The American Spectator : Obamanomics 101

Text Size

Obamanomics 101

By Andrew B. Wilson on 10.21.10 @ 6:08AM

Mid-term quiz on what passes for economics.

With days to go before the Nov. 2 election, this quick, eight-question quiz will test your ability to think and talk Obamanomics.

1. In talking Obamanomics, when you say “tax cuts,” what you really mean are: (a) transfer payments to people who pay no taxes, (b) tax reductions to actual taxpayers, or (c) the Marxist belief that in the fullness of time, the all-powerful state will “wither away.”

2. Real tax cuts made to date by the Obama administration add up to: (a) $1.2 trillion, (b) zero, or (c) any number that pops into Barbara Boxer’s head.

3. Under the Obama administration, the U.S. economy has added or subtracted how many jobs: (a) plus 3 million, based on computer models not of what happened, but what was supposed to happen, or (b) minus 2.5 million, based on the actual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

4. Over the next two years, “hundreds of thousands of new American jobs” are most likely to be created by: (a) the transition to a “green” economy (through heavy federal subsidies for new wind and solar plants, combined with $7,500 income tax rebate checks for purchasers of the new Chevy “Volt” and other hopelessly overpriced electric cars), or (b) a normal cyclical recovery, if it is ever allowed to happen.

5. President Obama deserves personal credit for: (a) staving off the onset of the next Great Depression, or (b) presiding over the weakest recovery from an economic downturn in more than 60 years.

6. In adding coverage to 30 million uninsured and extending costly new health care mandates to all insurance plans, Obamacare will: (a) allow everyone who wants to keep his current health insurance plan to do so, or (b) play havoc with existing health care plans and lead to the elimination of the popular Medicare Advantage program for seniors.

7. As a result of placing a sixth of the U.S. economy under federal control, Obamacare will: (a) be revenue-neutral, not adding “a single dime to the deficit,” or (b) cause premiums to soar and federal deficits to mount, and (c) give government bureaucrats ever-increasing power to ration health care as the only available means of containing government-contrived and government-mandated cost growth. (Hint: this question has two correct answers.)

8. The greatest threat to the future of the American economy lies in: (a) “blind faith in the market,” or (b) blind faith in the failed policies of Obamanomics.

For spendthrift Democrats to go around claiming that they have “cut taxes” is to engage in the most deliberate and outrageous obfuscation — throwing dirt in the eyes of an American public. What Obama and the Democrats have done, in the course of running up $2.7 trillion in federal deficits and spending nearly 25% of GDP over the past two years, is to put checks in the mail to people who, for the most part, pay no income tax — meaning that these payments from the federal government out of borrowed money are indistinguishable from welfare checks. The Obama administration has not cut tax rates for real taxpayers and has no intention of doing so (with huge tax increases soon to take effect with the expiration of the earlier round of George W. Bush tax cuts).

But none of this stops Democratic Party stalwarts from playacting the part of favoring tax cuts. On CNN, California Senator Boxer made the laughable claim that she had supported “$1.2 trillion in tax cuts” through the stimulus bill — which would suggest that the entire stimulus bill, and more, was devoted to tax cuts. In fact, she began her interview with Wolf Blitzer in claiming she had supported $2.2 trillion in tax cuts.

Since Obama came to office in January 2009, the unemployment has risen from just under 8% to close to 10% — where it has stayed for the past year. There has been a net loss of about 2.5 million jobs. Even so, the Obama administration continues to claim that it has “created or saved” about 3 million jobs. That is a meaningless metric, which is not based on any evidence. It comes from plugging data on government spending into a Keynesian computer model and assuming (against a great weight of contrary evidence) that every dollar spent would provide $1.50 in economic growth and job creation. It is merely a restatement of what the target was at the outset of the stimulus program, as opposed to an objective measure of what the program has actually achieved.

In recent months, President Obama and Vice President Biden have gone about the country talking up a few Potemkin Village-type projects (mostly wind and solar energy projects) as shining examples of “the jobs of the future.” But the cost per job created in these projects has been shown to exceed $1 million — meaning that the expenditure has no doubt eliminated more jobs than it has created through the government-directed diversion of scarce resources to unproductive enterprise.

Not since the Great Depression has there been so little bounce to any U.S. recovery from an economic downturn. Not since the Great Depression has this country been saddled with a government with so little faith in the market economy and so much hostility toward private enterprise.

November 2, 2010 is not destined to be a date that will be celebrated by devotees of progressivism. Across the country, Democrats have gone silent on Obamacare. This is one part of Obamanomics they’d rather forget — at least for now. Obamacare includes a huge premium subsidy program, which would have the effect of taking money from those in the top quintile of earnings (beginning at $90,000 for a family of four) and channeling it to those in the bottom four quintiles. That is how this government proposes to wage war on the “rich,” which really means anyone who is even moderately successful in an economic sense.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Andrew B. Wilson, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, writes from St. Louis.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (69) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.21.10 @ 6:24AM

American's should feel a little heavier at this point in history, not because they are eating well, but because they are carrying around the 110 pounds of hundred dollar bills that they need to pay off their portion of the national debt.

