Obama Lectures On Fiscal Responsibility Then Spends Too Much
by Big Dog on Feb 4, 2010 at 10:02 Political
Barack Obama ticked off the people of Las Vegas for a second time when he said that people could not just go to Vegas and blow a bunch of money. Of course, the money is yours (though he might see it differently) and what you do with it is your business. But, if you are blowing your money in Vegas or anywhere else you should not be looking for a government handout. Obama’s latest economic advice is:
“When times are tough, you tighten your belts.”
“You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage….”
“You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.” Charlie Foxtrot
I do not disagree with any of that but if you decide not to tighten your belt, to buy a boat or to blow your money in Vegas it is your business. Just don’t ask the taxpayer to pay for your lack of fiscal prudence.
The hilarity of all this is that Obama, while admonishing people and extolling the virtues of fiscal responsibility, submitted a budget that increases spending by 36% and runs a huge deficit.
Obama doubled the deficit in his first year (Dick Morris explains how it is not all Bush’s fault) and will increase the deficit by even more with his out of control spending.
In other words Mr. Obama, you can’t spend money you don’t have if you really want to decrease the deficit.
It is amazing that Obama had the nerve to dispense economic advice while doing the opposite of what he preached.
My wife and I have a balanced household budget. We spend less than we make and put the rest into savings and retirement. This was not always the case as I can remember the days when I made $600 a month as a private in the Army while trying to support my family. There were plenty of months where we had three days of food and five days until payday.
We did without and were prudent with our money and now we are in positions where we earn enough to pay our bills and save. We did this by doing without. We lived (and continue to live) within our means.
Barack Obama should try running his budget the way we run ours and the government would be better off. Do without the things that are not necessary. Cut programs (particularly redundant ones) and spend less.
But then again it is always easier to spend when it is someone else’s money.
As long as we taxpayers allow those in government to extort money from us they will continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.
And if they keep it up there will be no tomorrow.
Others:
Did We Just Get Lectured on Fiscal Responsibility By the Guy With the $1.6 Trillion Budget Deficit? [Hot Air]
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: economy, hypocrite, Obama, spending, vegas
If you want to compare the Fed Government to a family budget it takes some thinking. See, the economy is much, much more complex than you’re making it out to be, but we can play around a bit with the idea.
Say for instance your roof in your home springs a leak and it floods your attic and your upstairs bedrooms. You can’t afford the repairs on your income. This is a disaster for you and your family and you’ve got some tough choices ahead.
See, you did well at your job in the late 90’s but you lost that job in the early 2000’s and you fell behind on a bunch of bills because of it. You spent the next few years getting back to work and getting ahead, even saving a little money. As soon as you got a little bit ahead though down comes the water all over your nice home.
So you’re faced with a few options here. You can let it fix itself. Yes, the rain will stop itself in time and the water will even dry up a little inside the house. But what if the rain gets worse before it gets better? You don’t want to go into debt or spend beyond your means but you really like your house. And besides that, is it really good to tell your family let’s just wait this out, the storm will pass, the water will dry. Is that even healthy?
So what is the responsible thing to do here? Well, you’re going to need to get a bank loan perhaps. You don’t want the debt but the alternative is worse, right? So you get that loan.
The first thing you do is fix the hole in the roof. Now there’s no more water coming in and things are starting to dry up a little inside. That’s not good enough though is it? It’s going to take some effort to speed that up a little. You’re left with some choices still.
The roof is fixed so you could give back the remainder of the loan. The house will dry itself, after all, it just may take a little longer You can replace that furnature in time, who needs to sit up there anyway? Your family will be tougher for making it through without assistance from the bank, right? You know better though in reality.
You’ve set aside some of the money for replacement. You want to replace some of the furniture with newer, better stuff. Call it an investment in the future of your family. At least if you’re going to buy new stuff you can get a few of the things you’ve been wanting for a while within reason.
So now you’re left with a fixed roof, a clean house, but a more debt than you like. The crisis is averted but the after affects are still there and will be for some time. Now you can start to tighten that belt a little. Maybe you don’t need that tofu. You can just eat some carrots instead. Maybe you don’t need to buy that Michael Moore DVD or buy that copy of Barack Obama’s new book. You can rent it at the store or check it out from the library. You make adjustments, you get ahead again, and you hope that the roof won’t leak again for some time.
Of course this hypothetical is wrong in that it involves spending when one should not. If the roof is broken then take out a loan and fix it and then pay it back. If you lose one job take any job and more than one if you need to, to pay the bills.
The government has not cut non essentials and continues to spend.
In your scenario no one in his right mind would keep spending at unsustainable levels thinking it would get them out of debt.
Only a moron thinks you spend more money to get out of debt.
“The government has not cut non essentials and continues to spend.”
