Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Budget Deficit Will Be Larger Than Projected  
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 893 posts, RR: 12
Posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

As I have already personally stated, the upcoming Obama budget deficits show how reckless and irresponsible this administration is. In fact, they are so reckless that I think history will judge this administration as one of the worst of our lifetimes, if not the very worst. While that may sound hyperbolic at this time, it's only because this administration's deficits don't come until later. And the bond markets don't seem to think the US government will be able to pay back its debts:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...59dgLTTziX4p9X9MRBRpWZGdQD981KVDG4

"Weak demand at a Treasury bond auction touched off worries in the stock market Thursday about the government's ability to raise funds to fight the recession.

The government had to pay greater interest than expected in a sale of 30-year Treasurys. That is worrisome to traders because it could signal that it will become harder for Washington to finance its ambitious economic recovery plans. The higher interest rates also could push up costs for borrowing in areas like mortgages."



So the government will be paying more than initially projected to finance its deficits, which in turn will cause even higher deficits and more debt, which in turn will drive interest rates up more, which will cost the government even more to service that debt, and on and on. We are becoming a giant Ponzi scheme.

And this administration is entirely responsible for that with their reckless upcoming budgets.

Big version: Width: 400 Height: 330 File size: 25kb


I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. And bragging about finding $100 million dollars in budget cuts shows how much of a laughingstock this administration is. Pathetic.

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2528 times:

You're offering just a projection yourself, and no constructive alternative for how to repair the damage to the economy.

User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2505 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
You're offering just a projection yourself, and no constructive alternative for how to repair the damage to the economy

How about we rescind the Porkulus plan and pass a balanced budget. Imagine that

Quoting FreequentFlier (Thread starter):
"Weak demand at a Treasury bond auction touched off worries in the stock market Thursday about the government's ability to raise funds to fight the recession.

The next auction will be in about 17 more days. It will tell us alot. See how oil responded tothe auction troubles this week. Look out for massive inflation next year.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2501 times:



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 2):
How about we rescind the Porkulus plan and pass a balanced budget. Imagine that

Sure. Recall the fire brigade and hope your home will somehow stop burning on its own.

Well, it will – eventually!


User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Republicans Deride Obama's $17B Proposed Cut in Federal Spending

Obama's $17 billion proposed cut represents a roster of 121 budget cuts and equals about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion budget Congress has approved for next year.

Obama said the cuts appear small only in Washington

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-obama-cut-programs-save-b-budget/

But look he saved us 17 Billion. So instead of a 1.75 trillion deficit we will only have a 1.70 trillion deficit.  laughing   laughing   laughing 

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Sure. Recall the fire brigade and hope your home will somehow stop burning on its own

So deficit spending and too much credit put us in this mess and more deficit spending will get us out???? I would take the balanced budget and a longer recovery anyday.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2492 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Sure. Recall the fire brigade and hope your home will somehow stop burning on its own.

We consider the government to be the arsonist, not the fire brigade.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2492 times:



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 4):
So deficit spending and too much credit put us in this mess and more deficit spending will get us out????

What got you into this mess was excessive speculation with ignorance of the risks.

If you can explain how businesses and employees are supposed to survive in a self-reinfocring spiral of contracting spending, gallopping bankruptcies and job losses, maybe there's an alternative to a short-term state intervention. But where is it?

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 4):
I would take the balanced budget and a longer recovery anyday.

Sure. Everybody would. But the time for that being the supreme priority would have been when the economy at least appeared to be doing well, not in the middle of an acute existential crisis.

Of course consolidation will have to follow as soon as the economy has regained sufficient resilience; But it would have been a mistake to simply let it fall free and just look on while the obvious chain reactions made the damage irrecoverable.

There are no easy choices any more at this point.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2490 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
We consider the government to be the arsonist, not the fire brigade.

"We" being the minority of remaining Republicans, or who?  mischievous 

The arsonists in this case have primarily been the investment banks which used the lack of regulation in the derivatives market and erected a gigantic pyramid scheme very much like Bernie Madoff, just on a much larger scale.

We're looking at the burning wreckage of reaganomics which had been boosted to full throttle by the removal of regulations at the end of the Clinton era.

It was a wild ride for a few and a long, exhausting and increasingly painful stretch for most, with a bitter and expensive end for almost everyone.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2481 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
investment banks which used the lack of regulation in the derivatives market

Just because this mantra keeps getting repeated again and again and again does not mean it's true.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
erected a gigantic pyramid scheme very much like Bernie Madoff, just on a much larger scale.

