In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


Obama’s Plan May Help Obama, but Not the Economy

Uhhh, I don’t get it.

How is President Obama’s latest stimulus measure going to stimulate the economy when it’s not a stimulus?

Of course, the White House won’t call it a stimulus, since no one thinks a stimulus works anymore. They’ll call it a jobs measure.

But the idea is to stimulate the economy, which creates jobs, so it’s a stimulus.

Except it isn’t. And so it won’t do much at all to help the economy.

You see, one little sentence in White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s briefing yesterday seems to have been overlooked by everyone. It sounds bland and non-controversial enough, but it suggests more than anything that what we’re going to see Thursday night is political theater, as opposed to, I guess, economic theater.

Here’s what he said:

Let me also be clear that the President will make it absolutely clear that he will pay for these proposals.

Pay for these proposals?

Stimulus, by its very nature, is deficit spending or deficit-financed tax cuts. It’s the injection of new money into the economy, money that wasn’t there before. It doesn’t get paid for. You pay for it later, after the economy turns around. You borrow money from the nice Chinese, you put it in the U.S. economy, and you have them bring us the bill later with a fortune cookie saying “You will be in debt to us for many years.”

If you are “paying for” the stimulus, then it means you are taking money out of one section of the economy and giving it to another. Either someone’s government handout or someone’s tax break will disappear so that Obama can fund whatever new idea he comes up with for Thursday night’s political rally.

That is, what we are getting is GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMING OF THE ECONOMY. Obama decides where the money is best spent. This is also known as socialism.

Did I just say the “S” word?

What we will get in Thursday night’s speech, as I’ve written, are proposals of marginal utility designed to put Republicans on the spot by trying to force them to take the blame for ruining the economy if they don’t embrace Obama’s unhelpful plans.

It’s not a real stimulus. It’s an effort to simulate a stimulus. It’s a simulus.

Unless Carney means Obama is going to “pay for these proposals” politically. But this wouldn’t make sense, since the idea is to make Republicans pay politically.

Maybe that’s what he meant. In which case Carney should not have said the president “will pay for these proposals,” but that, “these proposals will be paid for.”

86 thoughts on “Obama’s Plan May Help Obama, but Not the Economy”

    1. MT for re-redistribution

      You folks in Beaverton (Oregon I assume?) have the socialist mandate to have designated gas pump professionals pump your gas for you. Same principle as hiring tellers to do an unnecessary job. Just “look” busy, but really it’s an anchor on the standard of living.

      1. The party of ‘choice’ dominates the landscape here. The only problem is ‘choice’ only involves abortion. We are not allowed to choose plastic bags, charter schools, the right to work, incandescent light bulbs and so on and so on. We are not wise enough to choose the right decision, so gooberment must do it for us. I thought it was the Republicans wanted to legislate morality?

  1. Can I assume that someone in the WH breifing will ask Carney about this?

    Should be surprised that this will be either a stimulus as the others have been and would add onto the national debt, or be what you are suggesting will be “GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMING OF THE ECONOMY” which I agree with you is socialism.

    I also think that the MSM will not puch Carney on this.

    Thanks for the insight. It is appreciated.

    1. “WH Propaganda Sec. Carney”

      That needs to be his offical title… since NO ONE in the lame “MSM” every asks a ‘real question’ at these so-called “WH Press Briefs” anymore.
      Im just an igorant US Military Vet, with a double major from college and I can think of sooo many better questions to ask at these “WH Press Briefs” than these so called ‘proffesional journalists’.

      Why does “WH Propaganda Sec” Carney have to ‘answer’ a question when all he has to do is send a blast text or email to everyone at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, NY Times, Wash Post, etc. and they will all “report” what that arrogant dope Carney says as “fact”

      1. Yeah, instead of WH Briefs we should start calling them the “White House Underpants.” It’s not accurate either, but the phrase does get across the absurdity of “reporters” panting to worship The One.

  2. If this “paid for” program is the one about rebuilding roads, bridges and schools to put construction workers back on the job, if will fall flat and the public will back the Repubs for refusing to make this MrO’s “job plan”.