It's simply a game of three card monte where the federal government moves the cards around and claims there's a payoff pea under one of the cards on the table.

As the funds are shifted from those who earn it, to those who sit at home and watch TV, unemployment continues to grow, and the real impact will manifest itself and soon.

All the while, lying politicians thrive because the national media is full of stupid types who don't know that separation of church and states is not specified in the first amendment.

In essence, we are a nation led by financial illiterates who really don't have a clue about how to create jobs or wealth. Their only claim to fame is seizing wealth and destroying one industry after another.

believer| 10.24.10 @ 4:56PM

Hey Bill- If our Educaters can convince the generations that life evolved from nothing and the glorys of nature somehow started from one non-living micro speck, getting them to accept the American debt was easy.Repeat after me Americans, Were too stupid to vote.

Appleby| 10.21.10 @ 6:42AM

The only good thing that will come out of the reign of King Zero is the final burial of The Sixties. They have had their chance to implement the ideas that they espoused in 1968, and we have had two years to judge their worth -- and I believe most of us knew how that vote would come out back in 1969.

Ned| 10.21.10 @ 12:09PM

Yes, but at what a terrible price that burial has come!

Alan Brooks| 10.21.10 @ 10:50PM

Oh dearie me what a terrible price! have mercy.

Who is the "pussy", you or I?

Spoonman| 10.21.10 @ 7:11AM

Obamacare will save us money - what a joke! This past week I reveiwed options for healthcare plans offered in our annual enrollment process and our employee and spouse health plan cost increased 12.4% . Under our flexible spending account, we will no longer be reimbursed for over the counter medications unless our doctors provide a prescription for the over the counter medication.

I say thanks to every demoncrat who voted for Obamacare. I have voted already since I will be out of the Country on November 2nd and my vote is to kick Paul Hodes, the demoncrat who represents my district, but not me, out of any future elected position!

gypsy| 10.21.10 @ 11:44AM

ObamaCare is nothing more than fascism applied to medicine. The federal government wants to force us to buy a product from billion dollar insurance companies, and if we refuse, they'll sic the IRS on us.

And we wonder that this INCREASES the cost of healthcare? Seriously, if I own all the McDonalds in America, and I get Congress to pass a law mandating that everyone has to eat there once a day, the price of Big Macs is going UP, not down!

Tim*| 10.21.10 @ 7:50AM

Obama is an Economic Gravedigger .

He and his Deconstructionist Agendists are willing to sabotage The U.S. Economy and The Free Market and turn The U.S. into A Mediocre Socialist Homeland and Formerly Great Nation.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion .

Ret. Marine| 10.21.10 @ 8:26AM

The 60's children have never really grown up, those of who lived through it remind ourselves of their own arrogance's, and many of us are grateful for this indeed, not only because they have made a ruin of our economy, our future investments, our security, our standing in the world, our financial security for our children/grandchildren but at the same time it is a great example for the younger generation to see the examples of the failure first hand. Now we must pray and educate them back to reality. First things first, the old adage of " it takes one to know one" seems aptly accurate these days and we must remind them daily of the consequences of their action. The are the ones who are already seeing first hand their own failure, its called obamas Bin Ly'n. I rest my case.

Matt| 10.22.10 @ 12:33PM

Amen fellow Marine...and Semper Fi!! Well said!!

PolishKnight| 10.21.10 @ 9:21AM

One of the interesting side effects of Obamanomics is that they impact the middle class in blue state metro regions. $100K is a "median" income for Northern Virginia, the Moscva of the USA. This means that government workers or those in private industry dependent upon the socialist state indirectly, face being classified as "rich" to live in a manner not much better than their lesser paid, private industry red state counterparts.

Is this enough to change their loyalties? It seems inconceivable, but consider that leftism arose from the privileged but insecure children of the conservative middle class.

Petronius| 10.21.10 @ 9:24AM

What HM Chancellor did yesterday, the new Congress must do as soon as they are sworn in. The bleeding being inflicted by Secretary Geithner by going deeper into hock on ourselves must stop now!
There is a good deal of cash taken out of the markets over the last three years. Add to it the retained earnings accrued and not reinvested in the same period for a start. Recovery is possible.
But it will not happen with the Demoncrat Lefty Demolition team ruining everything in their vain attempt to rig the economy so they are the only ones who make any money. From all the old social engineering to cap & tax, the insertion of government into the marketing of all the necessities of life have and will do nothing but drive up costs, which is Obama's objective. He would level society by taking from the middle class all disposable income.
It has taken the UK and the rest of Europe 2/3 of a century to figure this out and the French are still beating their thick heads against the wall. Have we learned anything in these last two years?

rainmaker1145| 10.21.10 @ 9:50AM

We should have a pass or fail on taxation period. The idea that you can make our budget processes work with taxation is ludicrous. We have more than $107 trillion in unfunded liabilities our great system of taxation will never be able to pay for and yet you people still want to play the game of rearranging the deck chairs. Who's side are you on in this? At what point will the nitwits who think they are economists stand up and acknowledge that the tax emperor has no clothes? At what point will we hear someone stand up and say, "gee, every democracy in history that has failed has died because it spent itself to death and we would do well to learn from their mistakes and forge a different path forward."

