jdobbin Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Bush Jnr never submitted a budget where half of spending was borrowed money. No, Bush cut taxes and kept spending and didn't worry about it. Now, with the economy headed for depths not yet considered, economists are calling for spending. Hell, Buffet is calling for spending. Ferguson is predicting "blood in the streets" and Standard and Poors is forecasting nations defaulting. It is impossible to understand "one trillion" except in personal terms. At the moment, the US federal government receives tax revenue of one trillion annually. IOW, to pay for Obama's projected spending, an American's federal taxes would have to triple. Bush cut taxes and spent. Now, Obama isn't about to raise taxes in a deep recession but Bush's plan was an utter and complete failure. That leaves borrowing. If we follow your regimen of doing nothing, I expect we would only see things get worse. Dobbin, how would you react if I told you that your federal taxes were to increase by 3.5X? How would you feel about "blood on the street" as Ferguson predicts? With that said, the US government can still go far into debt. At present, US federal government debt is about 68% of GDP. In Japan, the ratio is about 190%. Obama can apparently borrow alot more money, and I'm sure that his advisors are now explaining this. What I like hearing is Obama already talking about where cuts in spending are going to come from. Today, he and McCain talked about going after pork in military procurement. We are entering into uncharted territory. We sure are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) No because he hid war spending. Regardless Obama doesn't have time for this he is busy trying to save the American economy by doing something and not sitting on his hands."Hid war spending"? Do you have any idea how strange the accounts of the US federal budget are? (eg. Should future medicare liabilities be discounted to the present and included in the budget?)In US federal politics, when someone claims that they are transparent but their predecessor/opponent was not, I think political spin. ==== I'm sorry to be partisan (and in some ways I like Obama) but the musicians on the Titanic, like Obama, were also "doing something" and not "sitting on their hands". The question is whether the actions will change anything. At least the musicians didn't make things worse. No, Bush cut taxes and kept spending and didn't worry about it.True, but the US federal government (Obama) can borrow alot more.Obama wants to borrow almost $2 trillion in the next fiscal year. Even if Obama borrowed this amount every year during his possible two mandates, the US federal debt would be less than Japan's debt as a percentage of GDP. I think that Obama can borrow alot more. That's not really the problem (although I wonder... Japan is one thing, the US another.) I worry more about Obama's proposed spending. In 8 years, when Obama retires to his island in Hawaii, what will the US have for all that federal spending - compared to what they would have if individual Americans had spent the money? Edited March 5, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 True, but the US federal government (Obama) can borrow alot more. They certainly can. They can certainly cut more as well and I hope they start to go after more of these pet projects that both parties like to lump into any and all spending bills. Obama wants to borrow almost $2 trillion in the next fiscal year. Even if Obama borrowed this amount every year during his possible two mandates, the US federal debt would be less than Japan's debt as a percentage of GDP.I think that Obama can borrow alot more. That's not really the problem (although I wonder... Japan is one thing, the US another.) I worry more about Obama's proposed spending. And I worry about the outcome of not doing anything as some on the right propose. In 8 years, when Obama retires to his island in Hawaii, what will the US have for all that federal spending - compared to what they would have if individual Americans had spent the money? I don't know. Hopefully, not blood on the street if they did nothing as Ferguson suggests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 When America goes Nanny State - it may not be like our dear old nanny - with her apron, smiling liberal face and smell of cherry pie on her breath. The new up and coming American nanny may look like Nurse Ratchet out of the coo coo ward. She may be wearing hob nailed boots and riot gear....who knows what is coming? I think there might be a lot of progressive authoritarians who would get all hot and sexed up with that image. The saving grace is that there are more informed people than ever before - that can counter dictitorial governments...we should be okay. Yeah? My faith in that is being tested like never before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Bush Jnr never submitted a budget where half of spending was borrowed money. That may be true, however, spending all the savings before the next administration gets in does not help Obama in any way. Bail out and stimulus packages will do nothing to improve the economy at all. This is all simply wealth distribution again. But how much more do we borrow before we find out we cannot pay it back?? It will be a housing