    Construction jobs in the northeastern and northern tier states will not put people in Florida or Nevada back to work. The infrastructure in the middle states and the southwest are in fine shape and no jobs will be manufactured there. MrO is blatently pandering to the unions whose money and campaign workers he needs desperately for his re-election campaign.

    Nothing in our federal govenment’s programs are “paid for”, we’re trillions of dollars in debt.

    1. What I dont’ get is, why does he think we’re all construction workers? In NM, construciton work is done by illegals who are doing work that Americans won’t do. What does this have to do with my daughter, who is a clothing designer, or brother, a shipping clerk, or son, who is a graphic artist? What, are they all supposed to drive water trucks for illegals now?? Haul concrete?? Hold up signs??

      Get this idiot out of here, for Christ’s sake!!!!!!!!!!

      1. You conservatives are trying to have your cake and eat it too (again). If you don’t want a jobs plan, then you are by default in the camp of George W. Perry in wanting Washington to be “inconsequential”. In other words, let the private sector and the Invisible Hand sort it out. The ones who got us into this mess.

        It really is one or the other.

          1. I know Perry is just the falvor of the week. He just seems to be the one delivering the lip service most Republicans seem to enjoy.

            By the way, I hope we can do away with the whole “liberal media” myth as we see that Fox and other conservatives are just as dead set against letting Ron Paul have any time in the spotlight while giving as much time as they can to Michelle Bachmann, who is in ever way the greater crackpot.

    1. And about these roads and bridges…do states still get bond issues to fix nearby things…the states, many, have a better credit rating…Why is this always federal? If it’s sooo needed, do it–but don’t charge someone in Utah for something in Virginia.

  3. Private security security services will be hiring to protect us from being
    taken out due to the fact we are SOB’s and barbarians. Maybe we can get a group rate?

  4. “Did I just say the “S” word?”

    Of course you said the “S” word. You are a Republican. All you think about is the “S” word.

    Thursday could really be Obama’s moment. We heard from the Tea[redacted] that Obama was elected to create jobs, then spent his time on bringing about Affordable Care. The Republicans bleat mightily about jobs, but with their new found power have dealt only with the debt. Sooner or later someone is going to actually have to tackle jobs. If O seizes the reigns the Tea[redacted] will have a hard time justifying their obstinance.

        1. No, of course. Affordable Care was an effort by Vladimir Alinsky to divest power from America’s most beloved private institution, the health insurance industry.

          As for my choice of words, well fine. Call it constancy. But the principle you cite is just Galtism: “Government? Get the hell out of my way!” Your “principle” is that the private sector is the engine of the economy. But the private sector is also the one who poured the sugar in the gas tank.

          The problem is, government is not IN the way of job growth. Nothing at all is preventing business from hiring if they want to. The fact is, consumers themselves are making do with the products and services that are available to them right now at the prices being offered. So private enterprise has no incentive to put more people to work.

          If you want employment to increase, the wheels of additional spending will have to start turning. And if the business sector isn’t going to do that, then by default the impetus will have to come from government.

          In other words, if it’s really JOBS you WANT, get the hell out of government’s way!

          1. Your “principle” is that the private sector is the engine of the economy. But the private sector is also the one who poured the sugar in the gas tank.

            There may be some truth to the latter, but it does not obviate the former. See how that works? I wish any faith I had in govt had not been obliterated by the thoughtless and stupid passage of that first trillion of pet projects that did nothing! I can trust the govt to–maybe–think up temporary busy work or make work to make the pols look good-but we are looking at a restructuring of the econ. This cannot be done by fiat. It sort of has to be waited out as it morphs.

          2. Yes, something is in the way of hiring people. If they don’t work out (either they’re a poor employee or business contracts and you don’t need them) the business is on the hook for the unemployment insurance. Which, I guess we’re supposed to pay for ever. And don’t get me started on pieces of crap claiming disability for imaginary – or self inflected – injuries. Yes, the government, which sides with BS sob stories is the enemy of the business man.