I guess it depends on what you define as non-essential.
“In your scenario no one in his right mind would keep spending at unsustainable levels thinking it would get them out of debt.”
It’s not about spending to get out of debt. It’s about fixing problems and limiting damage in order to be able to eventually sustain growth that will get you out of debt. You wouldn’t fix the hole in the roof in order to dry up the water. You’re fixing it so the problem doesn’t get worse and the work to dry up the water isn’t done in vain.
The only crisis was the roof. The other stuff was not a crisis and it gave you more debt. Use the old furnature and keep the old stuff and you can save for the future.
The federal budget is just like the people in your example, let’s spend now for unnecessary things and we will worry about paying for it later. The difference is that people in your example can lose their home if they can’t pay their bills and they can’t go force others to pay the bills for them. The government can put a gun in our faces and take more of our money.
They cannot handle money. They have blown trillions of dollars that was supposed to be put aside for Social Security and now have no way to pay benefits without borrowing the money. That is irresponsible.
The people in my example know that it’s not healthy to leave the wet furniture and rugs and carpet in there. It’s not safe just to let it dry itself and then someday when you can afford it you’ll buy new stuff. But the people living there sure do get a lot of advice from folks who didn’t get water in their house.
The hilarious part of all of what Owe-bama says, is the sheer hypocrisy of it all- he still reflexively blames Bush, when it took Bush 8 years to spend what Owe-bama has done in one, and THEN he has the balls to try and lecture us?
Another facet of all this is his lying “spending freeze”- Hah! What he and his running dog lackeys have done is jack up discretionary spending to over 20%- well above normal- and then he is going to “freeze” it there? What a moron. He really believes all the nation is stupid and if he keeps yapping on and on, we will be lulled to sleep.
Nothing could be further from the truth-
It is time that the honored treatment of scoundrels made a comeback- getting ridden out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.
“…it took Bush 8 years to spend what Owe-bama has done in one…”
How do you arrive at a figure like that?
You replace what you have to and pay it back. You act as if I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I got paid less than your government grants for college and we had debt. We paid our debt, did without and saved.
The government can do it.
And the only thing that is an emergency is what government trumps up as an emergency or ones they have actually caused like the Social Security deficit.
“You act as if I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth.”
No, I don’t discount you’ve worked hard and sacrificed for yourself and your family over the years. I just think you look back on your life and believe you were 100% successful all on your own merits and hard work alone and believe every single American can achieve that too. Neither one of those cases is correct. It’s just not the reality of the country we live in.
“I got paid less than your government grants for college…”
How much is that?
I was successful on my own. I have never received any government funds for my education or anything else. I worked for what I have and I paid for it.
You still haven’t addressed this:
“I got paid less than your government grants for college…”
How much is that?
You could figure it out if you read the piece.
How much do you think I got from government grants? That’s my question.
Just for the record, when I attended college Pell Grants were frozen at a max of $4000 a year or so. I averaged about $2600 a year over my time in school. I really have no clue why you say things like “I got paid less than your government grants for college” when you know it’s not true.
Well 2600 times 4 years is 10,400. 600 times 12 months is 7200.
It is true that my annual salary was less than you got paid in government grants, you know grant as in given away as opposed to salary which requires work (and hard work in the Army) to get it.
So about know what is and is not true…
Since $2600 (actually $2640) is just the average the real figure is $13,200 in my 5 years of school. Yes, my grant was giving me $220 a month technically but it was a once a twice a year lump sum of 50% of the yearly amount. My grants paid for exactly 33% of my total education fees. The rest came from student loans cash working while in school.
I do find it funny that you’re looking down on me for taking a $220 a month pell grant to educate myself and contribute to society. I guess I’m just 77% self-made, not 100% like you are.
Bigd then: “I got paid less than your government grants for college and we had debt.”
Bigd now: “It is true that my annual salary was less than you got paid in government grants,…”
DAR
Holy moving the goal posts Batman!
Do you suck at:
a) math
b) English comprehension
c) honesty
How could this not be “c”?
Since $2,600 is less than $7,200, your first claim is false (and you know it). Stuck, your second claim, blatantly, shamelessly moves the goal posts, stacks the deck, to compare four years to one, and is a completely different claim.
D.
There was no way he could be correct even with today’s level of Pell Grants. This must be some Karl Rove numbers.
The claim was that I got paid less and no time frame was given. There was a reason for that. I am absolutely correct given the way it was stated.
And I worked fo rthat money while someone gave Adam it so he could get educated.
I do not suck at math, you suck at comprehension.
Bigd: “The claim was that I got paid less and no time frame was given.”>>
DAR
In no sense is the claim in question true unless you stack the deck and invent an uneven timeline:
“I got paid less than your government grants for college…”
You got paid more unless you compare four years to one, then you got paid less. And this kind of blatant, ridiculous trick is useful how?
You could always compare minutes to years and make it even look better. Is this how republicans do their budgets? Why yes, I think it is.
I don’t look down on you Adam. I admire the fact that you went to school and go an education and have applied it by getting a job.
The point is that some people make very little money and manage to make ends meet by living within their means, something you seem to think is not possible.
“The claim was that I got paid less and no time frame was given. There was a reason for that. I am absolutely correct given the way it was stated.”
Yes, and this week was the coldest ever on record over some imaginary and unspecified time frame which shifts however I need it to in order to pretend I’m right and you’re wrong.
“The point is that some people make very little money and manage to make ends meet by living within their means, something you seem to think is not possible.”
I know about trying to make ends meet. The problem is you pretend the federal government is a simple as a family budget and I thank God you’re not in charge of things with that mentality.
There was no way he could be correct even with today’s level of Pell Grants. This must be some Karl Rove numbers.
Or Obama jobs saved/created/stimulus helped numbers…
Now there is some fuzzy math.
Except that Obama bases his numbers on the advice of experts like the CBO. Rove gets his straight out of his ass. How you can’t tell the difference is a mystery to me.
Oh sure, experts at the CBO. Obama is the only person to do this even though the law requires it. CBO has NEVER been correct because they are only given what the Congress wants scored. COngress leaves things out to get the numbers they want.
You are, unfortunately, unable to see this or accept this even though it is absolutely correct.
If I ran the budget then it would be balanced.
It is not as simple as a family budget because in a family budget family members do not keep adding pork and they do not expect others to pay for it. Family budgets would be really bad if we added pork and spent someone else’s money.
In Congress they are not spending their money, they are spending the money of the taxpayer. They add pork and they keep spending because they do not care. It is not their money.
You complain about the wars and other things but you think it was great that Obama signed legislation with more than 10,000 items of pork in them.
I would veto all of them.
“You are, unfortunately, unable to see this or accept this even though it is absolutely correct.”
When I cite CBO reports they contain sometimes pages of sources and info on how they arrive at their results. It has nothing to do with what Congress gives or doesn’t give them. You have just made that up completely and you know it.
Bigd: “CBO has NEVER been correct because they are only given what the Congress wants scored.”>
DAR
No, this is a terrible distortion you love to repeat. The actual reason, with regard to the budget, is given on their FAQ page:
“How accurate are CBO’s budget projections?
By statute, CBO’s baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO’s baseline projections.”
This makes perfect sense.
Bigd: COngress leaves things out to get the numbers they want.”>>
DAR
Complete rubbish. The CBO has to do it’s calculations based upon the law in question.
And regarding their economic forecasting accuracy, they have:
“How accurate are CBO’s economic forecasts?
CBO regularly evaluates the accuracy of its economic forecasts and publishes the track record. Those evaluations help guide the agency’s efforts to improve its forecasts and help Members of Congress and others in their use of CBO’s estimates. Historically, the accuracy of CBO’s two-year forecasts and five-year projections has been very similar to the accuracy of those by the Blue Chip consensus (an average of private-sector forecasters) and the Administration.”
–ibid
D.
The CBO can ONLY score what they are given. That is the law.
I did not make it up. Learn what you are talking about.
So when the CBO says millions of jobs have been created by the stimulus what has been left out?
Bigd: “The CBO can ONLY score what they are given. That is the law.”>>
DAR
Where on earth did you get this (quite ridiculous) idea (distortion) from?
D.
————-
“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government. It is a government agency that provides economic data to Congress.[1] The CBO was created as an independent nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.”
Predatory Lending is a major contributor to the economic turmoil we are currently experiencing.
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Scott Veerkamp / Predatory Lending (Franklin Township School Board Member.)
Please review this information from U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley regarding deceptive lending practices:
“Steering payments were made to brokers who enticed unsuspecting homeowners into deceptive and expensive mortgages. These secret bonus payments, often called Yield Spread Premiums, turned home mortgages into a SCAM.”
The Center for Responsible Lending says YSP “steals equity from struggling families.”
1. Scott collected nearly $10,000 on two separate mortgages using YSP and junk fees. 2. This is an average of $5,000 per loan. 3. The median value of the properties was $135,000. 4. Clearly, this type of lending represents a major ripoff for consumers.
http://merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=A09C6A80-537A-4EB1-83C5-31925F046B6F
It was comparing earnings to non earnings, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
Adam told me that I knew it was true I made it with some kind of help. I merely pointed out that I did not.
If you want to be fair though, divide the work year into the actual time in school the grant paid for. Use the actual hours and extrapolate to a whole year.
I got it from the former head of the CBO. He explained the process on a local radio program.