Thursday, February 26, 2009

White House Releases $3.55 Trillion FY2010 budget

Pres. Obama unveiled his $3.55 trillion budget for the fiscal year 2010. There were several news briefings in response to the budget release including, OMB Dir. Peter Orszag, and reaction by the Chairman and ranking members of the Budget committees.

I'm impressed.
Whatever reactions to markets and overall to the rest of us, I think will be positive. Once you chew on it a little and swallow.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are kidding ,,,Right?

12:39 AM  
Blogger madtom said...

Well I was referring with respect to process, not the details. You know the details, whatever they may turn out to be, need to be hashed out over the next year in committee, and through reports and such. That should provide a reasonable debate over a more reliable domain of issues. I think it much better than what we have been doing to far, of budgeting by sniper fire.

1:11 AM  
Blogger madtom said...

Did you watch the presentation?

1:20 AM  
Blogger B Will Derd said...

(I wasn't the Anonymous, by the way, but I will add to his remark)

If you aren't kidding, MT, then you need to seek medical attention. Watch the presentation? First, this is the budget-- there will be no more debate once it's signed. That money is SPENT! They spent more time in open debate on banning the ownership of FUCKING CHIMPS last week. What is being done is the definition of insane. There isn't enough money to be borrowed to cover this budget and existing obligations and trillions will have to be printed and injected into a system that is already overloaded. And even with the enormous projected shortfalls, they are assuming growth of 6% in the next two years? They have turned a cyclical event into a likely nation ending bankruptcy. When you look at all the obligations coming due over the next 10 years added to this monstrosity of bailout budget, there is NO POSSIBLE way they can be paid without hyperinflation of currency. Here's your social security check of $1200 and a coupon that will buy you a loaf of government bread and wheel of Obama cheese. It is stunningly stupid and we are going along like sheep to the fucking slaughter. Time to start thinking about who the new founding fathers are going to be cuz this little experiment is in the throes of failure and we are now in the denial phase of mourning. This is going beyond proven failed economic policies that turned a Depression into a Great Depression. What will we call this era, the Greater Depression? This sounds over the top, but it is a far more likely result than those projections.

8:36 AM  
Blogger madtom said...

But come on, would it really be better to throw the appropriations with most of the exact same cost off the books, waiting for an emergence spending bill, or the omnibus at the end of the year? Instead of piling it all in up front, and at least getting a look at what it looks like all sitting together. Please none of Bushes budgets were a penny smaller? He piled trillions off the books, but it was just slight of hand accounting. now I suck at accounting, I can hardly balance a checkbook.
But please...

Now I would agree that we should cut spending, but really when was the last time that actually ever happened?

9:04 AM  
Blogger B Will Derd said...

Bush's budgets were TRILLIONS smaller, MT. TRILLIONS! Off the books or on, he has added trillions in appropriations and the interest accruing to increased spending. And he isn't done with spending as we will see in the next month. Did you listen to that feel good lie fest address? I literally was speechless and unable to process the audacity of 'hope' in the form of smoke up our collective asses. The man is either blindingly ignorantly gifted, or he has evil intent and blindingly gifted.
Bush never assumed more than 3% increase in GDP even when we had a growing economy. This 'budget' assumes 6% annual increases, but the last QUARTER SHRUNK over 6%! Think on that a minute. If a miracle happens and the economy stabilizes at zero, (and no one thinks it will) he is already off 6%. If it slows and shrinks only 6% this year instead of quarter he is off by only 12%-- trillions more. He says savings will come by removing troops. Well, it will cost more to remove them that it does to keep them there--- wait for the emergency appropriation to 'bring home the troops'. He will 'cut the deficit' by raising taxes on the rich, which always has a negative effect of GDP, but he could take every fucking dime of the top 25% of earners and STILL not pay for his deficit BEFORE he adds his health care revolution to the pot. He has managed to stun all of us in a month and all we can do is stumble around and express hope and support for the pretty man in the White House (and aren't we good people for electing a Black Man? How can such good people fail?) If you aren't preparing for the worst, you are a fool. I hope it doesn't come, but I think it is more likely than not and every day of Obama rule is increasing the probability of the worst. I have never been this way and laughed at doomsayers who were, but I can think and haven't heard anyone with sense explain how all is going to be OK without squirming in the shoes. Rant over, I have a shelter to dig and booby traps to rig.

9:28 AM  
Blogger madtom said...

Bush added like 6 trillion to the debt, what are you talking about?? I did see the slight of hand with savings from troop withdrawals that I don't think anyone believes, but again that is the accounting on what might or might not happen 10 years out.
I have to ask you, do you think it will be easier to sell all this to the 41 Senators packaged in an all inclusive budget, or do you think it might be easier to sell them a smaller package and then hit them with emergence after emergency.

Seems to me that we have a better chance of reaching a more credible deal like this. Maybe making your booby trapped shelter obsolete

9:57 AM  
Blogger madtom said...

You know I had the strangest experience yesterday.
This guy walks in the door, clean cut, in a suit, carrying a box in his hand. I though he was selling insurance...but then he starts, very polite, with his story, lost job, elderly mom, with needs, I wasn't paying much attention, but it was a hard luck story asking for money, I I walk away to attend to something and then as I coming back he had finished his pitch to the other guys and was walking out when he sees me and opened the box to show me. Turns out he wasn't asking for money, but trying to sell candy bars, two for a dollar...the guy was trying to make it to the end of the day...I gave him a dollar, but didn't take a candy...I still haven't been able to decide, if I help out a guy down on his luck, or have I been successfully coned out of my dollar...

10:52 AM  
Blogger B Will Derd said...

We are being conned out of a hell of a lot more than dollars, my friend. Principles and ideals are finally taking the first train to anywhere but here. It isn't O and it wasn't Bush. Common sense,competence, ethics and morals are AWOL and have been for some time. All we are trying to do now is subsidize more of the same.

What deal? He did nothing to decrease bush's spending, he increased it by 7 or 8 TRILLION dollars when you factor in interest over 10 years-- and that is assuming you can sell bonds at the same rate as Bush did and assume growth that EXCEEDS the record growth of the Bush years, and that isn't even possibly going to be true. Bush could at least semi-plausibly project an increase in revenues because he was experiencing an unprecedented growth in the GDP, but O is starting with a disastrous projected annual 24% DECLINE at current rates. No one wants to say that. Have you noticed how no one is projecting annual declines based on quarterly rates anymore? That use to be the way it was reported, but it's too damn scary to do that now. His plan? Throw money we don't have and tax the only people who still have money to spend! If that manages to do what such actions have NEVER done and the economy miraculously returns to mid 2007 levels, you still have a record deficit as a percent of the GDP. I have not read or heard anyone present a logical, common sense explanation of how this 'heroic effort' is going to maintain, much less return us to where we were, and where we were was avoiding the inevitable coming bankruptcy. It doesn't add up unless you assume double digit inflation, and that will mean zero real improvement to a declining quality of life, but it will make the books look better. It's Roosevelt all over again and we can chalk it up to myth accepted as history. What will we call it? The Republican Bush Greatest Depression, probably.

11:27 AM  
Blogger madtom said...

But come-on Will, The only saving light in the Bush numbers, were housing. HOUSING!!!!!!! do you still think they were real gains? We have been in this recession for the last 12 years, we just did not know it, and Rush was telling us it was not true. But it was all smoke and mirrors. Just think back to the Anderson accounting scandal...It turns out the books at Wall street were rigged, and it's not till now that we find out by just how much...You think the last administration didn't know? or they tried to cover it up for as long as possible trying to hand off the troubles to the next guy?

Again I am sure that the details of this budget would make me puke, but at least we have it on the table, and at least it will informed the debate. I think it will have a positive effect, to the extent that's possible in this climate.

Somehow I do not think Obama will get everything he wants including many of the taxes, or all that spending.

11:59 AM  
Blogger B Will Derd said...

I wasn't defending bush. It was a scam, whether intentional or naive. I've always thought Bush was incredibly naive about most things, Iraq included. You know I favored turning the place into a Hell as quickly as possible, then offering a hand out only when the majority extended one out of desperation. The most compassionate thing is usually to do nothing until the losers realize why they lost and are looking to change. Yes, Bush was naive, but compared to the alternatives that were offered? c'mon...gore? Kerry? You think they would have done anything about the failed system borne of government interference in the most basic of economic functions, like saving for and buying an affordable home? Give me a break...

An economy largely built on credit based upon artificially boosted housing demand--in some areas. CA and FLA being the worst offenders. There wasn't a lot of innovation in the 90's to account for the numbers. I knew that years ago, but had no idea what the ramifications were. I don't get paid to be that smart mistakenly thought the Ivy League Masters of the Universe must have had it under control.

I used to watch those house flipping programs where incompetent wanna be home renovators were making a hundred thousand and more by selling crackerbox homes with lipstick to people who clearly couldn't afford a 750,00 mortgage in any system that remotely made sense. But in an era where the government was dedicated to promoting homes for everyone in the name of equality (pandering and the boosted numbers that made their economy look so good and fed itself to maintain), that's what we got. I saw the ads for no principle loans for 105% of value and 2% first year interest rates. I knew that couldn't last, but I had no idea it wasn't taking place just in some neighborhoods but how entire states were operating that way. That wasn't all of it, but it was the biggest symptom of a failed society that values image and political correctness above reality. You know that the phony, glitzy 'progressive' areas of the country, like LA and Miami as for instances, are the worst hit and at the heart of the collapse? You think their failures are related to the same basic flaws? Lack of character, basic principles and true innovation aren't nearly as important as looking good and having all the latest 'stuff'. All O is doing is delaying the inevitable and delaying the time it will take to recover. Just as Roosevelt did. It's like he read the book on how Roosevelt turned a recession into Depression and is doing the same things, only faster. The gudget just passed is the one congress wouldn't pass last year out of fear of veto, remember? O man says no earmarks... next year, because they are so reckless and unethical. You do know that senator O has several millions of his own earmarks in the budget he was praising before god and everybody? His name was on them until yesterday. The amended version still has the same earmarks for Ill, but his name is no longer attached. Yes, it is a new era of accountability and transparency in Washington, all praise O's name!

Sorry to rant, I didn't realize how pissed off I was until you got me going. thanks. And now I'm listening to O praise the soldiers for the effort he denied and would have abandoned--- fuck him. Too early to drink. The least he could do is legalize weed so I can get my buzz on.

1:12 PM  
Blogger madtom said...

You I ask myself all the time, do they have any idea what they are doing? Bush spent 6 trillion and the economy burned to the ground. It really makes no difference if his tax cuts went to the wealthy, because they have lost it now. But the thing is, if we just pumped that much and it did not work, how is it that they think pumping more will help?

I have no idea, the only little bit of light is that watching the speech this morning Obama seems to have understood the gains in Iraq and said so..I'll need the transcript because you have to unspin is words to see it. So at least he seems to have internalized something. But what a fucking asshole, "I have decided to end the war in August". He did not end the war, in August or otherwise, the war ended at the end of last February 08, and Obama had nothing to do with it, and would have prevented it if he'd had his way...ass hole.

7:26 PM  
Blogger madtom said...

Gingrich must read here, or like other intelligent people they just happen to agree with me, for their own reasons.

9:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home