Instead we get this treacle. Thanks for nothing.

Louis Jenkins| 10.21.10 @ 10:39AM

Let's face it people, we may not be able to get back where we were during the pre-Obamantor times. It's always good to look back and say how great those times were. Best to look forward, overcome, and try our best to build a better USA. Not the the Obama kind, but based on the free market, the Constitution, and free people. It will be hard and in some cases brutal. Let's wake up on Nov. 3rd and resolve to do a better job. I pray that we will.

SonOfSam| 10.21.10 @ 11:50AM

The first step to doing a "better" job is to hunt down all the Kool Aid swilling pigs who got us here in the first place. Defeated at the polls, they should not be allowed to simply slither back into Washington as lobbyists or consultants. They must be investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted and JAILED.

America will never be free until all the ObamaNazis are in the ground, in prison or in exile

Ned| 10.21.10 @ 12:42PM

My sons are 22 and 25. There are NO employment opportunities out there for them. I have to have the conversation with them every three days or so, about how they don't have much perspective on the grown-up world, but not to allow themselves to despair, and that if we could live through Jimmy Carter we can weather this. It will take some time, but we can get past this... and of course, the first step is to throw every Dim-O-crat in sight off the bus on 11/2. Two years of grid-lock is about all we can plan for now, but to make repeal of HusseinCare job #1 for 2013. The speech doesn't help much for a double college grad who is only making $15 an hour.

idalily| 10.21.10 @ 6:06PM

Please, please tell your sons to talk some sense into others in their age bracket. Unemployment among 20-25 year olds is the highest it's been in decades, but most of them are still thinking Obama the best POTUS evah.

believer| 10.24.10 @ 5:11PM

Ned- The loss of jobs started with Richard Nixon and his infamous trip to China which cracked the door open for the cheap goods in and good jobs out policy of every administration since. To add insult to injury the IRS allows tax rightoffs for Mfg. companys who pack up and go overseas, a lot of the new jobs that get filled are part time low paying jobs which force the workers to either work two of them or live with Mom and Dad. The storm of Federal bankruptcy is quickly approaching take precautions now.

CharlieEcho| 10.22.10 @ 10:31AM

The up side to this is even those with short term memory loss can remember the "good ol'e days".

DRed| 10.21.10 @ 10:48AM

Let me understand this-the Bush tax cuts were going to create jobs and lead to prosperity. They didn't. Thus we must ensure that they remain, in order to create jobs.

And can someone explain how Obama's tax cuts were not real tax cuts on real taxpayers? You have to earn over $200,000 a year now to be a real American?

Steve A| 10.21.10 @ 11:06AM

DRed, Wow, what a deep thinker you are!! So, let me understand...allowing citizens to keep more of what they legitimately earn in a "free" market is what got us in trouble?? It had nothing to do with the Left pressuring banks to lend to unqualifieds under the banner of "affordable housing."

I am so thankful that you have finally cleared all that up for me with your persuasive, well constructed & documented argument.

DRed| 10.21.10 @ 11:28AM

Steve, are you blaming the Community Reinvestment Act for the mortgage and credit crisis? I'm not sure what you mean by "Left pressuring banks to lend to unqualifieds under the banner of "affordable housing.""

SonOfSam| 10.21.10 @ 11:56AM

Hey Dred, you're damned right we're blaming idiotic policies like CRA for this mess. ObamaNazi slimeballs like Barney Frank keep blathering about the "lack of regulations" being the source of the sub prime meltdown, so how's about THIS for a regulation:

IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD A HOUSE, YOU WON'T GET A MORTGAGE

That's it, that's all. Screw all this bullshit about "affordable" housing. Changing the rules so that Wal Mart cashiers can magically "afford" $250,000 mortgages is not being "fair", nor is it helping the cashiers. It is sheer simple LUNACY, the kind indulged in by Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and apparently, by you. The kind of insanity that yes, is THE cause of this mess

DRed| 10.21.10 @ 12:16PM

The CRA covered banks weren't responsible for the sub-prime mortgage disaster. A majority of sub-prime loans were made by institutions to which the CRA doesn't apply. And the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with investment banks securitizing those morgages and taking ridiculously irresponsible risks.