bubble on a global scale. We are over extending our credit and borrow to the point that we cannot pay it back and declare bankruptcy. The population is in debt to the banks, which are in debt to the Feds, which are in debt to other countries like China. When someone else owns your debt, they essentially own you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittengirl Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 the economic collaspe is the forerunner to the introduction of the north american union and the subsequent amero...good ahead, call me what you want...time will tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 the economic collaspe is the forerunner to the introduction of the north american union and the subsequent amero...good ahead, call me what you want...time will tell With all the calls for globalization Obama has been talking about, being the cure to the problem hints at just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 With all the calls for globalization Obama has been talking about, being the cure to the problem hints at just that. ....at least Hugo Chavez is honest about his approach....Obama thinks he can fool all of the people all of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 ....at least Hugo Chavez is honest about his approach....Obama thinks he can fool all of the people all of the time. Yeah, Chavez might not be popular outside of Venezuela, but at least he is telling it like it is (well as much as any politician) and has a huge support base in his country. Trying to keep the money flowing within Venezuela as much as possible. Chavez recently nationalized a Cargill food plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread but this seemed relevant (from Barry Ritholtz): Was the ‘00-03 Crash Bush’s Fault? ‘09 Obama’s? By the idiot squad’s reasoning, the 2000 tech wreck was all George Bush’s fault. Funny, I don’t recall hearing any of that from them in 2000-01.I am not an Obama cheerleader. For the record, I found his selection of Larry Summers to be awful, and his choice of Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary ill-advised. But to hold him responsible for a market collapse on day 41 of his Presidency — following 8 years of gross negligence and ruinous incompetency under the Bush regime — is simply too much stupidity for any damaged nation to bear. I can really sympathize with Barry as I, too, am tired of the talking idiots. Edited March 5, 2009 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread but this seemed relevant (from Barry Ritholtz): Was the ‘00-03 Crash Bush’s Fault? ‘09 Obama’s? I can really sympathize with Barry as I, too, am tired of the talking idiots. Informative word translation: Idiot...the origin of the word...It did not mean a stupid person - it meant to ignore a person and what they have to say.. In ancient Greece when the assembly - usually elected to office..were having a debate and someone from out side the club (unelected) decieded to butt in and voice his opinion --- the leader would yell "Do not listen to him , for he is an IDIOT" Meaning that he does not have elected permit to speak ----so if you are not a member of parliment and you speak - you are an idiot - as am I! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 the economic collaspe is the forerunner to the introduction of the north american union and the subsequent amero...good ahead, call me what you want...time will tell And we have been moving in that direction ever since the Reagan Administration proposed the Free Trade Act and then NAFTA, but the black helicopter crowd always ignores the fact that the main advocates of globalization are within the Republican Party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 What is funny is when Rumslfeld a day before 9/11 said the Pentagon can't account for 2.3 TRILLION dollars of the budget over a period of a couple years. That is less than what Bush and Obama TOGETHER have spend on bail out/stimulus packages.Shady, the last 8 years was like nothing to you right?? I never seen you complain about the waste in Bush's bail out package or the billions wasted and unaccounted for in terms of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. But yet you are screaming from the rooftops about this. And that's what makes me puke every time I see Limbaugh, Hannity or these douchebags at CNBC wailing about how Obama is destroying the economy. Do they really believe the American public is stupid enough to not notice the trillions wasted and corruption of the banking and financial systems allowed by deregulation? Right now, AIG and the banks are still losing value every quarter because nobody knows exactly how much their assets are really worth. The banks sold garbage, and AIG insured that garbage, and now, douchebags like Rick Santelli are squawking about diverting some of the bailout money to the unfortunate homeowners stuck with the fraudulent mortgages. The message is pretty clear that he is okay with sending tax dollars to his buddies on Wall Street, but don't you dare extend relief to the people having their lives ruined by the foreclosure crisis. The Republicans and their media mouthpieces want welfare for the rich, and no one else, pure and simple! