President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
Scary stuff right?
But what is the true focus of the letter to Senator Gregg? Well how about we stroll on over to the CBO director's blog to see what they have to say about it.
In a letter sent today to Senators Grassley and Gregg, CBO analyzed the macroeconomic effects of an initial Senate version of the stimulus legislation (the Inouye-Baucus amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1, which is the House stimulus bill). CBO estimates that the Senate legislation would raise output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009; by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010; and by between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011. CBO estimates that the legislation would raise employment by 0.9 million to 2.5 million at the end of 2009; 1.3 million to 3.9 million at the end of 2010; and 0.6 million to 1.9 million at the end of 2011.
Thats what you call a bait and switch folks. Much like the article the Washington Times published earlier in the week where they clipped the words of Senator Max Bauchus in a press conference to make it seem like he was backing off trying to pass universal healthcare reforms this year when in truth every other source at the same press conference reported that Senator Bauchus' words projected the exact opposite. All newspapers are not created equal and the Wingnut times shouldn't be created at all. Talk about a waste of dead trees.
Posts
Sounds to me like you only read the first paragraph of the Director's Blog. Actually both you and the Washington Times are guilty of cherry picking. Keynes was right about one thing. He said: "In the long run we'll all be dead". However, that does not make it moral to lay huge debts onto future generations.
ReplyDeleteI will address you last comment first. Is it moral to make our current generations of kids go hungry and homeless because of some bullshit line about "future generations"? Isn't that the same argument the Republicans had about
ReplyDeleteSocial Security
Medicare
Medicaid
If you are still drinking their Koolaid I would advise you to get some Pepsi in your life.
As to your first comment, no I did not stop reading the directors blog. The point of the blog was to extrapolate what might happen years from now if everything stayed the same as it is today. That means if there are no spending cuts and no other actions taken to strengthen the economy by 2019. If you think every thing will remain static for the next 10 years then yeah I guess I could see your false equivalency. Otherwise to most reasonable folks the only numbers that matter are those referring to the four years the stimulus bill is supposed to affect in the first place. But hey if you want to take the Washington Times word for it feel free. Just don't be surprised when everybody is pointing and laughing at you later.
Overall U.S. government obligations are over $53,000,0000,000,000. Social Security is $7,000,000,000,000,000 in the hole. Social Security surpluses are about to end. Medicare is worse $26,000,000,000,000 in the hole for parts A and B. $8,000,000,000,000 for part D. I don't see how those promises are going to be resolved even if more debt isn't piled on top. If people point and laugh at me when I'm sitting in my refrigerator box eating dandelion greens and reading, I will look up from my copy of "Economics in One Lesson: The shortest and surest way to understand basic economics" by Henry Hazlitt (available online for free) and I will smile... because "what's so funny about peace love and understanding?"
ReplyDeleteI know you don't want to hear the truth and you probably have your tinfoil hat on whilst you are posting but I will still make one attempt to enlighten you about reality vs bullshit.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.truthaboutsocialsecurity.com/myths/crisis.html
The long term forecasts also impart a level of certainty that just isn't there. While they are best estimates, honestly arrived at, that's all they are -- estimates. Consider the unforeseen events that occurred since Social was initiated (less than 75 years ago) -- World War II, with it's consequence of creating the Baby Boom bulge, the entry of women in large numbers into the work force, the growth spurts during the 1960's and 1990's. In the past year alone, the Social security Administration has lowered the 75 year shortfall by .03%, based on changes in assumptions - based on just one year's changes in experience. (It would have risen by .07%, if previous assumptions had remained constant.)
So how should we look at the problem? Probably the best way is to use more "personal" numbers as an analogy. If an individual makes $50,000 per year and spends $51,000 per year, each year, that person will have a shortfall of $1000, or 2% of income. If that same situation persists for 45 years, the cumulative shortfall will be $45,000 dollars -- or 90% of your annual income. If one lives for 75 years, that debt will equal $75,000 (150% of income). Someone making $50,000 will not consider, $1000 in debt a big problem, but when that same person considers a debt equal to 90% his annual income, it is a serious problem, and 150% of income is, truly, a "crisis." But the higher figures result from doing nothing for 45 or 75 years. The real problem is a manageable 2% reduction in spending (or increase in income), starting now (or within a couple of years).
Finally, when judging the size of the problem, one needs to note that, if the tax cuts enacted in the past several years become permanent, they will reduce federal "income" by three to five times the amount necessary to cover the shortfall. We could have had both a tax cut (albeit a smaller one) and solved the Social Security "crisis."
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5409
ReplyDelete"That's all I have to say about that." -- Forrest Gump
The government is not going to save you, and I'm done telling you that it won't save you. Good Luck!
Stupid is as stupid does bro. You keep thinking rational people want the government to "save us" or "help us" but you are the radical who thinks governmetn is the problem. But I bet you like having police officers, the military, garbage pickup, electricity and water. Otherwise why are you on a computer that the internet which the government regulates on a computer that the government sets the standard for and who you probably paid the government taxes on.
ReplyDelete