Steve A| 10.21.10 @ 12:52PM

DRed, in 2000 Fannie REQUIRED HUD to dedicate 50% of its resources to loans to low income families. I will t r y t o t y p e s l o w l y so you can understand. This action DESTROYED the housing market. Do you begin to understand now, Einstein??

DRed| 10.21.10 @ 1:36PM

Typing slowly like that actually makes it more difficult to understand you. I'm actually not sure how HUD lending policies destroyed the housing market. So please, explain away.

gypsy| 10.21.10 @ 1:48PM

The government forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford to pay them back. That's because it was "unfair" that these people couldnt get loans in the usual way, ie, having a real job, decent credit and a down payment. Predictably, these same people couldn't pay the damned loans, which caused the lenders to start imploding. So the same brilliant government that forced the banks to make these loans has now taken money from us, the taxpayers, to prop up the banks.

Any other foolish questions? Or is it too hard for you to see the plain simple facts with your head so far up your ass?

Steve A| 10.21.10 @ 2:32PM

Step 1: Government sets up a program to cure "social injustice." Step 2: If banks fail to lend according to these new standards, they are pressured by community activist groups at yearly bank reviews. Accused of redlining, racism etc etc. Step 3: Banks lend $$ to people who have virtually no shot to pay the loan back. Step 3: they bundle the loans, a credit swap is born. Step 4: The default % rises accordingly due to the faulty loans. Step 5: The lenders begin to cave. Step 6: Freddy & Fanny go into recievership. Step 7: In order to prevent total disaster, the FED prints $$ to cover the swaps & bails out everyone. Step 8: the value of real estate tanks. Step 9: We are screwed. Step 10: Dunces, like yourself, blame Bush for lowering taxes.

DRed| 10.21.10 @ 3:04PM

Steve, it's a compelling narative, but the problem is that it's not accurate. The majority of the sub-prime loans weren't made by instutions covered by the CRA, nor were they made to poor minorities. You don't have to be poor to be a credit risk.

And for the record, I don't think the Bush tax cuts had anything to do with the mortgage security crisis.

Steve A| 10.21.10 @ 3:28PM

Ok then, who made the loans & why would they KNOWINGLY take on bad risk as an investment??

skip| 10.21.10 @ 12:10PM

The Community Reinvestment Act is the primary reason for the economic downturn. You yourself had the mental capacity to connect CRA with 'the left pressuring banks to lend...'. You ask about tax effects in general. Any and every tax is paid for by Americans who purchase anything. A tax increase only on the wealthiest 2% of Americans will not be paid by those rich. They will add the tax increase to their costs, thereby increasing the prices, of their products. The consumers will pay that tax increase. You will. If they cannot recover the amount of the additional tax increase, they will close businesses resulting in unemployment, or they will transfer their businesses overseas, but they will not pay those taxes. Ever. Are you intentionly being a moron to push people's buttons, or do you really not have the basic common sense to understand this ?

DRed| 10.21.10 @ 12:21PM

Skip, as I noted above, the CRA doesn't even apply to the majority of the institutions who sell mortgages. So I don't understand how it could be the primary reason for the economic downturn.

Dagny Taggert| 10.21.10 @ 1:05PM

Dred, the CRA gets the credit for the genesis of lending to people who you wouldn't normally to unless coerced. Under the guise of "fairness" (there's that word again--policies designed to be "fair" always seem to get us in trouble) to minority groups, banks were penalized if they didn't loan to a federally-chosen demographic mix. Since the mortgage-backed security business was in its infancy, banks learned they could lay-off the risk by selling the loans to FNMA & FHLC who guaranteed the paper. Over time, that system was so abused and the regulators picked for political rather than technical expertise, that the system blew up when real estate prices fell by more than the regulators stress-tested for.

So yes, Countrywide may not have been guided directly by the CRA, but they never would have existed if well-intentioned (yet wholly misguided) politicians didn't insert themselves into the free market of credit risk analysis.

skip| 10.21.10 @ 1:12PM

The lending institutions, all on their own, guided by unfettered greed, lent staggering sums of money to individuals who had no ability, ever, to pay the money back. It is preposterous to presume politicians would extort these lenders to lend this way, or that politicians would alter regulations to allow for lending this way, or for lenders to presume that once politicians have altered lending this way that the politicians now own the problem and will have to bailout the resulting mess. It is outrageous that the lenders did not 'do the right thing' inspite of it all. Do I have that about right? Your obfuscations gleaned from somewhere suspect notwithstanding, this defies basic common sense.

