And now it begins....

[Zarathustra]

Whatever spending needs to be done to keep the US economy afloat . . .

How does taking all that money out of the economy (or putting us in that much debt) and spending it on more government keep the economy afloat?

Equally its absurd to compare budget deficits with Obama's situation in 2009 and Bush's in 2006.

So why is Obama doing it? Why mention previous budgets at all?

I really think there are some here who have taken complete leave of their senses or perhaps are just baiting?

Ali asked for the figures, and I gave them

Are we supposed to just shrug at the idea of nearly a two trillion dollar deficit when Bush got bashed by the left for deficits a fraction of this size?

[Cail]

Again, Obama has to define himself by the prior administration ('cause nothing is his responsibility), and when he does exactly what he's accused the prior administration of doing, that's fine, because he really cares about us.

[finn]

Whatever spending needs to be done to keep the US economy afloat . . .

How does taking all that money out of the economy (or putting us in that much debt) and spending it on more government keep the economy afloat?

Without going into the details of all the reasons for keeping jobs and keeping money circulating and ensuring there is an economy to keep afloat, its a case of swim or drown. There appear to be some here that would prefer to see the free market correct itself without government interference by collapse, depression and lines at soup kitchens. The alternative is to drive demand through creation of programs of work that keep people in jobs, who in turn spend wages which keep more people in jobs. The private sector is fubar so government has to do this or face the harsh reality of depression for a period of years not just months.

The scale of the collapse is so large that the only course is for a massive deficit to be a big enough bomb to kick over the economic machine. The Republicans planned to do the same, Bush Had 850 billion earmarked and McCain's was solution also based upon the same principle. None of the political leaders advocated the other path through Depression.

Equally its absurd to compare budget deficits with Obama's situation in 2009 and Bush's in 2006.

So why is Obama doing it? Why mention previous budgets at all?

I really think there are some here who have taken complete leave of their senses or perhaps are just baiting?

Ali asked for the figures, and I gave them

I was responding to your answers to Ali, which also included comparisons (which Ali didn't ask for).

[
Are we supposed to just shrug at the idea of nearly a two trillion dollar deficit when Bush got bashed by the left for deficits a fraction of this size?

Bush only went into deficit once he'd frittered away the surpluses he inherited, but that aside, he did not have to deal with this economic situation for more than a couple of months, during which time he accounted for the lions portion of a trillion doallr spend, which went through and was already on Obama's desk when he sat down day one.

I don't think Americans have a monopoly on it by any means...might as well say the general public.

--A

Sorry Av was just pulling his chain.....

[Vain]

There's a lesson to be learnt from African Politics - they will blame their former colonial 'masters' forever for their current woes. I think Obama has taken a leaf out of Odinga's book - blame the former whitey for everything and you will get away with it no matter if everything is collapsing around you

[Cybrweez]

I'm sure that's typical politics vain, b/c its typical human nature. Blaming others is quite common. It started from the beginning (Adam and Eve).

[Cail]

Finn, Sindatur made an excellent point in another thread. Obama keeps talking about the "mess he inherited", yet he (as a member of the Senate) is responsible for the current mess.

Just because no political leaders advocated letting the markets crash and hit bottom (except for the ones who did), doesn't mean that wasn't the correct course.

I also have to admit that I chuckle every time I see a statement like, "the market's tanking because Wall Street realizes that the party's over". Wow. Hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs, companies are closing, retirees are losing their benefits, because a party's over. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works, and in my opinion a casual, callous write-off of the human suffering that is both the cause and effect of such actions.

[aliantha]

I think that's the first time I've ever been accused of being callous. Damn, I might have to turn in my "Official Bleeding-Heart Liberal" card....

People *are* losing homes and jobs. I'm not unmindful of that. My 401(k) has taken a hit, too, just like everybody else's. But it's been pretty well documented that the market reacts to rumors, and that traders react emotionally. That's all I'm saying.

[finn]

I'm not offereing up excuses for Obama, but I'd like to see what happens with what he does before judging him; Bush was there eight years - Obama so far eight weeks! Whilst I can understand Republicans wanting some payback after the humiliation of eight years of the calamatous Bush, let Obama make a mess before berating him eh?

Cail, whilst again not wanting to make excuses for Obama, he has been delivered some pretty big crocks courtesy in the main of Dubya and his pals. But blaming the Senate or either administration for this particular problem is not really the issue despite the fact that 75% of the Bush reign was with a friendly Senate. No, to lay blame for a failure, long in the making and systemic to the US brand of capitalism at any one individual or group of individuals door (with the possible exception of Reagan) would be unjust. That it happened on Bush's watch is just Sod's Law reeking havoc on a presidency that fate destined to load great challenges onto the shoulders of an unprepard and flawed man.

However for all that, Obama is taking over at an appalling moment in time for your country, for which he has little preparation, in that no-one could be prepared for this, Bush, Clinton anyone. Vultures should be waiting for stuff to die, but many, in the words of an old t-shirt of mine seem bent on decalring: patience my ass, I want to kill something and thus; And So It Begins.......