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) The Dow finished down 280 pts today. How low does everyone think Obama will drive the markets down after he's finished implementing his leftwing agenda? I'm thinking the bottom is probably somewhere around 5000. Hope n change. *edit* Sorry, I should have referred to the market as the "daily tracking poll", just the way Obama referred it yesterday. Someone really needs to explain to him that it's much more than a "daily tracking poll." Friggin idiot. Edited March 5, 2009 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 The Dow finished down 280 pts today. How low does everyone think Obama will drive the markets down after he's finished implementing his leftwing agenda? I'm thinking the bottom is probably somewhere around 5000. Hope n change. Left wingers are the henchmen of real extremist right wingers - they just don't know it - How low will he drive the markets untill the super elite are clear of debt is the question - It's king of a biblical jubalee going on where every fifty years all debts are forgiven and we start fresh..It will end when there is an offical declaration of national bankruptcy......oooh this is gonna hurt.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 The Dow finished down 280 pts today. How low does everyone think Obama will drive the markets down after he's finished implementing his leftwing agenda? I'm thinking the bottom is probably somewhere around 5000. Hope n change.*edit* Sorry, I should have referred to the market as the "daily tracking poll", just the way Obama referred it yesterday. Someone really needs to explain to him that it's much more than a "daily tracking poll." Friggin idiot. I wonder what your tone would've been if all this was happening under a McCain administration. And the bottom is not 5000, the bottom is 0. It's gonna be a rough ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I wonder what your tone would've been if all this was happening under a McCain administration. And the bottom is not 5000, the bottom is 0. It's gonna be a rough ride. A ride none the less...this is not the end of the world...the world will carry on for at least a few million more years...this is an insignificant burp of a cockroach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 A ride none the less...this is not the end of the world...the world will carry on for at least a few million more years...this is an insignificant burp of a cockroach. Well, I plan to let all the other cockroaches to kill each other so I can live in some peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Well, I plan to let all the other cockroaches to kill each other so I can live in some peace. Its like mice - trap one and hang the body out for the others to see, word gets around..you would be surprised at the ability for lower life forms to communicate - and when they come back - do it again - if that fails it's time to go to the hardware for some rat poison - that works everytime and they never come back - because they are gone - not just from your house but from the white light of day.. Obama Obama Obama......so what's next - Saint Patrick with a flute to take the rats out of congress...saint creation is an old buisness - but it is still buisness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulaco Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I wonder what your tone would've been if all this was happening under a McCain administration. And the bottom is not 5000, the bottom is 0. It's gonna be a rough ride. I suspect McCain would be carrying out very similar actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I suspect McCain would be carrying out very similar actions. Would not! McCain would be to busy getting his cortizone shots, and bleaching out the age spots on his forehead - and getting his prostrate checked out - and cleaning his dentures - and talking to his doctor about Viagra...McCain if he was elected would have been good for about a month..He had an expirey notificatoin taped to the top of his head. The writer is correct though - President Biden and President Hillary would be doing about the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) I suspect McCain would be carrying out very similar actions. Wrong. John McCain would not be raising capital-gains taxes in the middle of one of the worse bear markets in history. And you can bet his stimulus bill would have been smaller, targeted, and temporary, and composed of actual stimulus, and not filled with pork. He'd also not be raising taxes in general. Edited March 5, 2009 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Too bad the GOP and the conservative movement is cannibalizing one another in the name of "true conservatism" which doesn't seem to mean anything anymore. My hope is that Mark Sanford gets election in 2012, soley because he seems to be one of the only sane men left in the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 All I know it that President Bush is probably laughing his ass off right now. Bush = 14,000 DOW....Obama = still searching for the bottom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Yes, because the economy was great before January 20th. I don't see why self declared "conservatives" continue to pretend that the Bush Presidency was some amazing small government administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.