DRed| 10.21.10 @ 1:32PM

Skip, I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Which politicians were extorting what lenders, and how were they doing it?

gypsy| 10.21.10 @ 1:53PM

Let's start with Janet Reno, that brave conqueror of "redlining", ie, being unfair to people simply because they dont have real jobs, decent credit or actual down payments:
http://www.justice.gov/archive....._agcom.htm

Dred, the first step to seeing the plain facts is for you to pull your head out of your ass and wipe the shit off your eyes

skip| 10.21.10 @ 2:48PM

In order for lenders to receive a government credit rating that would allow the lenders to borrow at the most favorable interest rates, politicians set quotas that had to be met for lenders to keep those ratings. Losing those ratings would be competitively crippling to lenders. The CRA was about the first thing Carter did in 1977. Clinton immediately ran with it and exponentially expanded it in 1993. These are not state secrets.

skip| 10.21.10 @ 3:01PM

Evil, retarded, the devil by comparison is preferable, George W. Bush publically warned of the impending housing meltdown in each of his eight years in office, especially his last year. Frank responded every time that not only was this fearmongering, and a war on the poor, for the benefit of the rich, but that enough was not being done, and even more of this lending should occur, and that financially there was no danger. Carter, Clinton, and Frank are the big three.

CopyKatnj| 10.21.10 @ 2:53PM

Did you just awaken from a coma?

Kishego| 10.22.10 @ 3:28PM

O.K., now you're just being an asswipe. You know damn well groups like the CBC, the CHC, the DCC, et. al. were pressuring banks to relax their lending standards to minority and low income people. Acorn was thick in the middle of this scam, which was patently evident when the two young jounalists pulled the sting on Acorn, (can't remeber their names). Where do you think the term NINJa loancame from? No Income No Job verification. C'mon, if you would pull your head out of your ass you wouldn't sound like such a schill duche bag.

FRed| 10.21.10 @ 7:02PM

DRed,

You are in fact correct that the majority of subprime lenders were not affiliated with the CRA, nor were most of them insured by Fannie-Freddie. That said, there was an investment thesis that animated subprime lending - that asset values will continue to rise, so even if the borrower can't pay the loan the collateral will sufficiently secure the note - and the cheap money that Fannie-Freddie insurance provided contributed more than any other macro-economic factor to the acceptance of that failed thesis.

nyx| 10.23.10 @ 12:29AM

"You are in fact correct that the majority of subprime lenders were not affiliated with the CRA, nor were most of them insured by Fannie-Freddie. "

I'm simply going to cut to the chase, Dred is (I think purposely) playing naive in his comments about the CRA. FRed touches on the periphery of the truth but, as like many who have educated themselves on this issue only focus on the Fannie and Freddie aspect of it, as those are the Governmental agencies whom have garnered the majority of the press headlines.

Fact: Folks, there is another governmental guarantee loan program quietly underwriting loans and have been for the past 45 years that I can remember. They haven't changed their practices on bit since the housing market tanked and they probably wont either. The agency is the FHA. Period. Stop.

They are just as culbable in the sub prime meltdown as Fannie and Freddie, they have put the tax payer on the hook for trillions of dollars of shaky loans. Yet nary a mention in the press about this...why?

And, Yes they are propping up loans tied into the CRA no matter source of origin, And yes, they waive 95% of the normal loan requirements based on income, credit risk, and down payment.

With the billions that have been funneled into both Fannie and Freddie, stop and think, why then is the foreclosure rate rising?! That money should have been bailing out distressed homeowners and the foreclosure rate if not dropping, at least stayed. It is not, it has increased month after month after month and is on pace right now to set a record of 1.2 MILLION homes being taken back by the banks this year alone! Why?

Simple answer...while Fannie and Freddie get plastered all over the head lines, Dodd, Bawnie Fwank and the rest of the charlatans in DC duck and weave and muddy the waters with misdirections, blather, bluster, and accusations, the FHA is out there shoring up loans every bit as risky and dangerous as any.

And they have been for 4 decades.

This housing crash and the economic fall out is not over, not by a long shot.
While we might stagger to an anemic GDP growth rate and see a "recovery" the fact of the matter is the economy is going to sputter along, shrink, sputter some more for at least another 3 years, that is if we're lucky.

George S| 10.21.10 @ 11:20AM

We don't have to explain anything, all you have to do is look at your paycheck. Is the tax rate on your withholding lower today than when Obama was inaugurated? But a lot of real Americans did in fact get a tax cut - 2.5 million of them no longer pay taxes because they don't have a job. Unless they own a house... the property tax bill still arrives in the mail, though.

As for the Bush tax cuts, we want them to remain. Not to create jobs (see: Obama Economic Policy) but to save jobs. Now if Obama and company want to be technically correct, all they have to do to back up their claim of saving 3.5 million jobs is to keep the tax cuts in place.

Hope I didn't confuse you further.

Al Adab| 10.21.10 @ 11:27AM

What will the lame duck congress do? A Gottedammerung of legislation following their defeat next month. Sit down, have a long talk with your stock broker and plan. They intend to punish us for punishing them.

