget for their payroll alone would be $29.9 billion.
You know, giving a notoriously incompetent and inefficient garguantian government bureaucracy hundreds of billions of dollars of additional spending isn't going to result is magically appearing greater "oversight", only in more massive wasteful spending.
The Pentagon has more contracting agents employed ensuring that money isn't wasted than in the USMC. How is that working out for spending oversight? :lol:
Man, that's about the most retarded argument I've heard on languish in a long time.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 21, 2009, 10:16:16 AM
The Pentagon has more contracting agents employed ensuring that money isn't wasted than in the USMC.
:lol:
:weep:
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2009, 10:12:50 AM
Do you have a point? We already know that $100 million cut is chump change.
His point is that the gov't needs to spend more money in order to have better oversight over all the additional money it's spending in order to ensure oversight over the increase in spending ..... :lmfao:
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2009, 10:12:50 AM
Do you have a point? We already know that $100 million cut is chump change.
My point is you shouldn't be bitching about budget bloat until you know how much money is going where. With the amount of money it takes just to keep the government operating, I consider it a small miracle they can come up with any savings at all.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 21, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
As usual Hans misses the real point.
Full cabinet meetings are a waste of time. Crammming 16 people into a meeting where most of them are doing completely different things serves no substantive purpose. Obama at least got $100 million out of it by doing the only sensible thing in such a setting - giving them a little homework assignment to do.
I think we'd be best served by the current administration wasting as much of its own time as possible ;)
There is all that oversight in action:
QuoteSenator's husband cashes in on crisis
Feinstein sought $25 billion for agency that awarded contract to spouse
By Chuck Neubauer (Contact) | Tuesday, April 21, 2009
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm.
"This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest," said Kent Cooper, a former federal regulator who specializes in government ethics and disclosures. "To maintain the people's trust in government, it is incumbent on a legislator to take the extra steps necessary to ensure that when she introduces any legislation that it does not cause people to question her motives or the business activities of her spouse."
Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum, a wealthy investment banker, are a power couple in both Washington and California who sat behind President Obama during his inauguration in January. Mrs. Feinstein also is mentioned as a candidate for California governor.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 21, 2009, 10:18:01 AM
His point is that the gov't needs to spend more money in order to have better oversight over all the additional money it's spending in order to ensure oversight over the increase in spending ..... :lmfao:
It sounds sort of like how the Russian Czars were always making agencies to keep agencies from being corrupt...and those agencies were created to keep other agencies from being corrupt...that were created to watch officials who might abuse their power to inform on appointed officials who were supposed to increase efficiency.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 10:19:04 AM
My point is you shouldn't be bitching about budget bloat until you know how much money is going where. With the amount of money it takes just to keep the government operating, I consider it a small miracle they can come up with any savings at all.
But they really haven't..not when you say $100 million cut in admin costs, $5 billion added to "foster and fulfill people's desire to make a difference."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 10:19:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2009, 10:12:50 AM
Do you have a point? We already know that $100 million cut is chump change.
My point is you shouldn't be bitching about budget bloat until you know how much money is going where. With the amount of money it takes just to keep the government operating, I consider it a small miracle they can come up with any savings at all.
It would help if congress and the President would actually bother reading the bills they approve. You have to be really ignorant of how gov't spends money not to realize that much of what the gov't spends is utterly wasted due to incompetence, fraud, and abuse. Just thinking about the way the Army spends its money gives me an headache.
:(
It is sad, Hans is trying to fire his boss again.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AUs_federal_spending%284%29.png&hash=1b0df0c3fb98757e4ef7d51c8ef7056915381c90)
Guys, we've trimmed it in recent years. The skyrocketing outlay actually seems to date back to the end of Vietnam.
Quote from: Grallon on April 21, 2009, 09:49:49 AM
I thought I'd enjoy Hansmeister having hissy fits under Obama but really, the thought of four years of his intellectual bad faith and idelogical zealotry is beyond tedious.