          3. In other words, if it’s really JOBS you WANT, get the hell out of government’s way!

            Ha ha ha. That’s the silliest thing I’ve read all day. The government cannot hire a single person w/o taking money out of my pocket. Which means I have less to spend, which means … yada yada yada …

          4. I assume that you never have nor ever would file for unemployment insurance. Good. At least you stick to your principles. And if you lose your job owing to your own shiftlessness, your employer’s bad business sense, personal injury or one of a million other reasons people lose jobs, I trust you will do your patriotic duty and sell pencils from a tin cup.

          5. No I never have. I also never would scam the system should the occasion occur that I needed it. But that’s irrelevant. It is anrealnreason businesses are reluctant to hire. You can get stuck with horrible employees.

          6. Car- I will lump you into the “throat cutting conservative” camp, in that you seem to be the type who considers anything that benefits a worker to be de facto against his employer and therefor a conspiracy against progress. Obviously no one would admit to willingly “scamming the system” if they are simply reaping what they have earned, but what makes you the oddity? You imply that most people who take unemployment are somehow unworthy of it, and that labor should be grateful for the crumbs they get because employers could simply run their businesses without them. This is just conservative jingo.

          7. I certainly am not a “throat cutting” conservative. You asked why businesses wouldn’t hire at this moment, and I answered it. Employers are at disadvantage dealing with disability an unemployment claims. There aren’t enough hours in the day to deal with the bs. We’ve had two ex employees file claims they weren’t entitled to. Margins are tight, we can’t hire people to deal with thieving ex- employees.

  5. First of all, government can’t create jobs. If he wants to create jobs, back off on the executive orders that are killing private industry. This $300 Billion in stimulus is nothing more than a slush fund for him to give to his union buddies so they can, in turn, pay for his re-election. It is a vicious cycle of graft and corruption that is so common in gangster government. Pay to play.

    By the way…he has determined he will not be the speech police for the democrats. In other words…have at it Hoffa and CBC.

  6. BTW, I have just been reading Paul Krugman’s “Conscience of a Liberal” column on the NYT. I am curious about the conservative conscience. I have two questions that I would be grateful for nutshell answers to, if anyone here is willing.

    1) What was the most explicit cause of the current economic dilemma (starting in 2008)
    2) What is the best untried means to get us back on track?

    1. 1) Hank Paulsen on t.v. looking like he was going to cry when he thought he wouldn’t get the first stimulus, and George Bush buying that load of crap.
      2) A Conservative POTUS and Conservative majorities in both houses of Congress with a Conservative voting bloc pushing them up against the wall and keeping them there until they get things changed.
      In a nutshell…

      1. Well, I’m not going to write a phone book of names looking for the ones you approve of. Be helpful and send me to an article you think will change my worldview. I don’t read the WSJ (no funnies).

    2. Sorry, when you wrote that you were reading Paul Krugman, I realized you were not really looking for a rational discussion.

      But I’ll answer #2. Obviously the best way to get us back on track is for the aliens to attack.

          1. I’d like to know what passes for a “serious conservative writer” these days. Ann Coulter still seems to be your spokesperson. As for Krugman, well, love him or hate him, a Nobel Prize still carries a lot of weight with me, enough for me to doubt that he is a “fool”. Thomas Friedman on the other hand…

          2. Well let’s see, outside of columnists like George Will and Cal Thomas, and the Fox Newsies (who aren’t really writers, Malkin, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck), you’ve got Dinsesh D’Souza, Jonah Goldberg (a true disservice to your cause), David Horowitz (a disservice to all causes), Mark Levin, Medved, Stossel… only a few of these really rank as thinkers as opposed to propagandists. These are the only ones I am well acquainted with

          3. Well, I’m not going to write a phone book of names looking for the ones you approve of. Be helpful and send me to an article you think will change my worldview. I don’t read the WSJ (no funnies).

          1. A study (Ohio?) once showed that cons read more liberal stuff than the other way around. Since I guess I am a conservative now that I see from Obama what a lib is, and I read the Times, Post, AZ Rep and (before it cost) the WSJ, I guess I read a lot of liberal stuff. You come here, Death, so you are mixing it up. You could lose the accompanying insults, but everyone has a style, I guess.

