Obama Government Spending ANOTHER $1.2 TRILLION

It’s already become very hard to keep up with the spending, less than 2 months into the Obama administration – and there’s a long way to go.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the REAL cost of the $787 billion porkulus plan will be $3.27 trillion.  Newsmax reported that:

The gargantuan stimulus bill Congress has rubber-stamped with virtually no Republican support contains tens of billions of the very spending projects that made the legislation a lightning rod for criticism.

And although the bill is generally described as costing $787 billion, the Congressional Budget Office reports the actual figure is now closer to $3.27 trillion.

That stems from the $744 billion it will take to pay for the additional debt the legislation will create, and $2.527 trillion in increased spending from the new and expanded programs the bill will spawn over the next decade.

Then Obama announced that he intended to spend another $634 billion – as a “down payment” on socializing health care.  That’s going to be “$634 billion plus a whole bunch” too.

And we had the $410 billion omnibus bill complete with nearly 9,000 earmarks.

And that’s just to get us to Obama’s $3.7 trillion budget – which will feature an unprecedented $1.7 trillion in deficit spending.  It is a budget that will anticipate raising $1 trillion in new taxes during a recession by confiscating still more from the wealthy.  [And if you don’t believe that the wealthy’s investment matters to the health of the economy, you frankly haven’t been paying attention].

And most of Obama’s math is based on unrealistic expectations that dwarf the economic predictions of most private economists:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration’s outlook has private economists wondering: Has Rosy Scenario made a comeback?

President Barack Obama‘s first budget is based on economic assumptions that are significantly higher than the forecasts of many private economists which could make it harder to reach his goal of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

The administration insisted that it wasn’t relying on overly optimistic assumptions to make the spending and deficit figures look better, but private economists said the economic predictions underlying the budget Obama released Thursday were far higher than their own forecasts.

“These numbers are a lot more optimistic than what I am forecasting both for this year and in the long run,” said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor’s in New York.

This is spending beyond human comprehension.  In the words of The Wall Street Journal, The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.”

And now we’re hearing about still another $1.2 trillion of spending that’s supposed to “revive” the economy (haven’t we been hearing that song over and over again?):

WASHINGTON – With the country sinking deeper into recession, the Federal Reserve launched a bold $1.2 trillion effort Wednesday to lower rates on mortgages and other consumer debt, spur spending and revive the economy. To do so, the Fed will spend up to $300 billion to buy long-term government bonds and an additional $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As bizarre as it is, this may be the first spending that actually does the economy some good.  The $1.2 trillion plan is the first time that the real problems plaguing the economy – the housing/mortgage situation and the banking/investment industry – truly begin to be dealt with since President Bush spend $350 billion and left another $350 billion for Obama to spend on the financial crisis.

That said, this spending is still a disaster, as it represents the very logic that is itself the problem.  Beyond the simple fact that this $1.2 trillion amounts to the government reaching into one pocket to write an I.O.U. for the debts accumulated in another, there is a deeper problem.  As Newseek summarized the Obama government’s position, it’s March 16, 2009 cover has a picture of Uncle Sam with the message, “I Want You To Start Spending!

One cannot spend one’s way out of a downturn; one must produce one’s way out.  And even with all the government money being spent, very little is actually being produced.  The massive government spending will have very little positive effect on the economy, but it will ultimately have an incredibly disastrous effect shortly down the road when it becomes time to pay the piper.

And many financial experts have said that that $1.2 trillion may only be as little as a quarter of what will ultimately be needed.  The New York Times reported:

But administration officials believe that trillions of dollars more may be needed to buy the majority of bad assets from banks.

“The size of the problem is so large that no one knows if you just wiped out all the assets, how much it would cost,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. He added that a number of officials estimate it may take up to $3 trillion to $4 trillion to buy the bad assets.

Obama has now already spent, or announced his intention to spend, trillions of dollars that the economy didn’t have and couldn’t afford to waste.  The real question is whether, by the time he gets around to truly tackling the actual issues facing the economy, the American public will stand for the kind of spending that will be required.

Along with spending, Obama has priorities that will cause far more harm to the economy than has been previously disclosed.  For example:

President Obama’s climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion. That figure is nearly three times the White House’s initial estimate of $646 billion over eight years. The Washington Times reports a top Obama staffer revealed the new figure to Senate aides during a recent briefing.

The White House won’t confirm the new number, but notes that the initial estimate was “conservative.” The climate plan seeks to reduce pollution by setting a limit on carbon emissions and allowing businesses and groups to buy allowances.

We can read articles and statements by economists and financial experts such as Larry Kudlow, Kevin Hassett, Jim Cramer, The Wall Street Journal, and other sources to see the anger over Obama’s spending priorities.