As for Wall Street, the party-goers left way before the end and you'll not see many of them amongst the poor and impoverished. Callousness tho' I've seen from a quite few posters here who would it seems, welcome a complete collapse and a fulfillment of the full life-cycle of a truly free market, is that the sort of callousness you refer to?

In Australia this week a clothng manufacturer dumped 1850 jobs (a lot for here) to send manufacturing overseas. It later emerged that the management team were rewarded with massive pay hikes including the CEO salary going from $680,000 to $1.8million. The excuse for the outsourcing? Global Economic Crisis....that's callousness but that's how the market works.

[Cail]

People *are* losing homes and jobs. I'm not unmindful of that. My 401(k) has taken a hit, too, just like everybody else's. But it's been pretty well documented that the market reacts to rumors, and that traders react emotionally. That's all I'm saying.

Absolutely (though you might want to let Syl know that).

Understand that I'm not laying the blame for the current economic mess on Obama's doorstep. I'm laying it on the failed policies of our government over the last few decades, Republican and Democrat alike.

[Zarathustra]

No one is blaming Obama for the past. There is nothing wrong with noting a correlation between his actions, policies, words, and current dips in the market. Bush isn't president anymore, so he can't be blamed for daily fluctuations.

I don't understand this call for cutting Obama some slack, just because he's still the "new boy." He has spent more money and signed more fundamentally altering legislation at this point in his presidency than any president I can remember. We are criticizing his executive actions (whereas at this point in Bush's presidency, people were still making fun of the way he talked). When should we be able to criticize Obama, Finn? As an outsider looking in, when do you think I as an American should be able to criticize my own President?

Of course that's rhetorical. I'll continue criticizing him as I've done from day one. It has nothing to do with revenge for the last 8 years of liberal criticism. It's a function of Obama trying to remake America in his image, all in a matter of weeks.

[[Syl]]

People *are* losing homes and jobs. I'm not unmindful of that. My 401(k) has taken a hit, too, just like everybody else's. But it's been pretty well documented that the market reacts to rumors, and that traders react emotionally. That's all I'm saying.

Absolutely (though you might want to let Syl know that).

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

[Zarathustra]

Remember those ridiculously expensive helicopters for Marine One that Obama was asked about in the presidential debates? And Obama waffled a little bit, and didn't really answer? Well, get ready to see those approved, even though Obama pretended they were a sign of government waste. The cover story for their need is already being carefully laid down:
link

Report: Pennsylvania Company Discovers Marine One Security Breach
Sensitive information about Marine One was reportedly found by Tiversa employees at an IP address in Tehran, Iran.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
A Pennsylvania company that monitors peer-to-peer file-sharing networks discovered a potentially serious security breach involving President Obama's helicopter, Marine One, NBC affiliate WPXI in Pittsburgh reported.

Sensitive information about Marine One was reportedly found by Tiversa employees at an IP address in Tehran.

Tiversa CEO Bob Boback said a defense contractor in Bethesda, Md., had a file sharing program on one of their systems that contained highly sensitive blueprints for Marine One and financial information about the cost of the helicopter.

"We found a file containing entire blueprints and avionics package for Marine One," Boback said.

Boback said the issue most likely stemmed from someone downloading the file-sharing program without realizing the problems that could result.

"When downloading one of these file-sharing programs, you are effectively allowing others around the world to access your hard drive," Boback told WPXI.

"We found where this information came from. We know exactly what computer it came from. I'm sure that person is embarrassed and may even lose their job, but we know where it came from and we know where it went," Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, an adviser to Tiversa, told WPXI.

So of course, we'll have to pay for those outrageously expensive helicopters now. What an amazingly unfortunate coincidence to happen just a week or two after this story resurfaced:

Marine One Upgrade Now Looks Less Likely

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 24, 2009; Page A05

The prospects for building a new fleet of high-tech presidential helicopters darkened yesterday, after the new commander in chief called the costly Bush administration effort an example of military procurement "gone amok" and said he thinks the existing White House helicopter fleet "seems perfectly adequate."

link

Get ready to hear Obama say we'll have to upgrade our Marine One fleet, now, despite his misgivings. Gosh darnit, it has to be done.

[Cail]

That poor, poor man.

[finn]

No one is blaming Obama for the past. There is nothing wrong with noting a correlation between his actions, policies, words, and current dips in the market. Bush isn't president anymore, so he can't be blamed for daily fluctuations.

I don't understand this call for cutting Obama some slack, just because he's still the "new boy." He has spent more money and signed more fundamentally altering legislation at this point in his presidency than any president I can remember. We are criticizing his executive actions (whereas at this point in Bush's presidency, people were still making fun of the way he talked). When should we be able to criticize Obama, Finn? As an outsider looking in, when do you think I as an American should be able to criticize my own President?