SonOfSam| 10.21.10 @ 12:00PM

That's why its important that we pursue all legal avenues against these slimeballs. They should not be allowed to simply skulk away, then slither back into Washington as lobbyists or consultants. They need to be put in jail where they belong

Commonsense Dad| 10.21.10 @ 12:20PM

There are NO Obozo tax cuts you genius. He "proposes" to keep rates where they are. By the way, were you out of the country and missed the 4.5% unemployment rate and growing economy after the Bush tax cuts until the subprime mortgage mess (thank you Barney Frank).

Old Programr| 10.21.10 @ 3:12PM

DRed, will you please enlighten me about these Obama tax cuts that you claim were real tax cuts. Just when were these implemented and how much did they reduce our marginal rates? I must have missed this important event. And don't be stupid enough to claim that retaining the current tax rates for families making less than $200,000 is to be considered as an Obama tax cut.

skip| 10.21.10 @ 3:33PM

Personal income taxes have yet to change under Obama. Individuals have had to pay for hidden taxes in the products they consume however. This will get worse. The problem is that spending has increased dramatically, and is unpaid for. If income taxes go up to pay down the debt, the economy is really going to nosedive. If income taxes remain practically the same, the overhanging debt will cause the economy to nosedive. Obama has manuevered us into a lose-lose scenario. Spending has to dramatically reduce. Maybe this is why the Founding Fathers set up a republic under a constitution that makes the vast majority of our current spending illegal.

FTM| 10.21.10 @ 5:34PM

If I recall correctly, the Republicans in Congress during the Clinton Administration, (Clinton was the best President that the Chinese ever bought) supported CRA also but for different reasons than the Democrats. The Republicans supported CRA because of the percieved economic stimulus for manufactureers of appliances and home furnishing at cetra and so on.

Banks can only make money by loaning money. Over the centuries banks have become very astute as to who to loan money to and who in specific not to loan money to, Whenever an external impulse acts to change this decision making dynamic trouble is the only possible outcome.

Now...

On the other hand and on the brighter side, the situation that we find ourselves in at present pretty much guarantees that liberals the likes of Reid and Pelosi and Obama are going to be very unpopular for a long, long time. Obama makes Jimmy Carter look competant.

Looking at the Republicans though, I haven't seen a plan to undo the damage. I'd like to point this out to anyone who can read and has a mind to understand. I haven't heard the Republicans bring fourth a plan to back away from the edge of the abyss. I have a list, I've published it before and I'll publish it again. Here goes:

Get the US out of the UN. The US pays 70% of the UN's annual operating budget. The UN is totally and irreversably corrupt. Who needs the UN and for what?

Get the UN out of the US.

Get the US out of NATO. Let our "allies" the ones that betrayed us in the "Oil for Food" prograqm, in specific the Germans and the French pay to keep the mother lovin' Russians at arms length for a couple generations. The Europeans enjoy socialized medicine because the American taxpayer pays for it. If the Europeans had to pay for their own defense they most surely would not have socialize medicine.

Same case for getting the US out of Japan and South Korea.

Get the US out of NAFTA, and GATT and the WTO. How is it that the Japanese, for instance can sell a car in the US but the Americans can't sell a car in Japan? How is that? Well, perhaps the Japanese people don't like American cars. How about American rice? Why can't we sell rice in Japan?

The list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that the world is playing America for chumps and the intellectual ruling class elite is letting them. The result is that you and I are getting screwed. So far I haven't heard anyone say a word about the 600 pound gorilla in the room so for now a pox on both of your houses.

skip| 10.21.10 @ 7:09PM

The U.S. can pay whatever amount it wants to the U.N. , and can adjust defense spending in Europe should the benefits not match the costs, and can negotiate for actual, real, fair, true free trade with other nations, and then after foreign policy is in better shape, can we then tackle domestic policy debt that is crushing us?

FTM| 10.22.10 @ 12:11AM

Skip,

It is my contention that the foreign aid/foreign policy spending that is the crux of the problem.

On the way to work tonight, I work 3rd shift, I was kicking around the idea of writing a letter to the newly elected congresscritters from where I live basically along the lines of what we're talking about here.

Congress has the opportunity to defund National Public Radio, NPR, Congress can defund the National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, Congress can defund the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU and Congress can defund the National Science Foundation, the NSF on the first day on the job with a simple up or down vote. Voting to defud these line items would be a savings of several hundreds of millions of dollars if not a couple billion in total.

Do we still allot money for ACORN? If we still publically fund ACORN then it would look to me to be a no-brainer to defund ACORN.

Basically the bottom line is this, stoping the bleeding looks to me to be fairly simple. The opportunities to stop expenditures earmarked for liberal socialist engineering projects appear to be substantial.

And let's not forget that when the liberals start screaming about their programs being devistated, let's not forget to quote President Barak Hussein Obama in response, "we won the election."

skip| 10.22.10 @ 3:32PM

I just think most foreign policy expenditures are constitutional in that they fall under the 'common defense' guideline; whereas most domestic policy expenditures are unconstitutional in that they do not fall under the 'general welfare', much less 'union', 'justice', 'domestic tranquility', or 'liberty' guidelines.

