Obama's Economic Plan is Unworkable
Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters.
Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Sixty-billion dollars would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.
"This agenda is paid for," Obama said as the Republican National Committee promoted an "Obama Spend-O-Meter" online to track his proposals and portray him as a tax-and-spend liberal. Obama explained that the money for his spending proposals will come from ending the Iraq war, cutting tax breaks for corporations, taxing carbon pollution and raising taxes on high income earners.
I would love to tell everyone that this is possible; that the US has the money to spend and that we can use major federal initiatives to minimize the impact to the housing mess.
But we don't.
And this is not a problem only faced by Obama -- it's faced by every major candidate. After 7 years of Republican dominated politics the US just doesn't have the money to spend. The damage has already been done.
Let's start with the fiscal history of the last 7 years. This information is from the Treasury Department and it shows the total federal debt outstanding at the end of the federal government's fiscal year.
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
Currently, the total debt outstanding is $9,250,932,577,938.04.
To put that in perspective, debt as a percentage of GDP has increased from 57.29% in 2001 to 64.47% in 2007. That's a solid and steady increase.
Now -- the Republicans have created a meter on their website to track the increases in government spending. You guys ran the government for 6 years. You had complete control. YOU GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SHUT THE HELL UP.
And no -- this is not some ephemeral concept that means nothing the real world. Take a look at a chart of the US dollar:
The dollar has been dropping for the better part of the last 6 years. Over the last few years we've seen competition from the euro start to knock the dollar out of it once dominate reserve status -- which has helped to continue the dollar's downward spiral. If we don't start seriously dealing with the deficit soon, we can expect further declines in the dollar which will seriously hurt us in the long run.
No candidate will run on a cleaning up the deficit platform. It's not an economic winner -- especially during a period of economic problems. In addition, the way to clean-up the mess -- raising taxes and asking people who benefited from the last 7 years to now pay their fair share of that growth -- is a politically dicey proposition at best. So what is actually in the interest of the country in the long-run just isn't going to work politically.
And some of Obama's plan is really good -- especially the green-collar jobs idea. That makes great sense, especially in the long-run.
But the money just ain't there.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is not politically correct to say so but the money spent in Irak comes right back into the US economy. The contracts are dolled out to American companies who hire American employees and pay dividends to American stockholders.
This is not a motion of support for the war. I just think it is fantasy to believe that we can somehow switch "save" the money spent on the war to reduce the deficit.
Most of the logistics operations supporting the war hire foreign workers for the oh-so-obvious reasons where possible: They're cheaper, don't require benefits, and U.S. labor laws don't necessarily apply.
Especially when you're running a shell that subcontracts the actual work out.
Yeah right on. Like Iraqi "policeman".
Mr. Stewart, you said: "But the money just ain't there." Geez what do you mean the money just ain't there. If it isn't there and if they can't get it then we are pretty much "f...ed!" and should just lay down and die. The government has always been good at finding money that "just ain't there" why should Obama's administration be any different. If the money isn't there, how can Hillary or anyone else for that matter make their economic plans work?
Personally, I think the Bush administration and Congress should all be brought up on charges of negligence for not looking forward to what they have done to the American public. Unfornately, how would you do that.
What you said.
Hale; The only way to create wealth and reduce the defecit in America is to manufacture. Sadly, Americans will never learn this valuable lesson and we will continue on this downward death spiral...
"But the money just ain't there."
Campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle to Hillary Clinton , on the Day after Super Tuesday.
Hmmm. No offense its suspect when the first sentence is "I would love to tell everyone that this is possible" but can't do sad. ouch.
What you leave out is, when is the money EVER there? and that this plan ONCE TWEAKED will end up having to PASS CONGRESS, and I'm sure once it does. ITS GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT. Now sir,fFor example, say the plan worked, and NEVER PASSED CONGRESS, what good what that have been. Look at the tweaking the "Bush's economic stimulus package when through"
However, you mentioned the most important thing "And some of Obama's plan is really good -- especially the green-collar jobs idea" Meaning the thinking, the foundation is there. That is all that matters.
Instead of singling out one plan as UNWORKABLE - NO WAY - CAN HAPPEN - WON'T HAPPEN- WE CAN'T DO IT.
why didn't you present all three Presidential frontrunner's plans and compare them Solution by Solution.
"No candidate will run on a cleaning up the deficit platform." But isn't that the vagueness that Hillary is running on "Cleaning up a Bush - I'm suspecting this is too the deficit?"
