We are being taken for a ride by the President. When will Americans actually get beyond feeling so good about themselves for electing the first Black man and start thinking again?

The graphic to the left from the Heritage Foundation sums it up nicely.

Let’s stop fooling ourselves. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has nothing to do with stimulus. In reality it is a typical liberal spending package. However, Obama knows “stimulus” is a key word. It probably polls quite well as something must Americans think we need. Who doesn’t want “stimulus”? I do. My guess is that you do too. But, this is not “stimulus”. Obama is lying to us in his oh so gracious oratory ways. This bill is about increasing government programs. Increasing government programs creates an increased reliance on the government. Increased reliance on the government gives the government more power, which is what the liberal Democrats now led by Barack Obama crave more than anything and do not want to relinquish again. This is about politics, not right or wrong, not the best interest of America. If this actually were “economic stimulus”, we would be having a different conversation.

Unless you believe that by “immediately needed economic stimulus”, immediate means over the next 10 years (see the Congressional Budget Office Report). The idea behind “economic stimulus” is to quickly jolt the economy back into motion. However, less than half of the $825 billion is scheduled to be spent within the first two years (CBO)! Translated: this is not stimulus, this is a typical liberal spending program, inching us even closer to Socialism. This bill is designed to pay off liberal causes and programs that fund liberal political campaigns.

Obama, if you really want this to be a Socialist state, don’t lie and hide behind the term “stimulus”. Tell the truth. That would be “transparency” in government.

On a brighter note, Sarah’s PAC was launched today.


0 Responses to “Obama’s spending bill”

  1. Troy La Mana says:

    It would do far more good to cut taxes across the board then reduce government spending by 10% and freeze all increases for two years.

  2. kristen says:

    (From Mirriam/Webster on-line dictionary) Socialism– any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

    Let’s see…..increased regulation, plans to take over health care industry, handing out contraceptives, ‘redistribution of wealth’, etc; sounds like socialism to me.

    Find me a nation where this is actually effective and increased productivity was a result. Oh wait, there isn’t one!

    • J says:

      Seriously, where is this redistribution of wealth?Do you mean the progressive income tax, Popularized by Teddy Roosevelt.

      Increased regulation bad? Because deregulation worked out so well.

      Ever other major industrialized nation in the world has universal health care, are you calling them socialist? Because they spend less on health care per capita than we do.

      • kristen says:

        where is this redistribution of wealth?

        From the very mouth of yours truly, Barack Obama.

        Increased regulation bad? Because deregulation worked out so well.

        Yes, it is bad. And deregulation worked great in the 80’s under Reagan. What the MSM isn’t telling everyone is that regulation actually increased under Bush, hence the multitude of problems.

        are you calling them socialist


        • J says:

          Words taken out of context. If you watched the full interview that is not what you imply is not what he meant. He was clearing talking about readjusting the progressive income tax, and there is no denying if you look at it in context. At what point in the 3% shift in taxes does the progressive income tax become socialist?

          In the 80s, we also had the lowest house construction rate. The effects of deregulation are what allowed banks to get away with the risks and their greed.
          Fundamental and pragmatic banking regulations from the the Great Depression for decades strengthened U.S. banks until the dismantling of those same regulations by greedy bankers began in the 80s.Bankers through lobbyist began to take away pragmatic regulation.

          People wonder why the world hates America. The arrogance of some is that they presume to know what socialism, a truly terrible thing, and use against other nations and governments.

          • Alaina Segovia says:

            I don’t think anyone is saying that we’re 100% socialist. However, it’s fair to say that some of the actions taken by our government recently and some of Obama’s policies will push us closer to socialism. Again, not to say that will make us 100% socialist, but it will make us more socialist than we were before.

          • German Observer says:

            Alaina, come on, as I pointed out above, to state you are coming closer to socialism is like stating you are coming closer to the south pole when driving from Georgia to Florida.

            I understand that you like to attribute the nasty word socialism to the actions of your opponents to make them look bad. But please understand that some are so vigourously oppose using the word as ‘socialism’ is associated with so many bad things and as it’s that much beyond the truth to describe the current plans. My mother’s familiy is from eastern Germany and I have been to the GDR to visit my family quite often in those days. I have seen it and know pretty well, what socialism means economically and what it implies in terms of politics. Really hasn’t anything to do with the stimulus package.