  7. Has anyone recently looked up the definition of “SOCIALISM”…???
    Has anyone noticed how this current US Govt. of “Pres.” Barack Hussein Obama seems to like “SOCIALIST”/’Democrat’ political rule…?

    1. . If your intent is to give us your personal opinion of the liberal Dem agenda, then do so. Make your positive points, give us some facts that make the Leftist agenda the best policy.
      We’ll listen.

          1. The “Liberal Dem” agenda seems to be pretty indistinguishable from the conservative one: unzip the fly of the Chamber of Commerce, let Wall Street off the hook and keep taxes on millionaires low. If anyone can prove that that isn’t exactly what Obama has done, please cite your facts.

  8. Little Barry will indeed pay for his excesses – at the ballot box. Sooner or later people like him always reap what they sow. I do not understand why the Republicans/Conservatives are so afraid to push the envelope with this loathsome fool – he is so easy to annoy and aggravate and make publicly petulant. We have a great head of steam going, we just have to keep sticking the needle in. In time, O’BOgus will pop like the bag of hot air he is and go sailing off into the clouds with a large farting sound his only record of accomplishment.

    1. The visual of the ‘bag of hot air’ is hilarious! Republicans aren’t even bothering to rebut his phony ‘jobs’ speech. That is a start. He wants his Thursday show to be a ratings block buster. I’m doing my part by watching The Undefeated on PPV. The rest of the family will be joining me…at least until the football game comes on ;-)

        1. At least we can rely on Keith to give us the major points from the speech and discuss them here. I am not a football fan, but I think I will watch the opening night tomorrow. Certainly a lot better than O’s campaign speech will be. Besides, I can’t stand his condescending arrogant tone of voice. It irritates the hell out of me.

  9. Sorry Mr. President, can’t listen to your speech. In case you haven’t heard Texas is burning and we have more pressing issues than your same O same O.

    1. Question:
      Will “Pres.” Barrack Hussein Obama set up a “photo op/campagin event” (LMAO = Gov. Christie walking with “Pres” Obama in the ghettos of Paterson, NJ) to check out the citizens of Texas who have suffered from the current wild fires?

      1. The largest fire is near Bastrop, about 30 miles outside of Austin. He’s been to Austin to rake in campaign cash, but I truly doubt he would deign a visit to Bastrop. Too many real Texans live there.

  10. At 60 I started my adult life with Nixon. I worked at the convention for Ford.
    Thru all thses years even Carter America always managed to right herself
    and get back to being strong, productive and respected all over the world.
    Politicians didn’t agree but it wasn’t like this. I think we are being regulated
    out of business and with the exception of Apple there don’t seem to be as
    many WOW moments anymore. I think the people are out there with great
    ideas but this has become not a very nurturing environment for innovation.
    We have a President who wants us to be more European and that will not
    happen. We can only hope that when 2012 comes around we will get a
    new President who loves us all and wants America back so we can have
    some WOW moments. We will persevere as we are strong and will rise
    again as the country everyone wants to be or come to live.

  11. On January 12, 2011, in the aftermath of the Gifford shooting, Pres. Obama made a speech calling for a toning down of the rhetoric that was permeating the political discourse in America. He stated, ““Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.”

    The Regressives have consistently demonstrated that the tone down only applies to those that disagree with them. Obama’s surrogates, Andre Carson, Trumpka, and Hoffa have been allowed to denigrate and slam anyone that differs from the “Party’s” view.

    There was a time in America where a vigorous debate was the bulwark of democracy, now it is now viewed as being unAmerican and divisive. To call the current administrations policies “Socialist” would be considered nearly treasonous (beware Keith, the thought police will be knocking at your door soon).

    The tired and true method of winning a debate is for one party to set the rules, and definitions, thereby taking any and all power from the opposing view. Not unlike the “climate” debate – the science is settled, it’s not – the debate on the economy has been settled upon by the Regressives. Anyone that deviates from the talking points laid down by the administration is the “enemy” and needs to be “punished.”

    When it comes to this administrations handling of the economy all debate has been shut off. There is no other options as far as Obama and his minions are concerned. Anyone opposing what he dictates are “sons-of-bitches” and have to be defeated. If you think that entitlements and other social engineering programs need to be controlled, then you want to see blacks “hanging from trees.”

