When Does $100 Million Equal 1/4 of a Penny?

6

April 29, 2009 by Tyson Wynn

Just watch this:

Hat tip: Chris Medlock on Facebook

Category Barack Obama, Taxes, Video | Tags:

---

6 comments

1. Josh says:

   April 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM

   It is a start.
2. Tyson Wynn says:

   April 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM

   And just barely that. Not to mention that many of the savings in that $100M were to be realized over several years. So, I guess that means he should have taken that 1/4 of a penny and divided it by 5. That’s a minute bit of copper. 1/20 of a penny or something like it.

   That seriously all you got? I expected more from you.
3. Josh says:

   April 30, 2009 at 7:54 AM

   Well there isn’t much to say. 100 million is a tiny part of the federal budget. I could always throw out a “Republicans have been in the White House”, but I think its been well established that both parties have abandoned any semblance of responsible fiscal policy. Nancy Pelosi, who isn’t really my favorite Democrat, had an interesting Q and A session with the Commonwealth Club on NPR. She talked about the idea of pay as you go that was actually brought about by the Democrats in Congress (imagine that). Politics aside, I am always for a fun illustration. Here is a Youtube video I recommend for you, Tyson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSLMGYJTKYU It is the work of my nephew starring and my sister narrating.
4. RSU Prof says:

   April 30, 2009 at 3:25 PM

   I’m reminded of those scenes from “Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery” in which Dr. Evil keeps getting tripped up by currency inflation. Wasn’t it VP Dick Cheney who said that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” I don’t think he was channeling any rocked-ribbed Republicans from days gone by.

   At some point, macro- and micro-economic principles have a parallel. Deficits don’t matter if what you have purchased is valuable. At a personal level, if you accrued $10,000 worth of credit card debt eating fancy food and drinking fancy jello shooters, you really don’t have anything to show for it; on the other hand, if you accrue $10,000 worth of modestly-priced debt on expensive landscaping for your yard, you probably will significantly improve the value of your home.
5. Tyson Wynn says:

   April 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM

   Reagan proved that moderate deficits can be overcome by the Laffer curve. Of course, a person or government can accumulate much more debt than it can ever hope to overcome.

   And is it your argument that this is “modestly-priced debt?” What value are we improving with it? Further, to use your example, what if servicing the debt caused you to be unable to afford the mortgage…or groceries. Is it still such a bargain?
6. RSU Prof says:

   May 4, 2009 at 12:50 PM

   No, actually I would argue that this is serious deficit spending, probably as aggressive an expansion of federal spending that Obama could secure in the current environment. The value of this current spending is use the government’s power as spender-of-last resort to prevent a serious recession — originate by massive and irresponsible greed from one sector of the economy (the financial sector, which has grown unaccountably large and irresponsible thanks to conservative deregulatory policies) from blossoming into a catastrophic depression that causes massive unemployment.

   The questions you ask have the tendency of masking just where micro- and macro-economic parallels diverge. The U.S. federal government is in no way like a household, and is capable of spending much, much more money than current levels for several years with literally minimal impact on individual citizen’s day-to-day lives.

   Now, I know just enough economics to retain some faith in well-regulated but relatively open markets, and the trick to dealing with “spender-of-last-resort” situations is to know when to rein in federal spending; ideally, that would come at precisely the moment when private investors have regained liquidity and faith in the marketplace, and begin operating at something like the previous levels of economic activity. But I have no problem with the government retaining a permanent role in things like healthcare provision (esp. insurance) and student loans, because the privatized schemes of the past in those areas have been constricted access to health care and education and amounted to nothing more than the predatory soaking of the middle-class.

   Ask me if I think my education was a “bargain.” I got at great job that I love, but at the cost of a student loan larger than my mortgage (and I only used loans for my PhD training, and, no, I don’t think the process is anywhere nearly transparent; and, no, I don’t think that student loan venders bribing university officials into artificially shortening the deferement period, and I can go on and on…).

Sorry, comments are closed.

Copyright © 2012 | The WynnBlog is proudly powered by WordPress.org -