G.
We've put up with yours a lot longer than that.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
/me starts getting annoyed
It's incredibly easy to say "he's not saving enough money," but I'm going to clue you fucktards in on something. Running an effective government costs money. You're the same bitches who would whine incessantly about a lame, ineffectual government if we went through and gutted the federal budget the way you guys want. You want accountability for TARP, well Barofsky and his special investigators need food on the table. You want better international relations? Every diplomatic function of the State Department requires money. By the way, that "we'll pay $100M a day" thing is a cop-out, too... as of 2007, there are 138M taxpayers in the US. What's the matter, Hans? So broke from building your dream house that you can't afford less than a dollar a day to avoid an economy tanking?
:lol: The only thing more amusing than an off-topic rant is an off-topic rant that is wrong in almost every peculiar!
DSB, Newsflash: the economy has tanked even with massive government spending. That dollar a day Hans spent (and is spending, and will spend for the foreseeable future) was wasted.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 21, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 20, 2009, 10:58:26 PM
Full cabinet meetings are a waste of time. Crammming 16 people into a meeting where most of them are doing completely different things serves no substantive purpose. Obama at least got $100 million out of it by doing the only sensible thing in such a setting - giving them a little homework assignment to do.
He should have re-watched Dave so he could remember how to do this budget-cutting in a way that helps him, rather than hurts him. The moral he should keep in mind is "don't copy movie stunts unless you understand how they work."
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2009, 11:21:39 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
/me starts getting annoyed
It's incredibly easy to say "he's not saving enough money," but I'm going to clue you fucktards in on something. Running an effective government costs money. You're the same bitches who would whine incessantly about a lame, ineffectual government if we went through and gutted the federal budget the way you guys want. You want accountability for TARP, well Barofsky and his special investigators need food on the table. You want better international relations? Every diplomatic function of the State Department requires money. By the way, that "we'll pay $100M a day" thing is a cop-out, too... as of 2007, there are 138M taxpayers in the US. What's the matter, Hans? So broke from building your dream house that you can't afford less than a dollar a day to avoid an economy tanking?
:lol: The only thing more amusing than an off-topic rant is an off-topic rant that is wrong in almost every peculiar!
DSB, Newsflash: the economy has tanked even with massive government spending. That dollar a day Hans spent (and is spending, and will spend for the foreseeable future) was wasted.
It was not wasted. Right now, you're the one operating under false pretenses; moreover, ones that the federal government tried to quash
right at the beginning. There is no magic investment that will set Wall Street rocketing upward, and even if there was, we would suddenly have to worry about hyperinflation; the stimulus was damage control to prevent a collapse, and it has worked in that respect. You're saying it has had no net positive effect, but this is a market-driven economy. 138 million taxpayers means that that stimulus is going to have to work its way through 138 million idiots such as yourself who are whining that it hasn't immediately helped them.
Net results of payments show
much slower when you're dealing with accounts as massive and with as much momentum as a national economy. If you give your kid a nickel, he has a nickel. If you account for a nickel in the economy to replace one that was removed, you have to wait for all the actors to review the markets to come to the consensus that yes, there is a nickel there, and then you also have to wait for all of them to review the markets further to see what else is happening in the market because of the nickel's presence and determine that yes, that nickel is going around and generating revenue.
I find Obama's complete and utter contempt for the average American's intelligence to be one of his most endearing characteristics.
Quote from: dps on April 21, 2009, 09:43:59 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
Running an effective government costs money.
So does running an ineffective government.
That is well known after 8 years under Bush.
Quote from: Kleves on April 21, 2009, 12:31:04 PM
I find Obama's complete and utter contempt for the average American's intelligence to be one of his most endearing characteristics.
Well he's right.
Quote from: Kleves on April 21, 2009, 12:31:04 PM
I find Obama's complete and utter contempt for the average American's intelligence to be one of his most endearing characteristics.