My own fear isn’t for the current bad market/economy, but what we will see within a few years as the crushing burden of debt we have been placed under begins to truly be felt.  During the Great Depression, the market actually picked up after October 1929 stock market crash, and things seemed to be going much better as 1929 turned into 1930.  I believe we’re going to see a similar brief improvement, followed by the bottom dropping out of the market just as it did before as the value of the dollar plunges.

The “we can soar out of a terrible recession by engaging in supermassive spending” strategy now being employed has the novel virtue of having never been tried.  But everything that is even close to it that has been tried has demonstrably been a failure.  If Obama’s policy works, we will escape a Great Depression; if it doesn’t, we will not only end up in a far worse Depression, but we will have completely devalued our currency in the process of creating it.

Ronald Reagan could have been looking ahead to this very moment when he said, “Government is not the solution to the problem; government IS the problem.”

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Obama Government Spending ANOTHER $1.2 TRILLION”

  1. A 1-In-100 Blogger Says:

    If Obama would just STOP his wasteful spending, the Fed’s move yesterday which, to quote, “launched a bold $1.2 trillion effort Wednesday to lower rates on mortgages and other consumer debt, spur spending and revive the economy. […] the Fed will spend up to $300 billion to buy long-term government bonds and an additional $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” This is the first and only necessary spending that was needed.

    If not for Obama, the stock market today would be higher. Much higher. Everyone’s stock plans and 401(K) would be worth WAY more. Obama is crushing the U.S. dollar, destroying our economy, and flushing “By The People” down the toilet along with it.

    Thanks for nothing, Barry.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Ah, A 1,
    You have to realize that “nothing” is “change.” The stock market plunge due to lack of confidence in Obama is change.

    This country wanted change, and now it’s got it.

    And, of course, another Great Depression is “change,” too.

  3. Som Says:

    Quick everyone… buy up the available violins where you can find them! We’re all going to need them to play ‘Our Bleeding Hearts’ when Obama finally destroys our economy!

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Just remember while you’re playing that it will all be Bush’s fault no matter how long Obama is president.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/29984054_1_federal-president-obama-debt

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    What a dumbass article.

    I won’t bother to spend too much time with it, given that if you thought you could simply copy and paste a link you clearly aren’t very capable of any intelligent argument. But the gist is this paragraph:

    Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

    Well, two things. The first is that Obama’s stimulus didn’t do a damn thing except create all kinds of political boondoggles to benefit Obama supporters (e.g., Solyndra). The stimulus massively failed; but don’t look to me to prove it, just look at the Obama administration’s own damn projections. They predicted that with the stimulus, unemployment would be 5.5% right now. In fact, unemployment has BEEN HIGHER THAN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAID IT WOULD BE IF WE DIDN’T DO THEIR DAMN FOOL STIMULUS.

    But that isn’t nearly enough to point out what a massive failure Obama and his idiotic stimulus truly was. You want to blame Bush for the recession? Fine. For the sake of argument, let’s do that: now explain to me why median household incomes only went down by 2.6% because of “Bush’s recession.” And I can say “only” because in face median household incomes actually plunged by nearly TWICE that amount – 4.8% – during Obama’s “recovery.”

    So you stupid liberal turds want to blame Bush and literally make Bush responsible for the entire year of 2009. You’re a bunch of lying losers, but okay: because Obama is STILL a wretched failure even if we let that demagoguery go. Obama has been that much of a truly catastrophic failure to America.

    The second thing is that that $800 billion that you deranged idiot liberals want to blame on Bush – you are literally blaming something that NO REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR on Republicans because you are demon-possessed cockroaches – is only a drop of piss in Obama’s urine ocean of debt. Obama literally called George Bush unpatriotic and a failed leader because Bush raised the debt by $4 trillion over eight years. You stupid ass, Obama has raised the debt by $6 trillion in only FOUR years.

    So you think you can cite some link to some lunatic liberal article that says Obama spent more because of Obama’s massive failed stimulus that was demonically sold to the American people on lies such as that it would create shovel-ready jobs? You think you can say that F-ing stimulus was Republicans faults even though they refused to vote for it and CORRECTLY PREDICTED IT WOULD BE A DISASTER? You think you can claim that that $800 billion stimulus – if you just demonically blame it on Bush – somehow would make Obama NOT the worst spender in the history of the human race?

    Get your crap out of here.

    Now, I always respond in detail to the people I’m going to block. Which I did with you here. And I also always explain why I block somebody.

    I’m blocking you because it takes you two seconds to copy and paste a link. A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can put its boots on. And then somebody like me has to spend time refuting the assertions and the lies in the article that took you two seconds to copy and paste. I’m only willing to play a game like that with a loser like you once.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: