New estimates show that Obama’s budget would generate deficits averaging $1 trillion a year for 10 years. That is a lot of red. The White House insisted that these massive deficits will not put a damper on its already costly agenda–how is that going to work?

So much for Obama’s plan to cut the budget deficit in half by 2013! The more likely scenario is that we are going to double the budget deficit or if the estimates are correct, continue them.

“Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama’s policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.”

These deficits are obviously unsustainable and dangerously high! How can we add $9.3 trillion dollars in deficits to the national debt? This is not a time to be spending frivilously. We need to save and underconsume. There are no means to pay off the debt we already have if we keep spending.

Of course, Obama refuses to cut back on any of his pet projects “investments”.

“What we will not cut are investments that will lead to real growth and prosperity over the long term,” Obama said. “That’s why our budget makes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform. That’s why it enhances America’s competitiveness by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and building a clean energy economy.”

“It doesn’t change what the president’s focus is, in terms of his objectives in making critical investments, and doesn’t change his ability to halve the deficit in four years,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Right. This won’t change his ability to halve the deficit in four years? What funny math is he using? In Obamaland, reducing the deficit means adding to it!

Obama is going to spend the United States dollar and economy into an early grave.

I saw articles of Murdoch apologizing for the apparently “racist” cartoon in a recent edition of the NY Post. Here is the cartoon:

I didn’t read what the racistness was about before I looked at this cartoon and I must say, I didn’t see the racism–I often don’t see racism. I interpreted the cartoon as mocking the stimulus bill for its stupidity–as if it was written by a Congress full of monkeys.

I didn’t support the stimulus under Bush and I didn’t support this new one under Obama. I understand economics and we cannot spend our way out of a problem caused by too much spending.

I’m not ignorant to the use of chimps or other primates as a racial slur. I just didn’t see much of a correlation between this monkey and Obama. Why not have the chimp in the Oval Office if it was trying to depict Obama? Maybe a banner for “change”?

If you look hard enough at anything, you’ll find what you are looking for. Whether it really exists or not.

Economics is going to take center stage for the Obama administration this week. Obama is having a Financial Stability Summit with a variety of people including cabinet members, economic aides, and Congressional leaders. He will then speak to Congress on Tuesday at 9PM about the economy.

On Thursday, Obama will unveil his budget and plan of action to “fix” the economy. The markets fell off a cliff last week and is still sinking today. The markets may or may not rally after Obama unveils how he will manipulate the economy and cause capital to move into areas that the market feels it should not.

Obama also pledged to cut the budget deficit in half by 2013. I suppose if you increase the deficit enough, cutting it in half would be less difficult. $500 billion deficit looks better than $1 trillion but, it is still pretty astronomical.

Chances are all the spending will do nothing to fix the economy and surely make things worse. It hasn’t worked in the past. Even the crazy Keynesians like Paul Krugman agree it hasn’t worked in the past. They just think there wasn’t enough spending–how laughable.

As was expected, the Senate passed their revised version of Obama’s stimulus package. In true government fashion, the Senate and the House passed two different bills and will have to reconcile the differences. The likely outcome is a bill that will amount to a lot more than $838 billion.

It is obviously insanity to think that this stimulus bill is going to work better than the one passed last year under Bush. We already tried spending close to $1 trillion dollars to “fix” the economic crisis and it has just gotten worse. The Dow responded to today’s news by plunging over 300 points.

Treasury Secratary Geithner said, “The financial system is working against recovery and that’s the dangerous dynamic we need to change.” In reality, his stimulus bill is working against recovery. The economy needs to remove the bad investments so that we can build on a solid foundation once again. Trying to duct tape and glue this broken economy together is not going to work.

“Added to the congressional stimulus plan, which aims to create jobs and get Americans spending again, the total of these combined efforts could easily pass $2 trillion.” Not only is the bill likely to exceed $2 trillion dollars when all is said and done–why do we put a number on the bill anyway?–but, we are going to waste that money on “creating jobs”. The government cannot create jobs, it can only shuffle the jobs around.

What we need aren’t just “jobs” but, productive jobs. A job can entail digging a hole one day and then filling it back up the next day. What good is that going to bring? The government’s ability to create productive jobs is worse than hit or miss. How does the government know what is productive? It isn’t spending its own money. Only the market can know what is productive. Each action in the market is a person saying that they would rather spend money on this good or service instead of something else–like saving.

Jim Roger’s says the stimulus and bank rescue will only “make things worse”. Amen to that.

In an attempt to bring about “change” to America, President Obama signed an executive order to expand faith-based programs and initiatives started by the Bush administration. The principle behind the idea sounds good: ensure people get social services regardless of their religious beliefs. Attacking such things always make the attacker sound like a heartless monster.

The question is, why do we need a law–and one by executive order of all things–to mandate that religious institutions provide social services to everyone. I’m pretty sure the churches are doing a lot of good helping the local community already without a need for mandates from Washington.

I used to live in a predominantly black neighborhood in Brooklyn and the local church gave to everyone who would line up to get it. Preferred faith, color of skin, nationality, etc. played no part. The church helped people because it wanted to.

The common theme amongst all pieces of legislation is that they make things more difficult than it used to be. It is more likely that this executive order–which is not allowed by the Constitution–will make things worse.

I am a member of no religion but, I support the social services the churches provide. They are doing it based on their own free will and that is good. No one likes being told what to do and no body knows what “strings” are attached to this executive order. Why could this not be presented in the Congress and voted on?

This “change” and new respect for the Constitution is starting to look a lot more like the old way.