Recovery & Jobs Just Around the Corner!

By Donald Lambro

… In testimony before the House Budget Committee last week, which got scant news media attention, CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf painted a bleak forecast for the nation’s economy under the White House’s no-jobs, no-growth tax and spending policies.

… Mr. Elmendorf, who was appointed by Democratic congressional leaders, told the committee that economic growth will be painfully slow over the next several years and that will keep the national unemployment rate at an average of 10 percent throughout fiscal 2011, which ends in September of that year.

Contrary to Mr. Obama’s Herbert Hoover mantra that economic recovery and more jobs are just around the corner, the CBO budget chief said the economy will grow by a weak 1.6 percent this fiscal year and the jobless rate will average 10.2 percent.

CBO’s outlook for 2011 is just as bleak. The nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth is expected to reach barely 1.8 percent, while unemployment is projected to show scant improvement, averaging 9.8 percent for that fiscal year.

… If we continue this profligate level of spending, “that raises the risk” of serious economic consequences for our country, he warned.

… But perhaps the most ominous forecast for Obamanomics comes from famed economist Arthur Laffer, whose supply-side tax-cut proposals under President Reagan put the economy on an economic growth trajectory that pounded unemployment to record lows.

The famed creator of the Laffer Curve, which shows how lower tax rates boost economic growth (and ultimately tax revenues), says the economy is heading toward “a train wreck.”

“It will make the decline in U.S. output from 2010 to 2011 worse than the decline in output in 2008 and 2009,” he told me last week. Unlike most of Mr. Obama’s economic critics, he thinks we will have modest growth this year but a sharp decline in 2011.

The chief reason: “In anticipation of known tax increases, the economy will shift income and output from 2011 - the higher tax year - into 2010 - the lower tax year. As a result of this income shift, 2010 will look a lot better than it should, and 2011 will be a train wreck,” he predicted.

“In 2010, the U.S. will have a payroll tax rate increase, an estate tax increase and income tax increases. There’s also a tax increase in 2010 on carried interest” that will rise from 15 percent to 35 percent and rise still more in 2011, he said.

… Meantime, Mr. Obama’s spending-freeze proposal is a sham, affecting only a sliver of the budget in 2011, after midterm elections. That is, if Congress adopts it.

… Lawmakers say that under his plan, spending will still rise by 44.3 percent instead of 45 percent over the next 10 years.

Thats pretty much what I deciphered from the State of the Union. I found it rather laughable when he spoke of budget responsibility that included what, like 300 billion in savings? The government shits that every second. And yes it will be a jobless, and therefore anemic recovery. 10% is a joke, its really 20%. My brother, with a degree in Japanese language working at wal mart doesnt count though. Neither does my year long unemployed ass because I dont claim unemployment. Well, I did just get a job, but really, a year out of college with 2 technical degrees and a 3.1 overall… I have engineer friends out of work.

And its all this talk about stimulating consumer demand. Well shit, consumption should not be the be all end all of GDP for the next decade, thats how we got screwed in the first place. A return to investing in capital will create jobs, and stimulate long run steady consumption and growth. However, the conditions need to be made favorable for that. Now I dont hate on a partisan basis, I like the funding for high speed rails that he proposes, as well as getting out of the wars which have cost way too much. Whether he will do that remains yet to be seen.

Once again, you people make me laugh, then cry. We have no jobs, and this is bad, so we should spend less money? Haha.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Once again, you people make me laugh, then cry. We have no jobs, and this is bad, so we should spend less money? Haha.[/quote]

Feel free to spend away Ryan, no one is stopping you from opening your wallet.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Once again, you people make me laugh, then cry. We have no jobs, and this is bad, so we should spend less money? Haha.[/quote]

Who the fuck is this “we” you’re going on about? The GOVERNMENT should spend less money. You and I will do whatever the hell we like with ours.

Didn’t you know Ryan is a Socialist? What’s yours is his, what’s his is his.

None of my liberal friends willingly pay more in taxes to help those less fortunate but are perfectly willing to have me do so. come to think of it they are pretty stingy with their charitable giving and time too.

But Obama, the “One,” the most liberal member of the Senate (at the time) and big believer in “spreading the wealth”… I remember that it was found from his tax returns when made public that he was just as super charitable personally as he is super in everything.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
But Obama, the “One” – not only the most liberal member (then) of the Senate but also a big stated believer in "spreading the wealth – I remember that it was found from his tax returns when made public that he was just as super charitable personally as he is super in everything.[/quote]

[quote]

Let’s be honest: Barack Obama is better than you are.

He’s a better father - taking breaks from running the world to cheer on his daughters at soccer and basketball games.

He’s a better husband - zipping his wife off for dinner in New York and Paris.

He’s got a better diet - nibbling on vegetables from his homegrown garden to keep his love handles in check.

And he’s got a terrific jump shot.

