Obama Spending Plans Leaked
“The American people have spoken,” said Obama. “They demand change, and I promise that I and every one of my former Clinton administration appointees will work hard to deliver that change.” He also said something about hope and sacrifice and believing.Other highlights of the plan include:
- $43 nurpillion for job training
- $89 bibblydefrillion for community reinvestment
- $505 frappakrillion for infrastructure and public works
- $732 hominavillion for health care and education
- $986 giggitysquillion for Goldman Sachs
Some prominent voices have criticized the plan, however. “It’s a good start, but the president-elect doesn’t go nearly far enough,” Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, Nobel-winning winner of the Nobel Prize in economics wrote today in his New York Times column. “We’re talking about the need for another $344 grillion chillion beebopaloobillion, at the very least, to get this economy moving again. Also, tax cuts for anybody: Ick.” suds and soliloquies
In Canada divide by 10 if the CPC is in charge, 5 if the Grits are running the shop and multiply by 1.2 if the NDP/Bloc/Grit coalition gets its hands on the giggitysquillions.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Ach, put together it only adds up to 15 bodiddlyillion, which is a mere 15% of the total debt that BushCo saddled the US with over the past 8 years. Nuffin’ much.
Also, ok, I’m sorry, but this reputation that the NDP has of being big spenders is ridiculous. Every shadow budget has been better than the governments’ wrt deficits and spending/saving ratios, in NDP provinces the party has usually had to make up an enormous conservative deficit once elected and still manages to bring the provinces out a bit ahead. Why don’t conservatives have a reputation for financial malfeasance? Look at what HarperCo managed to do pre
financialmeltdown. Was that responsible governance? He took Martin’s surplus and spent it, and still failed to address Canada’s $120b infrastructure deficit (his answer, P3s, have been discredited again and again), he plundered the EI surplus, and still managed to make cuts to housing and poor-people-programs. Yeah, he’s responsible, alright. Yeesh.And all that was written before my coffee.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Federal NDP budgets are irrelevant, since they are prepared by people who know that they have zero chance of forming a government. My direct experience with an NDP government (twice, now) bears out the popular image as big spenders and poor economic managers. Harper reducing over-taxation is not “spending the surplus” Renee – it is reducing taxation. Those of us who pay them kind of like that idea. If you think that you are under-taxed, you are welcome to pay mine for me, or simply make a donation to the federal government.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am
“Harper reducing over-taxation is not “spending the surplus” Renee – it is reducing taxation.”
Your use of the term “over-taxation” presupposes that it was excessive, which it is not, particularly compared to other first world countries. Second, there are two ways to save money – reduce expenditures, or increase revenues. Reducing revenues to the point where it costs us more than those revenues to sustain programs is spending in the most basic sense.
I am not over-taxed, because our combined household income is less than $50k a year and the tax rate at that income is miniscule. If we lived in the US and had state, county, municipal AND federal taxes to pay, we’d be paying a lot more. If we lived in Europe, same story. And if we lived in China, we’d be dead. If my income increase I’ll happily pay more for roads, education, social programs, police, military, arts, recreation, eldercare, and the environmental commons. To name a few. I like society. It’s keen.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
These are not round numbers (which is an indicator of “compassion” giveaways)...so they must be arrived at through some fomula, right Jay?
January 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Your use of the term “over-taxation” presupposes that it was excessive
No – it presupposes that the taxation was more than required to fund the programs and services delivered by government, which by definition it was since they were in surplus. If you object to the lower level of taxation under this government, I presume that you are willing to increase your tax burden, and so I offer you the chance to do so: pay some of my taxes, which I think are too high. Even without an increase in income you get the opportunity to “happily pay more for roads, education, social programs [etc]” – and I get the chance to pay less. From your account this would make you happy, and I know it would make me happy, which makes it sound like a pretty good arrangement all around.