I do too. Most people require decades in public office to achieve that.
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2009, 11:21:39 AM
DSB, Newsflash: the economy has tanked even with massive government spending. That dollar a day Hans spent (and is spending, and will spend for the foreseeable future) was wasted.
Is this surprising? I don't think anyone expected immediate recovery once the government turned on the tap.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 12:28:06 PM
It was not wasted. Right now, you're the one operating under false pretenses; moreover, ones that the federal government tried to quash right at the beginning. There is no magic investment that will set Wall Street rocketing upward, and even if there was, we would suddenly have to worry about hyperinflation; the stimulus was damage control to prevent a collapse, and it has worked in that respect. You're saying it has had no net positive effect, but this is a market-driven economy. 138 million taxpayers means that that stimulus is going to have to work its way through 138 million idiots such as yourself who are whining that it hasn't immediately helped them.
I am starting to think these non sequiturs are deliberate! :lol:
The stimulus plan was not intended to prevent the ongoing collapse of the US economy, and has not done so. it was intended to provide a cover for spending that some Democrats would have wanted to undertake
no matter what shape the economy, and The TARP spending has not resulted in the saving of the banking sector, but merely the postponement (at incredible cost) of the banking failures that would now be behind us
had not the federal government borrowed all that money to prolong the crisis. (Yes, I am randomly
bolding like you).
The problem with the government borrowing so much money so that whining morons like you can suck on the teats of government is that such borrowing pretty much dries up the very money supply the government is supposedly trying to loosen! :lol: (yes, i am throwing in insults like "whining" and "moron"
randomly, just like you).
QuoteNet results of payments show much slower when you're dealing with accounts as massive and with as much momentum as a national economy. If you give your kid a nickel, he has a nickel. If you account for a nickel in the economy to replace one that was removed, you have to wait for all the actors to review the markets to come to the consensus that yes, there is a nickel there, and then you also have to wait for all of them to review the markets further to see what else is happening in the market because of the nickel's presence and determine that yes, that nickel is going around and generating revenue.
Ah, another nonsequitur! :lol:
The problem with handing out nickels to everyone who wants one but has been too incompetent to hang on to theirs is that those nickels
come from somewhere. They have a
cost. The cost isn't just the dollar a day extra that every American taxpayer will pay for the rest of their lives; the cost is
also that those nickels being lent to the government (at interest) are also unavailable to be lent to someone who would actually do something with them that would employ people and produce things now, not five or ten years down the road, a la the "stimulus bill."
Now, obviously not all government spending is bad; not even all government "stimulus" spending is bad. But to claim that those who oppose this huge, massive, unprecedented spending for no clear reason are merely "whining idiots" is laughable.
And, by the way, you are about as bad as Raz (though not so bad as Marti) with the analogies. I'd drop that approach, were I you.
So, hum, I'm confused.
All it took was 1 letter?
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 21, 2009, 10:20:40 AM
There is all that oversight in action:
QuoteCB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
Wow - a government contract awarded via a competitive bid. Haven't seen one of those in a while. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2009, 01:08:25 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 12:28:06 PM
It was not wasted. Right now, you're the one operating under false pretenses; moreover, ones that the federal government tried to quash right at the beginning. There is no magic investment that will set Wall Street rocketing upward, and even if there was, we would suddenly have to worry about hyperinflation; the stimulus was damage control to prevent a collapse, and it has worked in that respect. You're saying it has had no net positive effect, but this is a market-driven economy. 138 million taxpayers means that that stimulus is going to have to work its way through 138 million idiots such as yourself who are whining that it hasn't immediately helped them.
I am starting to think these non sequiturs are deliberate! :lol:
The stimulus plan was not intended to prevent the ongoing collapse of the US economy, and has not done so. it was intended to provide a cover for spending that some Democrats would have wanted to undertake no matter what shape the economy, and The TARP spending has not resulted in the saving of the banking sector, but merely the postponement (at incredible cost) of the banking failures that would now be behind us had not the federal government borrowed all that money to prolong the crisis. (Yes, I am randomly bolding like you).