Hale,
You've just thrown a hand grenade into a room full of Obama supporters. While I concur with you heartfelt expression, to do so at this site, in this environment, indicates you may be endowed with a real set of man-berries.
G.O.P.
Anyone who says the US can't afford $21 billion a year for the environment is insane. First, we can't hope to maintain, let alone grow, our economy without a healthy environment. Second, the money could be found without either new taxes or deficit spending if we just stop flushing money down the toilet in Iraq.
I'm glad to see a little skepticism toward the Dems-who-w
It always amazes me that Dems can argue that Iraq is WAY too costly, and is bankrupting the country, and then turn around and say "I'm going to use the Iraq money for new spending."
-boggle-
Well, gee, if spending XYZ billion in Iraq is bankrupting us, then spending the same amount here will ALSO bankrupt us. It's like the libs turned their brain off.
When Bush promised to cut the budget deficit in half in 4 years without raising taxes, Dems called him irresponsible, and a drunken sailor. And, of course, John Kerry showed us what a responsible fiscal plan should look like... by promising to cut the deficit in half in four years after raising taxes.
-boggle-
We spend money in Iraq because it's necessary. We go into more debt because it's necessary. But when we pull out of Iraq, we shouldn't just go on spending like we're still at war long after the war has ended.
"We spend money in Iraq because it's necessary.
Wouldn't you agree, then, that since Iraq is "necessary", "protecting the American way of life" yields the greatest benefit to those with the most to lose?
That is, the more money that you have, the more you are benefiting by the deaths of our service people and our expenditures on this war?
Or from the opposite point of view, the less that you have the less you are benefiting by having your children's future bankrupted?
In short, wouldn't you agree that those receiving the most benefit should be taxed accordingly to make up for our deaths and our expenditures?
Yeah the thing is, money spent on bombs that are used to decorate the middle east is gone forever.
Money spent on developing infrastructure and business actually continues to help the economy after its been used.
One little kicker:
All of those corporate and individual tax cuts are not being reinvested in America - they're going directly offshore where profit margins are higher due to lower labor costs and the lack of environmental regulations.
That is part of the big lie that "trickle down" represents; if the wealthy and the corporations actually DO spend any tax savings, they rarely spend it here.
In short, those bombs actually are a better economic investment in America than those tax cuts were: At least we still manufacture our own bombs here with American workers.
Because spending money on swords is just as good for the nation as spending on ploughshares.
With all due respect Mr. Stewart, the Obama cultists don't want to hear about the details. They just want to follow the leader who speaks well and says nothing. Please, only the rhetoric, not the facts.
I have an idea: Let us start billing people for their use of our nation's infrastructure (our roads, our air traffic system, our national defense) based upon the value that they actually receive for its use.
If you are an employee and your income is $100K a year, then obviously you have only received - at a maximum - $100K in benefits for the use of our infrastructure.
If you are an executive who gets bonuses, a business owner, or a stockholder and receive $100,000K a year in income (salaries, stock options, and dividends), then obviously you have received $100,000K in benefits - some directly as you drive to work or board meetings or whatever (for instance), and some indirectly as our infrastructure enabled your direct employees or the employees of the corporations whose stocks you hold to drive to work (for instance) to make you more profits.
On the surface, this would seem to be a very Republican idea - actually holding people accountable for their direct and indirect use of our infrastructure.
But in actuality Republicans are evolution's highest form of parasite - they want you to forget about HOW their money is actually generated, and just focus on their individual use of our infrastructure.
Okay, so the money isn't there. Still, I'd rather have the guy who came up with these ideas in the white house than the guys who have made it so that the money isn't there to accomplish it.
The money won't be there for anything good until we stop pissing it away in Iraq. That's why we need to elect a democrat. And Obama is the democrat with the best chance to beat McCain. That is one of the many reasons he needs to be nominated.
good Seth..that goes double for me
"The money won't be there for anything good until we stop pissing it away in Iraq."
The Iraq money is going on the credit card. The Iraq money wasn't ours to begin with.
You are suggesting that instead of raising taxes, we just go on running up the credit card because that's what has been done in Iraq.
A dollar borrowed and spent here will bankrupt us just as fast as a dollar borrowed and spent over there will.
The truth is that both parties have no compunctions about looting the taxpayer and flushing our future down the toilet, as long as they can stroke their own ego and operate the levers of power.
