How to Spend $1,000,000,000,000.00 in 7 Days
Tags: Government Bail Outs, Nancy Pelosi.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
We had a phrase in the Navy – “BOHICA”, Bend Over, Here It Comes Again. I just hope Obama and his Democrats are kind enough to kiss us after they’re done:
Sources said Obama and Pelosi will discuss the scope and timing of the economic recovery package, which Obama has said will be his first priority upon being sworn into office. Pelosi has said her goal is to have the legislation on the new president’s desk and ready to be signed on Jan. 20.
But that schedule appears increasingly likely to slip, as Republicans and conservative Democrats are raising concerns about the impact on the federal deficit of spending hundreds of billions on an array of projects with little vetting by Congress. Lawmakers now expect a spending package of between $675 billion and $775 billion.
And a top congressional aide said yesterday that Democratic leaders in the House are still waiting for a detailed proposal to be delivered by Obama’s economic advisers before lawmakers can begin the process of turning it into legislation.
Even so, congressional Democrats are anxious to get the process started so that a vote can take place in the House as early as the week of Jan. 12. Pelosi announced yesterday that the first hearing on the plan will take place Wednesday…
…Obama aides said the president-elect and his team will help make an all-out push to convince Americans that the government must spend almost $1 trillion to create jobs, provide cash for spending and shore up the finances of the state governments.
Yeeehaw!!!! Lets go spend some MONEY!!! We’ll pass the swag around to everyone who has their hand out! Mismanaged your corporation into bankruptcy? No problem, here’s some money! Spent your State into insolvency? Big deal, here’s some money! Need to reward corrupt union bosses who helped get out the vote? We’ve got you covered! Here at the Obamathon it doesn’t matter what the money is for, as long as it gets spent and helps Obama get re-elected in 2012!
Gonna be a long four years, boys and girls.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
84 Responses to “How to Spend $1,000,000,000,000.00 in 7 Days”
Caucus of Corruption
dejah,
Crist is a fine man, but you’ll hate him upon command should he actually secure the GOP nomination in 2012. And, also, unless we’re sitting with 10% or so unemployment in 2012, Crist would be easily beaten by Obama – meaning, of course, that a damp squib like Crist hasn’t a chance unless the electorate in 2012 votes against Obama as there’s no way Crist will get a majority to vote for him.
We’ve been told since the 60’s that if we of the right want to win then we’re going to have to ditch the traditional morality and come up with a program the left thinks of as in tune with what the people want – usually more social spending. Some how or another, however, we managed to win in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004 without liberalism-lite being our program. And when we went with liberalism-lite in 1976, 1992, 1996, 2006 and 2008, we lost. Sorry, but we on the right aren’t going to buy the policy prescriptions of those who want to beat us at the polls.
The program we need to articulate is one of rock-ribbed conservatism – small government, balanced budgets, low taxes, strong defense, traditional morality…with the likes of me also trying to force into the mix a determination that whatever authority there is, it is devolved down to the lowest level possible. We do that and show ourselves committed to it, and we’ll win…if not by 2010/12, then in the by and by. We’re right, you’re wrong and eventually, the longer you stay in power, the more wrong you’ll be shown to be and the more easy it will become for us to present our alternative. We view the future with calmness and conviction that we’ve already won the debate, we just need to have the votes catch up to reality.
And as for free speech – that is a Catholic concept; to call it a liberal concept is to ignore how swift liberals have always been to suppress free speech whenever they’ve had the power to do so.
Casper,
But you are de-facto defending the plan you know nothing about – and this plan isn’t the Bush-Paulson plan (which plan’s abject failure these past two months should demonstrate the inefficiency of massive government intervention, but that is another debate for some other day), this is the Obama-Pelosi plan: a bright, shining lie designed to hope-n-change us into a better future.
And I’ll keep coming back to this, because you are manifestly failing to understand me – economics is easy. I’ve very easily figured out that this proposal, as is, won’t work and, indeed, will be counter-productive. This is because economics is so easy to figure out.