You want to raise the issue of Ponzi schemes? Really? Who runs the world's biggest Ponzi schemes in the world, Like Medicare or Social Security? Those make Madoff look like a babe in arms, and nobody seems to mind those.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11529 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2476 times:



Quoting FreequentFlier (Thread starter):
And the bond markets don't seem to think the US government will be able to pay back its debts:

And, who ran up all those debts? When was the debt ceiling raised? Under Obama? Obama ran up trillions in debt? Let's blame the current administration for paying back for wreckless spending of the previous administration. I guess it would be better for Obama to just spend, spend, spend and not give a thought as to how or when to pay it back. As long as there is spending, everything is fine. Let's not have any conscience about the future generations all the while telling America that we love them. That worked well, didn't it?

This is just another "righties hate Obama" thread. *yawn* Been there, done that. You all just need to start a "I hate Obama" thread. You know, if you hate the president so much, you must hate America. You HAVE to respect the president. If you don't, you hate America and you are a terrorist. They have open space, now, at Guantanimo for all you new terrorists.

Don't get on my case. As pointed out many, many, many, many times, this is EXACTLY the cr*p we were fed for the past 8 years under Bush. Don't like it? Tough. It was said. Worse, it was believed.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2467 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
Just because this mantra keeps getting repeated again and again and again does not mean it's true.

No. But there's a reason why it's being repeated: It is a fact.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
Who runs the world's biggest Ponzi schemes in the world, Like Medicare or Social Security? Those make Madoff look like a babe in arms, and nobody seems to mind those.

You don't seem to understand what a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme actually is if that is what pops into your mind.

That it's substantial, that it has problems and that you don't like it for ideological reasons doesn't automatically make it a Ponzi scheme. Especially since it does in fact fulfill its designed purpose, if just marginally.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2457 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
No. But there's a reason why it's being repeated: It is a fact.

It is a politically motivated mantra unsupported by fact. The financial markets have for many years been regulated to such a high extent that the regulation itself has created new market dynamics counter to purely market forces. The sub-prime mortgage based securities is a perfect example of a market that would never have existed without government regulation.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
You don't seem to understand what a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme actually is if that is what pops into your mind.

Social Security and Medicare are paid out of the current account. It counts on people paying into it now to immediately pay promised services/payments to people who paid in far less in the past, on an ever-increasing scale. That is a Ponzi scheme. It only works if you have more and more current payers (or more precisely higher revenues from the current payers). The day that current revenues stagnate or fall while commitments continue to grow, the structure collapses. Medicare alone has over 30 trillion in unfunded commitments.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 893 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2441 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
You're offering just a projection yourself, and no constructive alternative for how to repair the damage to the economy.

No more bailouts for auto companies or banks. It's sink or swim time. Rescind at least half of the stimulus package - the parts that essentially undid welfare reform and weren't directed towards infrastructure. Eliminate food stamps. Eliminate all farm subsidies. Means test Social Security and Medicare. Pull ALL US troops out of Europe and Asia. Reduce defense spending on outdated programs. Eliminate the useless Department of Education.

And last but not least, rip up the Obama budget and burn it so it is never seen again.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
We consider the government to be the arsonist, not the fire brigade.

 checkmark 

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 9):
And, who ran up all those debts? When was the debt ceiling raised? Under Obama? Obama ran up trillions in debt? Let's blame the current administration for paying back for wreckless spending of the previous administration. I guess it would be better for Obama to just spend, spend, spend and not give a thought as to how or when to pay it back. As long as there is spending, everything is fine. Let's not have any conscience about the future generations all the while telling America that we love them. That worked well, didn't it?

 redflag   redflag   redflag   talktothehand   talktothehand   talktothehand 

Honestly, stop with this argument.

The Obama budget assumes the Bush tax cuts expire and we pull completely out of Iraq, so the deficits I have attributed to Obama I have done so accurately. You will have to defend the merits of the President's budget deficits based on their....merits (what a concept). Again, as I have said repeatedly, the Obama budget essentially eliminates all Bush era budget priorities. So the deficits are not Bush's responsibility. They belong entirely to this President. Perhaps you can place some blame on Bush for 2009's deficit, but the trillion dollar + deficit in 2019?

You're beclowning yourself.