    The Regressives are and have been forging an unholy alliance between government and labor, along with playing the race/class warfare card. They are bringing the nation to the brink of an uncivil war, pitting the perceived “haves” against the “have nots.” Look as what has been happening across the nation with “flash mobs” attacking and stealing from the “haves” and the attack on fair goers in Wisconsin.

    If the Dems are supposed to be a party of understanding, compassion and diversity, answer me why it is their followers that are engaging in the most violent rhetoric? Answer me why, in light of a failed economic policy (Stim 1, Stim 2, QE1 and 2) they continue to propose the same ideas, ideas that have had NO positive impact on economic growth?

    Death Ray, before you go off on a rant about the GOP and Bush, I will grant you that both were abysmal failures in many aspects. After 9/11 Bush was so caught up in keeping this country safe from terror attacks under his watch that many things were either left undone or misdone. However, in the nearly eight years after 9/11 we had NO terror attacks on our soil. Since Obama has been Pres., we have had the Ft Hood shooting, the Time Square bomber, the Detroit underwear bomber not to mention the other potential attacks that were stopped without the populace knowing what had happened.

    Obama had two years of a majority control in both Houses, yet the only thing he was able to accomplish was the healthcare act, an act that had to be passed so we could know what was in it. For the majority of thinking Americans that was like buying a car without having kicked the tires or taking it for a test drive. You got to buy it first before you know if it will run, that makes no sense.

    The only answer to the current economic crisis, and it is a crisis, is to open all channels of debate, and keep the debate above board and honest. The need to stimulate the economy is pressing, however government stimulus is not the answer. For every dollar the government spends someone has to pay for it, whether it is today with shifting responsibilities to another sector of the economy or down the road to our progeny. The disingenuousness of this administration is palpable, and is alienating more and more of the populace. Obama’s strident views and, now allowing others to speak the party line unfettered will only cause more divisiveness and potentially violence.

    If Obama and his followers were truly concerned about this country and maintaining its greatness, he would be open to a vast array of ideas and thoughts. He is not. That has been demonstrated time and time again, and it is that stubbornness that will ultimately be his undoing.

    1. ‘If Obama… was truly concerned about this country…he would be open to a vast array of ideas and thoughts…’

      Maybe if SOMEONE? saw Barack Hussein Obama’s “college transcripts??” we could figure that out :-(

      1. Good post, Shofar. One thing that bothered me about this person when he first floated in out of nowhere is that in the Senate or in Illinois–he was not known for any cause or passion. That present voting thing. He always seemed to have others paving the way, kicking obstacles to the side for him. And he was and is not funny, never, ever. And he seems snooty and mean. I am an overweight white woman–I guess, typical–and I know he would disdain me or look through me as not worth his time. This makes me disdain him. Yes, the presidency is a high office–someone in our paper this morning said he was the boss of everyone in Congress and they better wise up and do what he says. . I don’t even think that is true. He is not my boss.

    2. Boy oh boy! One little Teamster is all it takes to make you guys fill your pants? I only hope they give that guy a news network!

      Come on, seriously? You expect any dope smokin’ lefty like me to see the injustice of the right wing being called “sons of bitches” after an epoch of Fox News vitriol? After Joe “You lie!” Wilson? NOW civility is under assault? Reap what you’ve sown, kids.

      And since Chauffeur took the time to single me out I will remind you that we still have not had any successful terrorist attacks on US soil under Obama, that the Shoe Bomber was on Bush’s watch, that “potential attacks” that were stopped before they blossomed, if they existed at all, would be to Obama’s CREDIT, and that Fort Hood was just a gloss on the national pastime of killing sprees, like the one that happened yesterday at an IHOP and that will have been forgotten by tomorrow.

      (PS- Obama vs Osama= fish food.)

  12. MT for re-redistribution

    oh, but he’s going to “put money in the pockets of american families”. I gag when I hear about the contents of the pockets of american families. The BS meter gets pegged, my eyes glass over, I get panicky, cold sweat, occasionally choke back a sob, and I desperately search for a happy place, with no success.

Comments are closed.