Govenment is like a body. Whenever it feels the need to intervene in the private sector, it grows. The way it grows makes the expanded government muscle or fat. Muscle is good government – it makes wealth, gets work done, and doesn’t destroy industry. Fat is bad government – It wastes money, is a bloated bureacracy, and gets in the way of business. Obama’s spending plan isn’t either one yet. Like a body, it is much easier to gain fat than to gain muscle. The only way for it to be muscle is if every citizen in the country can know exactly what the plan entails. The reason no one knows what the plan entails yet isn’t because they don’t want to show us – they simply don’t have all the details done yet. And believe me, this plan isn’t going to hastily be shoved through the system. It will be done over long enough time so that all the kinks can be worked out.
Mark,
“But you are de-facto defending the plan you know nothing about”
No I’m not. I haven’t seen it yet and neither have you. That’s my point. It’s a little early to attack something when you don’t know the details. Once I’ve seen it, I’ll be more than happy to defend or attack the plan based on it’s merits.
“and this plan isn’t the Bush-Paulson plan (which plan’s abject failure these past two months should demonstrate the inefficiency of massive government intervention”
Wow, giving up on it so soon. While there are parts of I it I really don’t like, I’m not ready to call the whole thing a bust after only a couple of months. After all, it took years and a lot of things happening to cause this crisis. I think it will probably take a couple of years to see if the steps we are taking actually work.
“And I’ll keep coming back to this, because you are manifestly failing to understand me – economics is easy. I’ve very easily figured out that this proposal, as is, won’t work and, indeed, will be counter-productive. This is because economics is so easy to figure out.”
If economics is so easy, why weren’t you predicting this crisis a year or two years ago, instead of talking about how good things were going? Seriously, where is your track record on predicting the economy?
Personally, I think you expect the Obama-Pelosi plan to fail, because it’s coming from democrats and you just don’t want to believe democrats can get anything right. Heck, if the economy turns around in the next two years and your house is worth double what it was worth two years ago, you will probably declare the plan a failure because you house isn’t worth triple.
dejah,
Mark and the rest of the far right don’t want to move to the center. They are convinced that the only reason they lost the election was because they moved too far from their principles. Maybe they are right, but I doubt it. One of two things in is going to happen in the next few years. Either Mark is right and the voters will come back to them, or he’s wrong, in which case the Republican party will continue shrinking. It should be very interesting either way.
Thanks, deja for proving my point.
The other party is in power and liberal concerns of the past do not matter. The current economic situation is the perfect excuse for $1 TRILLION in new spending and increased government in power and size.
Those concerns of “saddling our grandchildren with debt” talking point no longer exist.
The “solution” to the liberals is a political one more than the “rescuing the economy” one they pitifully try to portray.
tiredoflibbs,
So do you think the economy doesn’t need rescuing? What would you suggest we do?
Republicans have always taken a strong position against govt. spending and taxation. In the past, this has worked. Even in recessions. But not this time. No, this is too big for a simple tax break or spending cut to fix. We must get realistic. We are going to have to make sacrafices NOW. And even then, this problem migh get worse before it gets better. In fact, we may only just be coming out of it by the time the midterms come. Do not expect this problem to get drastically better by the end of this year. I’m certainly not.
Yeah, what happened to that saddling our grandchildren with debt crap?
1luv, then we must raise taxes.
atheistmule,
I agree. I think the Republican strategy to get back in power is the following;
Step 1- Leave Obama with a big stinking mess of crap as far as the economy is concerned ( I don’t think this was intentional).
Step 2- Do everything you can to make sure he can’t fix it.
Step 3- Blame him for not fixing the mess.
It’s going to be very tough for Obama to fix our economy and it will be twice as hard with the Republicans attacking his policies before he even comes out with them. Even if he is allowed to do what he thinks needs to be done there are no guarantees his solutions will work. The next couple of years are going to be very interesting.
1luv2h8lib5,
“Yeah, what happened to that saddling our grandchildren with debt crap?”
What would you suggest we do? Seriously, I would really like to know. I’ll even make some spelling mistakes for you if you give me a straight answer.
Mark: my contention is that this government spending, as proposed by Obama and Pelosi, is not going to do what it is advertised and, in fact, that no one will really know what its going to do if, indeed, it shows up on Obama’s desk on January 20th…there simply isn’t enough time to review, debate and decide. And so, its nothing but a boondoggle, and that is actually what Democrat leaders intend, even if Obama really thinks its for the good of the economy.