            • Alaina Segovia says:

              Socialism is defined as a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

              There are varying levels of socialism, just like anything else, and if a particular policy is socialist or brings our country closer to socialism, that’s what I’m going to call it.

              • J says:

                The problem is there is such a negative connotation toward socialism, and you appear to have no idea really why, because you use the term so flippantly. There has been real socialism in the world, so to equate actions that are so different than those previous instances suggests a complete lack of understanding to what socialism really is.

              • Alaina Segovia says:

                So unless every single policy is 100% socialist, no one can say that any policies are socialist or have characteristics of socialism? Good luck with that.

            • Brian H says:

              One small step for Obama, one giant leap for government.

          • German Observer says:

            So Alaina, use the term or let it be. I don’t really care anymore, it is just amusing how hardly you insist, that this has to be socialism, has characteristics of socialism etc. blah blah.

            Well, according to your logic you would kindly agree to call the US

            – a monarchy as it shows some characterics of a monachrchy (had father and son as leaders)

            – a country of Manchester capitalism as it definetly shows some characteristics thereof (free market economy, people do business and employ others)

            – a third world country as it definetly shows quite a bit of charcteristics of a undeveloped country (high illitercy, high proportion of military spendings in the state budget, high proportion of poor people and homeless, huge budget deficit, high gap between the poor and the rich etc.).

            • Brian H says:

              ” a third world country as it definetly shows quite a bit of charcteristics of a undeveloped country (high illitercy, high proportion of military spendings in the state budget, high proportion of poor people and homeless, huge budget deficit, high gap between the poor and the rich etc.)”

              …dont forget home to over 15 million “illegal” immigrants who abandoned their homes and broke laws to simply be part of this third world cesspool.

              This “third world” country takes in more “legal” immigrants every single year than the rest of the world does combined, German. Want to know the value of a society, do the gate test. Open the gates and see which direction people go.

            • Alaina Segovia says:

              GO, some of us view things on a sliding scale with capitalism on one side and socialism on the other. The more you implement socialist policies, the more the slide moves toward socialism. The more you implement capitalist/free market economy policies, the more the slide moves toward capitalism.

              I’m not sure why you and J can’t wrap your heads around that idea, except that maybe you know Obama and the Dems are making poor decisions that will move that slide toward socialism and you’ll fight to the death to defend them.

              • It’s because they will only see things in black and white. Hence the blinders. I was quick to says Bush was leading us down a path to Socialism (gasp!) with original overnight loans to the auto industry. Then with the TARP bill.

                The liberals know this bill leads us further down the path of Socialism but they refuse to acknowledge it because they know how the word Socialism connotates the atrocities performed by people put in the positions of power inherent such a society, which by the way is why Marxist theory does not work. The Socialist leaders never cede their power to create Karl Marx’s ultimate “equal” society.

          • German Observer says:

            Alaina, Scott, I guess it is pointless to continue the argument. My language is too bad and my time too limited to stay in this pointless discussion. Also, the basic lines of our arguments are already exchanged. You like to label the plans as socialist, I say this is a huge exaggeration and suspect, you insist to use the term as it is so badly connotated. That’s the whole story. And as this is just a battle for a word, let’S leave it at that point and see, if the current administration suceeds.

            Anyway, on a personal level I wish you to enjoy your weekend in your third world, Manchester capitalistic kingdom. I try to enjoy it in my socialist country :-)

  3. Alaina says:

    Wow J, you’ve become a lawyer and an economist in the last 2 days.

    Spending money on contrapceptives, ACORN, rehabilitating the National Mall, theaters, etc. is NOT economic stimulus and is NOT Kenseyian Economics.
    In addition, spending money to build infrastructure will only create temporary jobs. What happens in 6 months or a year when that person’s job is done who was laying the asphalt on that bridge Obama threw money at to “stimulate” the ecomony? He’s out of a job again.

    The only way for the stimulus to work is to put it towards the growth of small businesses, tax and other types of relief for corporations, and money back in the hands of the taxpayers.

    • Didn’t you know that murdering babies saves the state money? Consumers don’t actually spend money. They only tap the Socialist government’s resources. Apparently this is apparently Nancy Pelosi’s great concern, which therefore makes contraceptive expenditures “economic stimulus”.

