Sen. Gregg Blasts WH Budget Chief on Capitol Hill Over Obama's Plan to Use TARP as a "Piggy Bank"

VISIT http://www.polijam.com/ FOR ALL THE TOP NEWS!!!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• tarp
• judd gregg
• senator
• peter orszag
• piggy bank
• capitol hill
• testify
• bernie sanders
• bailout
• budget director
• obama
• white house
• administration
• spending
• deficit
• debt

[WakingDead17]

Sen. Gregg, you are one of the few who is SPEAKING for the PEOPLE of this country, and we soooo appreciate it! You stand up for the law and the constitution, and these idiots want to ignore it. You go Senator!!

[HollyTNUSA]

Go get em Judd!

[shalcall]

Let me ask you something. Are you paying back the massive debt we accumulated during the great depression? What about during the 80's under Reagan? If conservatives were really worried about our debt they would have rallied against the Bush tax cuts (the largest in history) and instead used that surplus to pay down our debt.

That didn't happen. Why? Because despite your hyperbole, our debt is not that bad (we've had much worse), and will probably not be an issue 20 years down the road.

[fabulous4137]

@shalcall So you are going to loan already loaned money again? How is this money going to ever get paid back? My generation is going to be stuck with paying for this bullshit.

[shalcall]

Well, there no need to argue further, because we could get into a year's long argument on whether production or consumer spending is the best way to recover from a recession. I personally believe increased consumer spending will result in a more stable and sustained recovery.

However, I admit that there are valid theoretical arguments for stimulating the supply side of the equation.

[brothermoon]

In terms of stimulating the economy, I'd follow the methods that have worked before - IPI has a great paper on this (What's the Most Potent Way to Stimulate the Economy). MoneyChimp also explains this in easy to understand terms. Production, not consumer spending, will grow sustainable economic stimulation.

Of course, these methods won't necessarily allow this administration to push forward its agenda, so it's unlikely they'll embrace many/any of them.

[brothermoon]

The tax cuts did nothing to sustainably stimulate the economy, neither did the cash for clunkers program, & the number of state firefighters & cops who jobs were saved - while important and valid - has been overexaggerated, while much of the spending was wasteful on unnecessary and irrelevant projects and was not accounted for accurately on the gov's own 'transparency site'. See the Mercatus Ctr for Analysis' report on the stimulus.

[shalcall]

Well, I have to watch that PBS Newshour episode, so I can't comment on what Rys said.

I do disagree with you about the stimulus funds. About a third of it was tax cuts, and you're right, I'd rather those tax cuts had been replaced by more direct spending on infrastructure improvement, but I don't think you can find a governor that didn't save the jobs of many firefighters and cops because of that funding. I don't call that special interest payback.

How would you stimulate the economy?

[brothermoon]

I label it a disguise because not all of the details have been revealed, but we do know from those that have that very few businesses would qualify for the loans. This less than honest tactic has already been seen in the poor use of stimulus funds - directed largely to public spending that didn't create a large swath of jobs or stimulate the economy, but were rather more of a special interest payback/support & gov't support move. Infrastructure & real incentives would have performed much better.

[brothermoon]

In addition, any loans by the gov to small businesses at this point only further the debt, will not necessarily be paid back, and only would possibly help a very few number of small businesses according to the requirements. This was addressed in some detail on PBS Newshour, when Judy Woodruff interviewed Bill Rys of the National Federation of Independent Small Businesses (Wed, Feb 3 airing).

[shalcall]

It's not a loan disguise. The reason the administration is trying this tactic (using TARP funds) is an attempt to keep down the 2010 budget. The TARP money was allocated already. If you create new legislation, as opposed to amending the existing legislation, that money will then have to be counted as new spending increasing the stated deficit.

Moreover, new legislation takes a lot longer to get through congress than amending existing legislation.

[brothermoon]

Well, that is a different discussion other than the point of this video clip, what Orszag was pushing for, what Gregg's objection was, and what the purpose of TARP was and how it was to be repayed and then remain in the gen fund to pay down the debt. If congress wants to appropriate new funds to assist businesses, that should be a completely separate issue/legislation - not just a transition of TARP funds.

There are far better ways to help small businesses than to resort to this loan disguise.