I guess the problem people are having in understanding what you mean is that you repeatedly state two conflicting ideas:
1. No one knows the details of the economic recovery package, and:
2. It is not going to do what it is advertised to do.
Obviously, you can’t conclude 2 if 1 is true. Further, in the process of examining statement 2 your first rationale was that government spending can never create wealth. Then later you conceded that it can. I argue further that another thing government spending can do is prevent further destruction of wealth. Whatever else could be said about it, the “Bush-Paulson plan” was primarily designed to do that. And while it is certainly a debate for another day, I think it’s safe to say that however abject a failure it is, no plan at all would almost certainly have been much worse.
So back to statement 1. You’re right — no one knows the details of the economic recovery package. And I’m with you as well in hoping that congress would spend some time considering them seriously and in good faith. If indeed it is Pelosi’s objective to have a $700 billion bill all wrapped up with a tight little bow and sitting on Obama’s desk on Jan 20, I hope she fails. I for one want to hear what’s in it. I want to hear the criticisms and defenses from both sides, because this, obviously, is a Very Big Deal.
But concluding ahead of time that it will be an abject failure before knowing the details is not an argument made in good faith. It doesn’t even make sense.
Okay, to start please tell me which Liberals were anti-free speech? Were these liberals in America? You mean Catholics like Father Coughlin? Or can I go back that far to find a Catholic fascist? You make the rules and I’ll bring the facts.
Let’s look at the years you say the GOP went “Liberal-lite.”
1976, 1992, 1996, 2006 and 2008.
‘76 you ran against the ghost of Richard Nixon. Gerald Ford was a great old school conservative he just had the misfortune of running with the corpse of 20+ indicted members of the Nixon White House on his back.
‘92 Bush the Elder ignored the rule that the GOP dare not raise the taxes of the rich and he dodged Clinton in the longest debate stiff arm in American political history. Bush 41 was hardly a liberal, lite or otherwise. When he dies you’ll be calling him the “elder statesman of conservatism.”
‘96 Bob Dole a liberal lite? Is he pro choice? No. Is he pro gay marriage? No again. There are your two hot buttons. He’s gun deck on all the right wing major issues from 2d amendment to fiscal responsibility. What cost you in ‘96 was the Clinton economy. Shift that election to ‘98 and Dole beats him by a scandal.
‘06 was a direct result of the number of American troops being blown to bits by IEDs, the Foley scandal and Ted Haggard looking into a camera as the head of evangelical Christians and lying about gay sex and drug use and getting caught. Had the economy been worse it would have been worse like . . .
‘08. It was the economy stupid and partially maybe 15% a rejection of scary Palin. What a dumb thing to do. Had she been a polished evangelical with a perceived deep faith rather than that nutty thing she has with the witch doctor and all that it might have been doable. The way it was it was like a fire in trailer park at the first of the month: loud, hot and caused lots of damage to things of little value.
So here we are 17 days from Obama being inaugurated and you still think that the majority of Americans hold the same worldview that you do. I mean that from a political standpoint. If that were the case we’d be getting ready for John McCain’s inauguration. If McCain was a liberal-lite and the bulk of the GOP with your worldview wanted another candidate you would have gotten Huckabee or Romney or even Giuliani were the people who hold your values who should lead the GOP to wave their mighty tail for it.
There’s just one problem. You aren’t the bulk of American voters or even a majority among the GOP. At best we know now religious values voters as I like to call them, some call them culture warriors, account for only a roughly a third [32%] of the GOP. The other two thirds are moderates [50%], gun rights advocates [10%], illegal immigration hawks [5%]and pure libertarians [3%].
Many of your moderates in Florida and Ohio voted Obama; more in Minnesota voted for Al Franken even more voted against Ted Stevens. The advice I give is the best I can offer because I agree that to allow the Democrats to gain more seats in 2010 might be a disaster. Can you say Rostenkowski? Traficant? Those are the kinds of scandals and corruption that grow out of decades of being in power. The Abramoff thing just proves that the GOP was a little quick on the trigger to dunk their heads in the bribe trough. That or maybe they knew that Bush was scorched earth for them and they better line their pockets while they could.