    • kristen says:

      spending money to build infrastructure will only create temporary jobs

      Why is this not obvious to our elected officials? Plus, in order to spend money, they have to take money away from the private sector (who would be able to use it far more effectively).

    • Red State Eddio says:

      “spending money to build infrastructure will only create temporary jobs.”

      You’ve obviously not had the pleasure of seeing PennDOT at work – you know, 1 guy shoveling the asphalt, 9 guys supervising. They can take a 6 month project and make it 2 years. That’s how Obama can make it a long-term ‘stimulus’ package.

    • J says:

      I have never claimed to be a lawyer or an economist. Thing is, when you talks about politics or government, you should know a little about the law or economics. You see, the government makes laws and does actions to affect the economy.

      There is nothing about ACORN in here and there has never been anything about ACORN. Building infrastructure will repair what we have ignored over the past eight years, as bridges in Minnesota collapsed.

      • Brian H says:

        So the bridges only went bad during the Bush years? Are bridges and roads immune to Democrats? Wish I was.

        • J says:

          Bush has been a constant opponent of infrastructure spending and that is a fact. There is no question that over the last years our infrastructure has become worse. He often rebuffed governors’ request for aid in this department. Bill Clinton invested in infrastructure spending a great deal throughout his tenure.

      • Alaina Segovia says:

        Voter registration and community organization group… guess who falls under both of those categories…

        • Alaina Segovia says:

          In addition, this is an ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE. It shouldn’t include anything that will not stimulate the economy.

          Bridges collapsing in Minnesota have nothing to do with stimulating to economy. STD prevention, contraceptives, voter registration, communitiy organizer, museums, theaters, the National Mall, etc. have NOTHING to do with stimulating the economy.

          They should fix the economy first, then we can spend time debating who should pay for bridges and condoms.

          Furthermore, it would be wise to figure out where the remaining $350B from TARP should go before they throw $1 Trillion more at it.

  4. Alaina says:

    Actually, the credit markets started to move. They’re back to where we were in May… Certainly not where we want to be, but I’ll take any kind of progress at this point. Bottom line, something is working and its sure not Obama’s spending bill.

  5. Brian H says:

    Scott. Have you forgotten how effective the last “stimulus” package was?

    • Yeah exactly. The last “stimulus” plan didn’t “stimulate” anything. One time payoffs errr tax rebates are not a solution. Permanent tax cuts are a solution. What would businesses do if they knew their tax rate were cut for the foreseeable future? They would have more capital to invest in their business and they would. Individuals do the same things. One-time payments are unpredictable, and people treat them as such, being more likely to save or pay down debt with short-term payments (data here).

  6. Troy La Mana says:

    If the shoe fits…

  7. J says:

    First of all the CBO report you are citing is false. The CBO ran a small portion of an early version of the plan through a program to determine a score, dealing with only the parts for Appropriations Committee and left out the parts bound for the Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce Committee. Significant changes have been made since. The CBO data was given to those Democrats and Republicans, but it wasn’t posted online because it would not an official CBO product. Republican members of the House have incorrectly stated this CBO report as being very important, while in reality it was just an informal, preliminary and incomplete analysis. The media played into the right’s hand as well.

    Increasing government spending is not socialism. Increasing government spending during a recession is basic Keynesian economics.

    I am tired of people using these constant claims of socialism. Those on the right need to flip open a history book and find out what socialism really is. The centralization of government, if that was the sole purpose, would not make these programs socialist.

    But yay, Sarah Palin. Let’s watch her try to absorb as much knowledge as possible, so she can cram for the Presidency like it’s some ridiculous midterm.

    • J,

      Seriously? You need to take of the ideological blinders and pay attention.

      Regardless of the recent minor changes, the CBO data is directionally correct.

      Increased government spending to change the direction of the economy, in ways not developed by the private sector is Socialism. In other words, it is planned production. Now if anyone believe this were a one-time expenditure to jolt the economy, that would be a different story. However, you and I both know government programs do not go away. Further, this bill is written in a way that these will be legacy programs, with its spending spread out over the next 10 years. We would be having a different conversation if this were a one-time boost to the economy (which, for the record is also not a good idea, and yes this does mean that I opposed George W. Bush’s two ridiculous “stimulus” plans as well). J, you should try life without ideological blinders. Thinking for yourself is quite the experience.