Reinhard| 10.22.10 @ 12:10AM

Why do idiots like you complain about tax cuts. Do you honestly think the "Bush" tax cuts were bad? Are you going to celebrate when they expire and all of our paychecks get even smaller? And before you bring up the rich...who cares. If their taxes don't go up, so what...me, I'm just trying to save my house for the second time in two years.

Oh and thanks democrats for puttingus in this situation. No one seems to remember (especially liberals) that it was Clinton that allowed the banks to sell securities and the brokers to become banks. He planted the seed of the growth choking us now. AND it was Frank, Obama etc. that cultivated that growth through the mortgage giveaway program.

Kishego| 10.22.10 @ 3:33PM

Spot on Reinhard. It was Clintons repeal of the Glass-Steagal act that set this monstrocity in motion.

Willy| 10.21.10 @ 1:08PM

Lotsa luck. I'm outta here after 76 years. I can't stand to see what this country has become. I've voted against all incumbents, good, bad, and in-between. I suggest you all do the same. We can't get any worse off (or can we?).

Mojo Risin| 10.21.10 @ 1:21PM

Ohhh maaann!!!

That was easy. All that's required is to dispense with logic...

Anthony| 10.21.10 @ 3:51PM

Is it Novenber 2nd yet???
It's time for thinking Americans to kick some serious ass. It's time leftism and all of it toxic idiocy be sent packing once and for all to the dustbin of history.
And speaking of packing.... It's time for Obozo, his zaney cast of leftist academics, the entire D party and that racist NPR, to be put outof their collective misery.

John - TMF| 10.21.10 @ 6:12PM

Everyone is tippy toeing around the reality. Nobody really wants to say it or admit it. The method was laid out in the mid 19th Century.

1. Destroy the Bourgeoisie (aka the Free market middle class) In prior iterations the leadership attempted to do this by cold blooded mass murder. This leadership has decided to do it by bankruptcy.

2. Mollify the Proletariat with largess, and stoke its tendency toward class envy. This will accelerate the destruction of the Bourgeoisie by mob pressure. In prior attempts the envious violent Proles were used as the primary murderers of the middle class/professional class. This time the ballot and majority rule is used to hasten the bankruptcy of the middle class by providing the legal pretext for the Dictatorship to rob the middle class into Proletariat status.

3. Corrupt and confuse the normal social and familial norms by destroying the traditional family, community, and religious bonds that offered resistance to the destruction of the middle class. In the past this was done by dictatorial fiat. Religion was banned. Private property was confiscated and used for state purposes. Families were broken up and undermined by easy divorce, de-emphasis of the nuclear family, and debasement of the security of the home (secret police spying, random imprisonments, military conscription..etc.) This was once done by force, but by controlling the mass media, the courts, and the bureaucracy the new effort was done by stealth, bribery, and appeal to baser instincts.

4. Once the Bourgeoisie has been removed as a political and social obstacle to state control, the State has only the malleable and confused Proletariat to deal with. It is easily manipulated, and bought off with minor stipends and empty promises. It is distracted by implementation of the circus and sexual irresponsibility. Any flash of protest is deflected with false images, strawmen, and scape goats.

5. The final stage of control is the implementation of the Party, Commisariat, Peoples' Congress, Politburo, and Central Committee of the Party.

You see, Marxism is alive and well. It is being implemented with ruthless methodical purpose. With the exception of the mass murder (Well we aren't counting those 45 or 50 million humans who were murdered in the womb... so maybe that blood bath really wasn't avoided after all...) the Democrat Party is becoming what it was destined by Wilson to become.

Marx always thought that Communism was going to work HERE if it was going to work anywhere. The odd thing about Marx is that he might end up right about that; except that his pet theory never achieves his Nirvana of perpetual social equality.

It will remain forever doomed to be stuck in the brutal thuggish Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
(Just a note: That preposition isn't BY, it is OF. No equality, no freedom... just a boot on your throat for eternity. -h/t to George Orwell)

r/TMF

manolo | 10.23.10 @ 3:56AM

Obamanomics 101(This beyond lies,lies and damned lies)

R Sweeney| 10.21.10 @ 6:18PM

Comrade Wilson, I think your post comes very close to crimethink.

Doubleplusungood.

Tony in Central PA| 10.21.10 @ 7:42PM

Absent from the specific discussion of Obamanomics is the well - worn concept of pump - priming. Never mind that this failed miserably when FDR tried it. It even failed when GWB did it in the spring of 2008. Now Obama wants to try it again. The reason ? The first one was too small. By the way " too small " is the default Democrat answer for every failed federal program.

Ed in Texas| 10.22.10 @ 8:32AM

FOUL! I thought the object of the "test" was to try and establish our understanding of Obamanomics, not our understanding of the real world of economics and how Obamanomics deviates from reality. Sheesh.

w | 10.22.10 @ 11:56PM

With days to go before the Nov. 2 election, this quick, eight-question quiz will test your ability to think and talk Obamanomics.