The problem with the government borrowing so much money so that whining morons like you can suck on the teats of government is that such borrowing pretty much dries up the very money supply the government is supposedly trying to loosen! :lol: (yes, i am throwing in insults like "whining" and "moron" randomly, just like you).
QuoteNet results of payments show much slower when you're dealing with accounts as massive and with as much momentum as a national economy. If you give your kid a nickel, he has a nickel. If you account for a nickel in the economy to replace one that was removed, you have to wait for all the actors to review the markets to come to the consensus that yes, there is a nickel there, and then you also have to wait for all of them to review the markets further to see what else is happening in the market because of the nickel's presence and determine that yes, that nickel is going around and generating revenue.
Ah, another nonsequitur! :lol:
The problem with handing out nickels to everyone who wants one but has been too incompetent to hang on to theirs is that those nickels come from somewhere. They have a cost. The cost isn't just the dollar a day extra that every American taxpayer will pay for the rest of their lives; the cost is also that those nickels being lent to the government (at interest) are also unavailable to be lent to someone who would actually do something with them that would employ people and produce things now, not five or ten years down the road, a la the "stimulus bill."
Now, obviously not all government spending is bad; not even all government "stimulus" spending is bad. But to claim that those who oppose this huge, massive, unprecedented spending for no clear reason are merely "whining idiots" is laughable.
And, by the way, you are about as bad as Raz (though not so bad as Marti) with the analogies. I'd drop that approach, were I you.
The whole point of the analogy was to show how stupid it is trying to apply street rules of finance to a national economy. It was meant to be absurd, so you can STFU on that. As far as "secret motives of the Democrats," I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find you building strawmen. You can base your assessment on a paranoid delusion if you please, but I'm going to go with objective information that can be referenced for my own.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 04:04:52 PM
The whole point of the analogy was to show how stupid it is trying to apply street rules of finance to a national economy.
That's a terrible reason to use a bad analogy, given that nobody was applying anything called "street rules of finance" (whatever those are) to this except maybe your.
QuoteIt was meant to be absurd
Success! I take it the rest of your rant was also meant to be absurd. Success! there, also.
Quoteso you can STFU on that
Or not, as I please. :cool:
QuoteAs far as "secret motives of the Democrats," I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find you building strawmen. You can base your assessment on a paranoid delusion if you please, but I'm going to go with objective information that can be referenced for my own.
No secret motives of which I am aware. Did you really think there was some "secret" cabal of Dems covertly shouting their aims from the rooftops? tinfoil:
Nothing in the stimulus package was new. It had all been proposed before. Paranoia is more readily found amongst those who shout "STFU" and refer to "secret motives" than among people who post calmly post about plain, known facts like I do. :mellow:
The state aid was new AFAIK. The infrastructure spending was mentioned previously, but in the context of ways to stimulate the economy.
I just know that the reenlistment bonuses are down.
Somebody in the current administration is bent in undermining the military.
Everybody knows that reenlistment bonuses is what makes the US Army great.
Quote from: Siege on April 22, 2009, 12:10:29 AM
I just know that the reenlistment bonuses are down.
Somebody in the current administration is bent in undermining the military.
Everybody knows that reenlistment bonuses is what makes the US Army great.
No. Socialism makes the US Army great.
A guest is reading this. Hello guest.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 04, 2009, 09:09:08 PM
A guest is reading this. Hello guest.
You shouldn't really stalk people like that.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2009, 09:41:31 PM
You shouldn't really stalk people like that.
What's the right way to do it? :P
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2009, 09:41:31 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 04, 2009, 09:09:08 PM
A guest is reading this. Hello guest.
You shouldn't really stalk people like that.
I bow to your superior talent for it.