“1. You’re right — no one knows the details of the economic recovery package. And I’m with you as well in hoping that congress would spend some time considering them seriously and in good faith. If indeed it is Pelosi’s objective to have a $700 billion bill all wrapped up with a tight little bow and sitting on Obama’s desk on Jan 20, I hope she fails. I for one want to hear what’s in it. I want to hear the criticisms and defenses from both sides, because this, obviously, is a Very Big Deal.”
This is something that I think you, I, and Mark can all agree on. I am not willing to support or reject this bill until I know what the heck it contains. If it’s just throwing money into road construction, I’ll be the first to email our new president with my disgust.
I got an e-mail today from a person I respect who is actually an economist and this is what he says:
“Take a bet from anyone for any mount of money that the US economy will be in growth by the start of the 2d quarter 2010. The June unemployment figure will be 3.9% or less. The Consumer confidence number will be over 100 and the price of oil will be between 75 and 90 USD.” If that prediction holds, anyone reading this over the age of 45 will not live long enough to see another Republican president who has a GOP Congress with the same or greater majority that the Democrats have now.
And I’ll keep coming back to this, because you are manifestly failing to understand me – economics is easy. I’ve very easily figured out that this proposal, as is, won’t work and, indeed, will be counter-productive. This is because economics is so easy to figure out.
Now that is good comedy. An ardent supply-sider who’s been clueless about the economy for at least the past 8 years declaring that economics is easy and that he already knows a proposal (that, as was pointed out, he actually doesn’t know the details of) will fail.
Actually, Mark, you already know that you’re going to declare it a failure, but you were going to do that for every Democratic program–in fact, all you need to know is that a Democrat backed it for you to declare it a failure. Results? No need to wait for those. You’ve already made your mind up in accordance with your blinkered worldview. Again, this is why you can’t really be taken seriously on these matters.
Damn, I’m 44!
And as for free speech – that is a Catholic concept; to call it a liberal concept is to ignore how swift liberals have always been to suppress free speech whenever they’ve had the power to do so.
51. Mark Noonan | January 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
In this you are wrong. We, Ourselves point you to Caliph Umar of the Sunni line of caliphs after Muhammad [qcpn], who championed free speech during his reign. After him came al-Hashimi whose letters attempting conversion of a scholar of philosophy to Islam by reason and his pleas for open discussion led to the Madrasah systems which have become the very model for every Christian University of Europe.
dejahthoris,
“If that prediction holds, anyone reading this over the age of 45 will not live long enough to see another Republican president who has a GOP Congress with the same or greater majority that the Democrats have now.”
There are two things you aren’t taking into consideration. 1- Republicans are very good campaigners. 2- Democrats can screw up anything.
The only way your prediction will come true is if Democrats do an exceptional job of governing and they don’t allow the power to go to their heads.
atheistmule,
“Damn, I’m 44!”
You are only 24 in Martian years. Believe me it’s a much way to keep track.
atheistmule,
Happy birthday!
“The only way your prediction will come true is if Democrats do an exceptional job of governing and they don’t allow the power to go to their heads.”
Don’t hold your breath.
I say let the “weak” financial institutions and corporations fail. But this liberal notion of always supporting failure cannot possibly work. These companies will take the bailout and the process will repeat itself. This will be the second time Chrysler has been bailed out…..and possibly will not be the last.
This just in: some details about Obama’s economic recovery package.
Casper,
As to why I didn’t predict this crisis two or three years ago, that was because I was unaware of what Fannie and Freddie were up to – in this, I blame myself for not taking the time to look further into it and the larger conservative movement for not being more loud in the warnings which were given; though, in our overall defense, we have been busy trying to keep you liberals from forcing us to lose a war…what’s your excuse? Too busy trying to get us to lose a war to pay attention to the mortgage market? I’ll take my distraction over yours any day of the week.
Had I been aware that Fannie and Freddie were essentially buying every bit of paper sent to them by the mortgage companies and that the mortgage companies were writing their paper with purchase by Freddie and Fannie in mind, then I would have modified my prediction of a 10-15% drop in home prices resultant upon the bubble bursting (something I did see coming by the middle of 2004) in a more negative manner.
As I’ve said – economics is very, very easy to figure out…but you do need the proper data inputs.