      Obama, as a typical liberal is a using general Keynesian principles. However, there are many, many economists that don’t believe Keynesian ideas works (sorry Biden). Try these guys.

      It’s funny how liberals claim to not be elitist , yet they seem to know what is best of the little guy. Sarah Palin is more of a regular person that just about anyone in Washington. Yet you expect her to be an elitist like your buddies Obama and Biden. I thought government was for the people by the people not in spite of the people.

      • German Observer says:

        “J, you should try life without ideological blinders. Thinking for yourself is quite the experience.”

        That maid me grin, Scott. That it is particulary you who advices others to throw their ideological blinders over bord is funny.

        Just a few words to your view to socialism: it is pretty confined and rather guided by some ideological backgrounds. You are right, the gouvernment’S channeling of economical developments might belong to socialism, but it is just one characteristic belonging to a much broader concept. Besides, you would have to call almost the whole world as socialist countries – which I would deny it to be. Furthermore, probably due to my ideological blindeness I strongly advocate the idea that the gouvernment owns and manages certain economical sectors of public interest, health care, public transportation, energy supply, education among them.

        “Sarah Palin is more of a regular person that just about anyone in Washington. Yet you expect her to be an elitist like your buddies Obama and Biden. I thought government was for the people by the people not in spite of the people.”

        Yeah, that’s cool! According to that logic we all had to vote for people, who are as dull as we are.

        • GO,

          I wouldn’t call the world full of Socialist countries, I would however says Socialist principals are part of most countries’ economies, in differing degrees, more so, for example in Western Europe.

          You cite several areas where the US economy uses Socialist principles. You’re right and I fundamentally disagree with that approach by government. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 brings us closer to Socialism increasing government programs and is therefore Socialist in nature.

          When I referred to “J’s” ideological blinders, I was referring to his argument that this bill is actually designed for economic stimulus. It’s not, which is clear to be seen. He only says it is because he supports Obama.

          I didn’t blindly follow Bush in his “stimulus” plans. Those were stupid too.

          As for who we vote for, you think we shouldn’t vote for dull people, huh? So what makes exciting people so well qualified? I want someone that represents me, not someone that is dull, exciting, elitist, Republican, or Democrat. Rather I want someone with actual moral values that believes in free market principles.

          • German Observer says:

            Scott, frankly I don’t really know, what to make out of your statement. Technically you are right to say, that (I say: few) socialist principals are part of most countries’ economies and thus the stimulus package brings you closer to socialism. Anyway I feel you mix up things quite a bit, only to justify your use of the nasty word ‘socialism’.
            Before and after the stimulus package the US (as well as Western Europe etc.) is as close to socialism as China is to democracy. It is as if you drove from Georgia to Florida and said, uh, oh, it’s cold down here, I am closer to the south pole.

            Regrading to your remark about whom to vote for, again I don’t really know, what to make of it. What is it that you actually say in essence?
            Well, yes I say you shouldn’t vote for dull people. What I am really fed up with is to say, “hey, this guy is like me, so I vote for him/her”. I don’t care a dot, if my candidate shares my lifestyle, uses the same language I do or used to live in the same conditions I do. What I am looking for is someone, who is actually BETTER than me, someone I feel has better knowledge of things and ideally is more intelligent than I am. So, what’s bad about being “an elitist”? The US is the only country I heard of, where parts of the people see it as a disadvantage, when politicans hold a university degree – even worse if it is from Harvard, Berkely, Yale.

          • J says:

            The Republican members of the Houseput this date out informally and incorrectly, making a disingenuous argument and throws your hold post out because your post assumed that this was an official CBO report.

            If you decrease tax rates in a recession, then guess what, you are practicing an element of keynesian economics as well. There has never been a universal consensus on economics on anything.