User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 893 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2435 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 9):
This is just another "righties hate Obama" thread. *yawn* Been there, done that. You all just need to start a "I hate Obama" thread. You know, if you hate the president so much, you must hate America. You HAVE to respect the president. If you don't, you hate America and you are a terrorist. They have open space, now, at Guantanimo for all you new terrorists.

Don't get on my case. As pointed out many, many, many, many times, this is EXACTLY the cr*p we were fed for the past 8 years under Bush. Don't like it? Tough. It was said. Worse, it was believed.

You do get the sense that the Obama apologists just wish we would just shut up, don't you? "Please stop bringing up inconvenient facts! We never hear the media criticize him! Our hero is fixing things now! Everything is fine, nothing to see here!"

Except everything is not fine. Unemployment jumped to about half a percent to 8.9 percent despite this President telling us his "stimulus" package would turn things around. And this during a time of mammoth and historic budget deficits. Deficits so high that Treasury bond holders are ALREADY insisting on higher interest rates in order to hold them because they don't think this administration is serious about getting the deficit under control.

I think voters are getting a taste of why you should NEVER elect someone who has never run ANYTHING as the head of a multi-trillion dollar enterprise known as the United States of America. It's what happens when you let a cult of personality ("We are the ones we've been waiting for!, Hope!, Change!", etc) substitute for rationality and logic. It's funny how the Obama apologists here keep claiming I'm a right-winger far outside the mainstream, yet my position on the deficits remains exactly the same as it was months ago, and Obama keeps moving right to where I am ("See look, we cut 17 billion! We're getting the deficit under control". He's still got a long way to go, but he'll keep moving to me, and not the other way around. Just like I said would happen.

I don't hate this President, I just hate what he is doing to my country.


User currently offlineBiscayne505 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

The facts... They are such pesky things. The budget office has said the Obama budget figures are higher than what is being circulated by the Administration.

But for more facts, Obama has said he won't hire lobbyists...

Obama has said he would posts all spending bills on the internet...


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
It is a politically motivated mantra unsupported by fact. The financial markets have for many years been regulated to such a high extent that the regulation itself has created new market dynamics counter to purely market forces. The sub-prime mortgage based securities is a perfect example of a market that would never have existed without government regulation.

Without Lehman Brothers, AIG and accomplices fraudulently promising to "remove" the risks from the original lenders there would never be a major amount of sub-prime mortgages because the lenders would have had to back these mortgages themselves which would have hit a wall quite early. In a properly regulated and overseen system there would not have been a major problem.

Only the deregulation of the derivatives market in conjunction with the SEC conveniently asleep at the wheel made this an existential crisis for the worldwide economy by letting corporate players run amok.

You know, every time when the "free market" screws up royally as it just did the die-hard ideologues will without fail try to find a way why not too little but too much public oversight somehow "forced" the private actors to act recklessly and greedily.

I personally recommend this page for meditation about this subject.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Social Security and Medicare are paid out of the current account. It counts on people paying into it now to immediately pay promised services/payments to people who paid in far less in the past, on an ever-increasing scale. That is a Ponzi scheme.

No, it is not.

A Ponzi/pyramid scheme is a mechanism created with fraudulent intent, duping investors out of their money exploiting their greed with the system designed to crash down when too few new investors can be found or the authorities find out what's going on. Payouts are only made to investors to lure in other ones. Other than that, the scheme only serves the greed of its creators.

Social Security and Medicare are explicitly designed to fund specific purposes, which they actually do. They are not designed as profitable investments, they are designed as a kind of insurance.

And they can't go bankrupt because they are backed by the state.

Failing to conduct necessary reforms and failure to provide them with sufficient funds due to ideological reasons (remember Ronald Reagan, anyone?) has led both systems into a very similar situation as much of the rest of US infrastructure: A rising risk of major failures due to decades of neglect and damaging lobby pressure.

Many countries have had or still have problems with these two areas since the post-war boom years created unrealistic expectations of infinitely growing economies and between political and corporate lobbies and convenient promotion of short-term consumption the sustainability of the health and social systems were neglected.

The simple fact is that some of the funds spent on consumption in recent decades will have to fill in the gaps left after cleaining up inefficiencies and exploiting other savings potentials.

But then, we could of course just let poor and sick people die in the streets. Serves them right if they're not wealthy, right?

[Edited 2009-05-09 09:56:48]

User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 893 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2416 times:



Quoting Biscayne505 (Reply 14):
The facts... They are such pesky things. The budget office has said the Obama budget figures are higher than what is being circulated by the Administration.