Dejah,
I also expect growth to resume by mid-2010, perhaps earlier, if we conservatives are successful at injecting doses of conservative economics into the Obama plan. But to predict that unemployment will be less than four percent is, to put it mildly, bold – it’d be good if your friend could give us some details about his predictions…’cause if he’s just an Obamaniac liberal who BELIEVES, then its worthless…but if he’s got something to back it up, then that would be worthwhile to see.
As it is, I’d suspect 2010’s unemployment rate won’t drop below 7-8%, given that its a lagging indicator.
just an Obamaniac liberal who BELIEVES, then its worthless
As opposed to a supply-side-loving conservative who BELIEVES, right?
Ricorun,
There’s some good stuff in there:
These are great, Reaganite proposals which, in total, would go very far towards fixing our current economic crisis. Unfortunately, they are counter-balanced by the follow Statist, liberal crap which will destroy far more than the Reaganite bits will create:
Now, if you’re lucky the Obama-Pelosi plan will cause us to really crash and burn and that will result in a GOP Congressional majority which can then pull Obama’s fat out of the fire and get the economy moving to the point where Obama has a good shot at winning in 2012. Its the Clinton model, ya know?
Orlando,
Supply-side economics has been used a total of three times: by JFK, by Reagan and by GW Bush. Each time it was tried, it worked exactly as advertised.
Each time it was tried, it worked exactly as advertised.
That would be a lie. You can’t even plead ignorance on this one because we know you know better. It’s just a lie.
Unless you can point to the part where supply-side economics advertised massive deficits, increased income inequality, and tax cuts that don’t pay for themselves. Can you?
I understand the predicament you’re in–it’s easier to ignore facts than it is to change your worldview when it is proven wrong–but that doesn’t mean I won’t point out your ridiculousness anyway.
It sounds like you’re on the right track, Mark. Myself, I wouldn’t necessarily put all of the stuff you refer to as “Statist, liberal crap” in the same category. But hey, it’s a start.
For example, there are many bridges and roads in serious need of repair. If you wait until bridges fail the cost goes up, not down. And it’s not just the cost of replacing them, but the costs associated with the impact on productivity, additional fuel consumption, etc., and of course lives. The Minneapolis I35W bridge disaster is a case in point, though hardly the only one. Likewise, retrofitting schools (and other public buildings, for that matter) to be more energy efficient is worth every penny invested, and then some. To me, this is a no-brainer.
Likewise, if it’s true that the proposed National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank will directly and indirectly create up to two million new jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity from an infusion of $60 billion over 10 years, that doesn’t sound too bad to me, either. Spend $60 billion to create $350 billion? Not too shabby — assuming the numbers can be believed, and assuming it’s done right. That’s the question mark for me. I need more convincing.
Likewise, I need more convincing with regard to the $25 Billion in state fiscal relief. I’m not categorically against it, but I would like to know more details. In the mean time, allow me to ask… what is preventing the powers that be there in Nevada from cranking up your property taxes? Assuming they could, wouldn’t that put you in an even more untenable situation than you already are? Here in CA they’re prevented from doing that by virtue of Prop 13. And I personally don’t have to worry about Mello-Roos, either. I am thus fairly safe, because those and other reasons (the weather is very moderate, it’s close to job centers, etc.) make my home relatively more valuable. It’s already happening — both sales volume and prices are starting to rise in my immediate area. So it would be easy for me to say too bad for you and people like you. But I can’t bring myself to say that, especially to those that thought they were playing by rules generally accepted as prudent. Not categorically at least.
As for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), that never made any sense to me. Maybe I’m missing something, but where’s the “free choice” in making votes to unionize public rather than secret?
speaking of defecits oralndo, Obama is eyeing 310B in tax cuts. With the defecit reaching close to $1 TRILLION and Obama and the Democrats want to spend $1 TRILLION, isn’t that (in the words of liberal Democrats) “FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE”???
Why is it, when Bush issues tax cuts with increased spending it is irresponsible, but when the Chosen One does it, it is accepted with open arms???
the only liar here is you, pal.
tiredoflibs: Why is it, when Bush issues tax cuts with increased spending it is irresponsible, but when the Chosen One does it, it is accepted with open arms???
I guess that comment begs the question… did you think Bush cutting taxes the way he did while increasing spending the way he did irresponsible? And can you document your answer?
If the Bush-Paulson bailouts are any indication of things to come, then we can kiss that money goodbye.