Of course that's rhetorical. I'll continue criticizing him as I've done from day one. It has nothing to do with revenge for the last 8 years of liberal criticism. It's a function of Obama trying to remake America in his image, all in a matter of weeks.

What a shame, there was me thinking you wanted my permission to proceed with your criticism, drat!

Seriously tho' Malik, I am not averse to criticising politicians, we need to do it more rather than less! But you are making comparisons which are not on a like for like basis which is what I was basically referring to; I'm not sure I see that as slack so much as an appreciation of radically different sets of circumstances.

Any decisions has a number of facets, does the decision need to be made today or will next week do, is it reversible, does it effect other decisions that will need to be made and the ability to make them, what are the consequences of not making the decision etc etc. Clearly the current "crisis" calls for decisions to be made now and to be made in a decisive manner that demonstrates commitment and confidence, two of the key pillars that the economic world rests upon.

Bush would in all liklihood have had to make similar decisions had this situation arisen earlier. There is much debate in what the money is spent on, but equally the nature and manner of the decision process itself is also important and in this Obama has been proactive and positive.

As for fundamentally altering legislation: that was what he was elected to do, try to unpick and unravel some of the horrendous mess, especially in foreign policy, that Bush had led the US into.

Understand that I'm not laying the blame for the current economic mess on Obama's doorstep. I'm laying it on the failed policies of our government over the last few decades, Republican and Democrat alike.

Agreed, I thought that was what I said.

[Cail]

It may have been, but to be honest it's a royal pain in the ass having to turn the monitor upside down to read your Southern-Hemisphere rantings.....

[finn]

............ just think of it as supplimental weight training!

[Zarathustra]

Obama Will Sign Spending Bill Despite Earmarks
President will break a campaign pledge on Monday and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.

AP

Monday, March 02, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.

Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.

Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."

The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 specially sponsored projects totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion.

Either way, it is far more than Obama promised as a candidate. He refused "earmarks" for the economic stimulus package he championed and a children's health bill.

He similiarly pledged to reject tailored budget requests that let lawmakers send money to their home states. Orszag said Obama would move ahead and overlook the time-tested tradition that lets officials divert millions at a time to pet projects.

"We want to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they're also transparent. We're going to work with the Congress on a set of reforms to achieve those," said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Obama's top hands assigned responsibility to their predecessors and President George W. Bush.

Blaming Bush-era proposals for deficits, Obama wanted to set up his own budget that would start Oct. 1, which he proposed last week with a bold goal of cutting the deficit by half within his four-year term.

"First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let's be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt," Emanuel said. "That is the facts."

Facts, aides said, would be the cornerstone of the administration's public relations push. Officials faced a tough haul, even as Orszag and others said the proposal would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and increase energy costs.

Emanuel said energy costs are too low,anyway. U.S. car companies relied too long on gas-guzzling autos and failed to invest in alternative energy vehicles, he said. The time for new auto fuels is now, he contended.

"They never invested in both alternative energy cars. They got dependent on big gas guzzlers. ...They have a health care cost structure that's outdated," Emanuel said, repeating the administration's premise that health costs must come under control or else risk breaking all other pieces of the budget.

Republicans were not persuaded. Rep. Eric Cantor, their No. 2 in the House, said Obama was failing on his promises.

"Listen, I mean, the president was elected by the people of this country to institute change in Washington and to finally demand a federal government that is accountable to the people," he said. "The fact that there are 9,000 earmarks in this bill and the fact that the vetting process just doesn't take place the way it should, we ought to stand up and draw the line right now and stop the waste."

Orszag and Cantor appeared on ABC's "This Week." Emanuel spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Hear that? Democrat idea of stimulating the economy is to raise energy prices so that our financially-challenged automakers be forced to produce the kind of cars that Washington thinks they should produce! Yeah, that'll help the economy! Obama's top aide, his Chief of Staff, thinks the problem with America is that we're just not paying enough for energy, and that if fossil fuels were more expensive, then we're be forced to consider even more expensive alternative fuels. Remember when I said the Dems care more about ideology than stimulus? Well, here you go. Oh, and all those pesky earmarks Obama just signed into law are Bush's fault, too. No need to take responsibility for the bills YOU sign, Obama. Just blame it on Bush,, as your party has done for the past 8 years while it voted for the policies it decried.

[Cybrweez]

I almost posted that myself malik. And would've bolded the part about blaming Bush.

Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.

Well, at least he held his nose. What a guy.

[Cail]

Not to mention that the deficit he inherited he voted for when he was in the Senate.

[Zarathustra]

So he is signing into law a bill he voted for while he was a Senator? I didn't realize that was even possible.

Still, he has the power to veto it and send it back for revision. He doesn't have to sign it. If he signs it, it's his, not Bush's. How can it be Bush's if Bush never signed it? If it was a bill passed by Congress, then he "inherited" it from a Democratic Congress, not Bush! This is unbelievable.