But for more facts, Obama has said he won't hire lobbyists...

Obama has said he would posts all spending bills on the internet...

Another interesting one: The President and a beauty pageant contestant both oppose gay marriage. The Left hysterically attacks the beauty pageant contestant but remains silent about the President. When confronted, several admit it's because they believe the President is lying to the public about his position. Lying consistently and continuously to the public is now an admirable trait for the Left I guess. (cue but Boooooosh was bad! retorts, please save them)

Quoting Klaus (Reply 15):
Social Security and Medicare can't go bankrupt because they are backed by the state.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Klaus, no wonder you're a liberal. You actually believe this! God bless you Klaus.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2414 times:



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 12):
No more bailouts for auto companies or banks. It's sink or swim time.

That sounds so fabulously righteous, and it has that intoxicating air of ideological purity! Wonderful!  silly 

The trouble is just that it might have worked in a world which had prevented extreme corporate consolidation and which had taken care through meticulous oversight that massive pyramid schemes like the one built by the derivatives hawkers would not have been possible.

If you had pushed for such a market situation, you might have the right to make such a proposal. But after many years of heavy lobbying by the free-market fanatics towards the crash that sounds more than just a bit hollow to me.

The problem is that after decades of deregulation and intentional weakening of public oversight the situation is now so heavily distorted that this theoretically nice recipe would really lead to a chain-reaction of self-accelerating collapses of much if not most of the US and the global economy.

Good job – just next time remember to take the car keys away before the next joyride of the "free market" has already ended in a burning wreck!


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2409 times:



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 16):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 15):
Social Security and Medicare can't go bankrupt because they are backed by the state.

Klaus, no wonder you're a liberal. You actually believe this! God bless you Klaus.

In case of severe underfunding a collapse of both systems would be prevented by the state. That is pretty obvious.

Would it be pretty? Hell, no!
But would it happen? Definitely!

It may warm your heart to imagine a total collapse of both systems with the state simply shrugging it off, but that's extremely unlikely. The consequences would be too severe on too many levels.

What we'll see will be probably slow, arduous and often painful and contentious reforms, but there is simply no viable alternative to a decently functioning social and health system in a modern society.


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Social Security and Medicare are paid out of the current account. It counts on people paying into it now to immediately pay promised services/payments to people who paid in far less in the past, on an ever-increasing scale. That is a Ponzi scheme.

That's because you did it wrong, and you let your politicians borrow from the fund that people paid into. That has nothing to do with a ponzi scheme, but everything to do with a bunch of politicians who were (and still are) far more interested in short term pork barrel spending with borrowed money than planning for the future. Not everyone set things up this way, and those countries that did learned their lesson decades ago.

You want Social Security to work, with adequate funding of future liabilities? Take away Congress's right to use it as a cash reserve. Unfortunately for you, it's probably too late now.

Much as I appreciate what Obama is trying to do to pull the US chestnuts out of the fire -- he can't do it any more than KIng Canute could stop the tide from coming in. You will now pay the ultimate price for the last decade of uncontrolled spending by government combined with a largely unregulated financial regime that got its start under Reagan.

There's no question that Obama is piling that debt ever higher, but I'm not sure what Plan B would have been, given the abysmal state of the economy. The only thing keeping the US dollar afloat and US interest rates in check is China's continued willingness to buy US bonds -- and we are now seeing the beginning of the end of that, too. If Congress gets its protectionist mantra fully in gear, watch for China to act to preserve its own economy. Right now, that US market is crucially important to them, but if it is taken away by a bunch of Lou Dobbs in Congress, watch out.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 893 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2395 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):

It may warm your heart to imagine a total collapse of both systems with the state simply shrugging it off, but that's extremely unlikely. The consequences would be too severe on too many levels.

What we'll see will be probably slow, arduous and often painful and contentious reforms, but there is simply no viable alternative to a decently functioning social and health system in a modern society.

Actually, no, I happen to like Social Security as a system. I don't think all government programs are bad, but I think pretending that the funding for them is secure when it clearly isn't, is insincere of Democratic politicians. And people who rely entirely on Social Security for their retirement savings are fools.


User currently offlineSv7887 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1025 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2389 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 15):
Without Lehman Brothers, AIG and accomplices fraudulently promising to "remove" the risks from the original lenders there would never be a major amount of sub-prime mortgages because the lenders would have had to back these mortgages themselves which would have hit a wall quite early. In a properly regulated and overseen system there would not have been a major problem.