Mr. Stewart is one of the best people on the Huffington Post. I was in a knock down fight with my sister and brother-in=law yesterday because they believe that if Senator Obama is elected, everything will be just fine. The senator may be very bright and I like him as a person and believe he is the most honest politician to get this far toward being president, in decades. But, I am afraid that the amount of fraud perpetrated on the U.S. economy by the bushlivikes will cause great pain for millions of Americans for many, many generations. America has been "Enroned" by the bushlivickes as all the wealth in our society has been transfered from the real productive people," the workers" to those that add nothing to society "the owners". Most owners of capital inherit their money or get it through a means that lacks scrupples (dealing drugs, child porn and fraud).
You and Hale Stewart are probably right. The ugly truth is that there is no maney to freeze ARM(s) and foreclosures as Hillary would either.
It's a shite situation, but even if we couldn't come up with the entire $210 billion, we still need to scrape every penny we can to fix our infrastructure and invest in green technology.
I agree with both you and Stewart that our nation is now facing grave perils.
That means it is now more important than ever to elect a president who can help us work together as a nation to meet the challenges and perils we face. Based on his experience and proven track record of getting diverse groups to work together for their common good, I think Barack Obama is the best person for that job.
What solution are you suggesting?
There was a recent NPR radio bradcast discussing Ben Franklin's homely maxims on thrift and finances. The most striking part of the program was a caller who phoned disagreeing with ALL advice on thrift. His advice wasn't that we should spend-spend-spend to 'support the economy'. His point was the opposite, That the economic ship is fatally crippled and is going down fast, that we're already beyond all hope, and if you don't buy your big screen TVs NOW your money will soon be worth zero and all your saving would've been for nothing. The host GASPED at the caller's 'nihilist' economic forecast. Though the caller's point was quickly passed over you could feel a black cloud descend over the remainder of the show. The caller had stuck is finger into an open wound and struck a nerve.
Of course the caller could have suggested something economically responsible like shifting your savings into another currency rather than pissing it away.
Obama '08
Holy cow Mr. Hale! Say it aint so!
This is one more example of Obama getting a free pass. I think he could say or propose anything and the Obamaniacs would swoon.
That he would even suggest such an unworkable plan show's he either knows he can say anything and get away with it or more likely, he is just not very much in touch with the numbers.
But still, the masses yell "Obama!"
Hillary '08
Free pass? Free pass? The headline screams "Obama's Economic Plan is Unworkable" yet the fine print admits:
~~~~~~~~~~
No candidate will run on a cleaning up the deficit platform. It's not an economic winner -- especially during a period of economic problems.
~~~~~~~~~~
So how in HELL is that a free pass for Obama? It is a weakness of all the campaigns, the headlines single out Obama and you call that a free pass.
Rove much?
I can't help but wonder if all these people spouting off about fiscal responsibilityt and security in the middle east aren't really O'Reilybots taking a visit to the Huffington post when Limbaugh isn't on the air.
Not that fiscal responsibility shouldn't be a concern (and how were we doing so well in the Clinton years?) but the preoccupation with this theme seems more of excuse-making against a particular candidate rather than a genuine concern.
I notice that he said none of the candidates economic plans were workable, in his estimation. I'll put my hat in the ring with Obama. At least he isn't beholden to special interests and corporations like the Clintons are. Also I believe he'll be better able to go to the American people and articulate his plan so that they can pressure their representatives to implement it. OMAMA '08!!!
And have you seen how much some of Hillary's spending programs cost and subjected them to the saimilar analysis? Subsidies for heating bills? Retraining workers? On the stump she talks about spending on infrastructure as well but I have yet to hear how she is going to pay for it. Stewart makes good, relevant points but don't use them as a baseball bat against one candidate if the other candidate has the same challenge.
Hmmm.
I respect Bondad's economic opinions.
What about a frank discussion regarding the military budget? Why do we spend more than every other country on earth, COMBINED?
Not politically feasible to talk about it? Gimme a break. That's what leadership is supposed to be about.
I don't see any other way to solve our problems than a frank discussion about priorities.
laminator makes an important point. The discussion should include the CIA and FBI budgets, the Drug War budgets and the Homeland Security budgets...
Lets not forget the tax breaks to the oil companies!!! It ain't cheap to subsidize the worlds most profitable corporatio
"And this is not a problem only faced by Obama -- it's faced by every major candidate.
If this is true for every major candidate, then the headline is misleading. I pretty much figured it would be tough to pay for anything until the deficit was eliminated. We've been borrowing money for the Iraq War, so ending it won't mean more money-- just not going any deeper into debt.
It would mean some of that money that is now all going to people that don't need it*, will be spent on people here inside America that do.
*(billion airs in corporations owned by the cheney/bush mob and their friends)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