You? Not so much. [/quote]

[quote]hedo wrote:
None of my liberal friends willingly pay more in taxes to help those less fortunate but are perfectly willing to have me do so. come to think of it they are pretty stingy with their charitable giving and time too.[/quote]

Isn’t it funny how that works? Libs will preach about how we all have to “help out those less fortunate”, yet are the last ones to open up their own wallets themselves. This is what I am seeing here with our budget problems, all the unions want raises while they push for increased taxes for everyone else.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Once again, you people make me laugh, then cry. We have no jobs, and this is bad, so we should spend less money? Haha.[/quote]

Feel free to spend away Ryan, no one is stopping you from opening your wallet. [/quote]

You’ve almost hit on the problem. See if you can figure it out for yourself.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Once again, you people make me laugh, then cry. We have no jobs, and this is bad, so we should spend less money? Haha.[/quote]

Who the fuck is this “we” you’re going on about? The GOVERNMENT should spend less money. You and I will do whatever the hell we like with ours.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I thought you were intelligent enough to glean some things from context. In the future, I (meaning me) will be sure to spell everything out completely so that you (meaning you, personally) will know exactly what I am talking about.

But sarcasm aside, knock yourself out trying to make a case for reduced government spending during a recession.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Didn’t you know Ryan is a Socialist? What’s yours is his, what’s his is his. [/quote]

Good quote.

I think this one should be framed and stickied, “Once again, you people make me laugh, then cry. We have no jobs, and this is bad, so we should spend less money? Haha.”

It truly is incredible to him that when a person, a company, a government is out of work, i.e., when little to no money is coming in, the right solution is to reduce spending. Can you imagine what his personal financial picture must look like?

Whoops, I forgot…daddy takes care of the tyke’s personal financial picture.[/quote]

I have to hand it to the right-wing. They’ve convinced people that their ignorance of economic matters is actually profound understanding. and so they assume that what is true for an individual must of course be true for the government (which must leave them baffled as to the nature of recessions, as they then cannot be understood in terms of their theory, but I digress…).

What pushharder (ironic name; when his favorite policies fail, he simply pushes harder) does not understand is that there is a certain amount of spending necessary to keep the economy in motion. When private demand falls below this point, cuts by the government will be counter-productive (he pays no attention to the fact, or perhaps does not know, that this exact policy was pursued during the Great Depression and, lo and behold, it kicked the economy back down the stairs). Yes, it is true that he could learn this by quickly skimming an introductory economics text, but he is busy being sanctimonious.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]hedo wrote:
None of my liberal friends willingly pay more in taxes to help those less fortunate but are perfectly willing to have me do so. come to think of it they are pretty stingy with their charitable giving and time too.[/quote]

Isn’t it funny how that works? Libs will preach about how we all have to “help out those less fortunate”, yet are the last ones to open up their own wallets themselves. This is what I am seeing here with our budget problems, all the unions want raises while they push for increased taxes for everyone else. [/quote]

You know, no conservative has ever given any money to charity. Yet, they always want the government to give them special treament.

And why would the unions do anything else? That’s what big business does. It’s what everyone is supposed to do under capitalism. Why the double standard?

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]hedo wrote:
None of my liberal friends willingly pay more in taxes to help those less fortunate but are perfectly willing to have me do so. come to think of it they are pretty stingy with their charitable giving and time too.[/quote]

Isn’t it funny how that works? Libs will preach about how we all have to “help out those less fortunate”, yet are the last ones to open up their own wallets themselves. This is what I am seeing here with our budget problems, all the unions want raises while they push for increased taxes for everyone else. [/quote]

You know, no conservative has ever given any money to charity. Yet, they always want the government to give them special treament.

And why would the unions do anything else? That’s what big business does. It’s what everyone is supposed to do under capitalism. Why the double standard?[/quote]

Have you seen how much private enterprise has contributed to Haiti? Yet do you know how much Venezuela has contributed? 1 fucking plane. Yep 1 plane, probably filled with some chips and soda and shit. Yea, and that’s from your beloved Socialist country.

Unions need to know their role during tough times, and that is that everyone tightens their belt, including unions. Oh no, not them, they want MORE money, because oh the poor cubicle workers. The citizens endured a tax increase, which is their contribution.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

You know, no conservative has ever given any money to charity. [/quote]

Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly get any more retarded.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
…does not understand is that there is a certain amount of spending necessary to keep the economy in motion. When private demand falls below this point, cuts by the government will be counter-productive (he pays no attention to the fact, or perhaps does not know, that this exact policy was pursued during the Great Depression and, lo and behold, it kicked the economy back down the stairs). Yes, it is true that he could learn this by quickly skimming an introductory economics text, but he is busy being sanctimonious.
[/quote]

Another historical ignoramus. Your stupidity about history simply astounds me.

No matter what some of your bozo professors have taught you FDR’s spending orgy did not help our nation out of the Depression. It prolonged it.

EVEN if it had helped, the trampling of the Constitution was abhorrent.[/quote]

Really, when you’re ignoring the austerity measures by the Roosevelt administration in 1937? How’d that help? Maybe you’re actually not quite that big a jackass, and you were just trying to dodge that particular fact. Either way, it won’t work. Also, notice how GDP took off when we started spending money we didn’t have on WWII.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

You know, no conservative has ever given any money to charity. [/quote]

Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly get any more retarded.
[/quote]

Making stupid, sweeping generalizations sure is annoying, isn’t it? How come no one complained when Maximus did it?