            I don’t dislike Sarah Palin because she is a regular person. I don’t like Sarah Palin because she doesn’t literally know enough to be president. Let’s see… while running for vice president, she: a) didn’t know what the bailout was while supporting it (since McCain did) b) couldn’t name one supreme court case she disagreed with besides Roe v. Wade c) Didn’t understand the role of the VP in government d) blatantly lied about her record in her first appearance (bridge to nowhere, earmarks, etc) e) slinged more mud without reservation or conscience and lied with a smile f) didn’t do one appearance on any tough shows like Meet the Press g) and now blames everyone else in the campaign, Katie Couric, and Charles Gibson instead of her own failures. This has nothing to do with her being a regular person.

            For the last time, this is not socialism. As GO pointed out, many countries in Europe would be considered socialist then, and it would be completed “elitist” for Americans these programs wrong because of their own partisan lenses.

          • J says:

            You say that all increases in government spending is socialism. When you spend more on the military, you are increasing government spending. When you spend more on education in impoverished areas, you are increasing government spending. When you make new laws for the energy, you are increasing government spending. Increasing government spending is a necessary part of government. It’s not socialism.

            Socialism is not a term to be used lightly. It shouldn’t be a blanket term used to described increasing government spending. We need to be careful about the words we use.

            • J,

              Socialism is the right word. This is directly from the bill:

              $600 million to address shortages and prepare our country for universal healthcare

              “Universal healthcare” is Socialized heathcare. I know you are afraid of the word “Socialism”, but that is exactly the direction this bill leads.

              Again, the point of my “ideological blinders” comment, you immediately think this must be great because Obama proposed it. Look at how the bill is actually structured. This fundamentally is not economic stimulus. Only 20% of the spending occurs in year 1.

              • J says:

                For the last time, your data is incorrect there is nothing to suggest that it will only come out with 20% this year. So stop citing faulty data. The number is around 70% currently. Secondly, get off your high horse and stop acting like you don’t think in terms of ideology. You call universal healthcare socialism because your ideology. You can think whatever you want but don’t make up this crap about ideological binders.

                It’s not socialism. There has been real socialism in the world, but this is not it. Socialism is the loss of private property, the loss of freedom itself. This so far from it. Every other major industrialized power has universal healthcare. But they still have private property.

                Secondly, you imply in your original post that all increases in government spending is socialism, which is just not true. Because the Government has been increasing spending since Reagan, and even before that.

                There would be merit to the GOP’s argument if the GOP didn’t yell socialist every time the government increases spending. Because that shows real ideological binders.

              • Alaina Segovia says:

                Increasing spending and taking control of an industry are two completely seperate things. We scream socialist when they try to take over an industry.

      • J says:

        Ideology is why you have an opinion and I have an opinion. Neither us can simply take it off because that is our core beliefs. The problem with your statements is that they presume that you don’t have ideological binders on, while your claims of socialism and constant attacks at the left prove that they are.

        Sarah Palin might be a regular person, but she wasn’t ready to be VP, and she isn’t ready to be President.

    • Fabs says:

      Increasing government spending during a recession is indeed a basic principle of Keynesian economics. But the problem with ALL economic theories is that they don’t actually reflect the real world (capitalism included).

      Given the right set of circumstances Obama’s package might not be such a bad thing. But we do NOT have those circumstances. We have a huge national debt that the amount we’re paying in interest to other countries is becoming a concern just by itself. Let’s just add to it!!! We have entitlement programs that we’ve known for the last 20-30 years HAVE to be addressed or they’ll kill our economy all on their own in the not-too-distant future but everyone keeps passing the buck on those. Guess they can just keep on waiting, and we can add more to it in the forms of health care, etc. just because we can.

      All this spending to fix things today just keeps ruining things for tomorrow. Let people feel the pain now because the pain down the road is going to be a lot worse at the rate things are going. Sure it’s hard to lose our jobs and watch companies go under but it’s a lot better than some of the other options we’re setting up for ourselves.

      I’m ready to by my own island and declare sovereign independence just to get away from the inevitable that Obama’s just making worse, not better. That’s hope and change I can believe in!

      • The point is this package will never “work” to stimulate the economy in any situation because it is not a stimulus. This is a long-term government expansion initiative.

        • Fabs says:

          And I won’t argue. I’m not as familiar with the details of it as a lot of the rest of you are so I’m not going into that side of it. Just the very existance of it isn’t a good thing in my opinion even if it did actually stimulate something.

Leave a Reply