1. In talking Obamanomics, when you say "tax cuts," what you really mean are: (a) transfer payments to people who pay no taxes, (b) tax reductions to actual taxpayers, or (c) the Marxist belief that in the fullness of time, the all-powerful state will "wither away."

2. Real tax cuts made to date by the Obama administration add up to: (a) $1.2 trillion, (b) zero, or (c) any number that pops into Barbara Boxer's head.

3. Under the Obama administration, the U.S. economy has added or subtracted how many jobs: (a) plus 3 million, based on computer models not of what happened, but what was supposed to happen, or (b) minus 2.5 million, based on the actual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

4. Over the next two years, "hundreds of thousands of new American jobs" are most likely to be created by: (a) the transition to a "green" economy (through heavy federal subsidies for new wind and solar plants, combined with $7,500 income tax rebate checks for purchasers of the new Chevy "Volt" and other hopelessly overpriced electric cars), or (b) a normal cyclical recovery, if it is ever allowed to happen.

5. President Obama deserves personal credit for: (a) staving off the onset of the next Great Depression, or (b) presiding over the weakest recovery from an economic downturn in more than 60 years.

7. As a result of placing a sixth of the U.S. economy under federal control, Obamacare will: (a) be revenue-neutral, not adding "a single dime to the deficit," or (b) cause premiums to soar and federal deficits to mount, and (c) give government bureaucrats ever-increasing power to ration health care as the only available means of containing government-contrived and government-mandated cost growth. (Hint: this question has two correct answers.)

8. The greatest threat to the future of the American economy lies in: (a) "blind faith in the market," or (b) blind faith in the failed policies of Obamanomics.

For spendthrift Democrats to go around claiming that they have "cut taxes" is to engage in the most deliberate and outrageous obfuscation -- throwing dirt in the eyes of an American public. What Obama and the Democrats have done, in the course of running up $2.7 trillion in federal deficits and spending nearly 25% of GDP over the past two years, is to put checks in the mail to people who, for the most part, pay no income tax -- meaning that these payments from the federal government out of borrowed money are indistinguishable from welfare checks. The Obama administration has not cut tax rates for real taxpayers and has no intention of doing so (with huge tax increases soon to take effect with the expiration of the earlier round of George W. Bush tax cuts).

But none of this stops Democratic Party stalwarts from playacting the part of favoring tax cuts. On CNN, California Senator Boxer made the laughable claim that she had supported "$1.2 trillion in tax cuts" through the stimulus bill -- which would suggest that the entire stimulus bill, and more, was devoted to tax cuts. In fact, she began her interview with Wolf Blitzer in claiming she had supported $2.2 trillion in tax cuts.

Since Obama came to office in January 2009, the unemployment has risen from just under 8% to close to 10% -- where it has stayed for the past year. There has been a net loss of about 2.5 million jobs. Even so, the Obama administration continues to claim that it has "created or saved" about 3 million jobs. That is a meaningless metric, which is not based on any evidence. It comes from plugging data on government spending into a Keynesian computer model and assuming (against a great weight of contrary evidence) that every dollar spent would provide $1.50 in economic growth and job creation. It is merely a restatement of what the target was at the outset of the stimulus program, as opposed to an objective measure of what the program has actually achieved.

In recent months, President Obama and Vice President Biden have gone about the country talking up a few Potemkin Village-type projects (mostly wind and solar energy projects) as shining examples of "the jobs of the future." But the cost per job created in these projects has been shown to exceed $1 million -- meaning that the expenditure has no doubt eliminated more jobs than it has created through the government-directed diversion of scarce resources to unproductive enterprise.

November 2, 2010 is not destined to be a date that will be celebrated by devotees of progressivism. Across the country, Democrats have gone silent on Obamacare. This is one part of Obamanomics they'd rather forget -- at least for now. Obamacare includes a huge premium subsidy program, which would have the effect of taking money from those in the top quintile of earnings (beginning at $90,000 for a family of four) and channeling it to those in the bottom four quintiles. That is how this government proposes to wage war on the "rich," which really means anyone who is even moderately successful in an economic sense.

believer| 10.24.10 @ 5:28PM

I can remember when the housing crisis started, long ago housing was affordable and the mortgage banks only allowed the primary wage earner to qualify for the loan. Then some scumbags sued the banks to make it possible for both man and womens wages together to allow them to qualify. The rest as they say is history, in a matter of months houses that were selling for 10,000 had doubled in price and soon the price of housing had gotten so high that it forced the backbone of America, our dear mothers,to go to work. Now our kids dont have the mothers at home to teach them the morality we were taught and soon drugs,drinking, and music that is noise rather than music is the norm at home.It's to late to turn it around, soon we'll be starting over as a society.

weddingdress | 7.1.11 @ 1:08AM

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|101 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?