Boy are you leaving out some important facts:

You conveniently leave out the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1990s that started this little subprime brigade. Banks were sued and the Federal Reserve actually rewrote the lending standards to encourage these loans to so called minorities. Social Engineering gone bad.

Without this this the loans would NEVER have been made to begin with.

Sources: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-...help-cause-the-housing-crisis.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/30/us...its.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


And it's still happening: The FDIC just gave a Boston area bank a negative rating for not making enough "risky" loans..That's right:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/03/16/story3.html

"The FDIC slapped East Bridgewater Savings with a rare “needs to improve” rating after evaluating the bank under the Community Reinvestment Act.

There are no apparent financial or legal impediments that would limit the bank’s ability to help meet the credit needs of its assessment area,” the FDIC said in its CRA evaluation."


You don't seem to get it. Wall St was the SECONDARY market for these mortgages. Collaterized Debt Obligations are only pieces of mortgages that were already made...You seem to make the argument that derivatives are bad without understanding how they work. You also ignore that the cause of the crisis wasn't the derivatives themselves but the defaulting of the loans that created them..

And you also leave out the most important fact. Fannie Mae securitized those mortgages at the behest of the government. What happens when you give mortgages to people they can't afford them? And then what happens when the government keeps buying up these mortgages to encourage the process on?

Add the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low, and you've got the origins of what happened.

Blaming Investment Banks for political gain is just plain dishonest.

As for Obama its his spending that's going to run trillion dollar deficits for the next decade. The Obama lovers are glossing over this very important fact. You don't spend your way out of debt, and it's no wonder the Chinese aren't buying our Treasuries anymore.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
The trouble is just that it might have worked in a world which had prevented extreme corporate consolidation and which had taken care through meticulous oversight that massive pyramid schemes like the one built by the derivatives hawkers would not have been possible.

Umm that consolidation helped save Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns....You can blame all the "Derivatives Hawkers" all you want, but you're just being ignorant.

It's like blaming for stock broker for the fall in GM's stock price....

You can keep blaming Reagan but he set us up for 25 years of prosperity and added $4,000 of GDP/capita during his term alone....It's no magic that China and India are following a similar blueprint of deregulation, trade, and open markets. Look at the prosperity that it's brought them.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 13):
Except everything is not fine. Unemployment jumped to about half a percent to 8.9 percent despite this President telling us his "stimulus" package would turn things around. And this during a time of mammoth and historic budget deficits. Deficits so high that Treasury bond holders are ALREADY insisting on higher interest rates in order to hold them because they don't think this administration is serious about getting the deficit under control.

Actually it would have been worse not for the temporary increase in employment due to the stimulus bill. The Chinese already curtailed their Treasury purchases, so what's he going to do next, print the money?

He bet on the Iraq War ending, but at the same time is building up in Afghanistan..Then there's the Taliban in Pakistan...The economy contracted faster than his assumptions last quarter, so his numbers are already bunk..You can't spend your way out of debt, and seeing that he's never run a business it's so surprise he's screwing it up..Look at the near bankruptcy of California right now or Massachusetts' massive billion dollar deficit for examples of this.

Anyone remember Ed Acker and Pan Am? If the business model isn't solvent, borrowing isn't going to help you....


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11529 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2335 times:



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 13):
Except everything is not fine. Unemployment jumped to about half a percent to 8.9 percent despite this President telling us his "stimulus" package would turn things around.

Two things about this:

1. EVERYONE is screaming and crying that this won't kick in for a year or better. At the same time, EVERYONE is screaming and crying that no one read any of this stimulus package because it was too long. So, now, it is Obama's fault because NO ONE in the legislative check over the executive branch did their homework? *NO ONE* Not Republicans, not Democrats. NO ONE. So, it is Obama's fault. Huh?

2. When the economy started to tank, who was president? Obama? IIRC, the fears of recession and slower economy started under Bush. What EXACTLY did he do? What EXACTLY did Bush do to curtail the deficit? He had 8 years. Read that again. Bush had EIGHT YEARS to do something about deficits and to be fiscally responsible. Yet, millions on the right are so happy to just sit there and bob their heads and tell everyone that Obama is the single person to blame for where the United States economy sits. I don't buy it.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 13):
I think voters are getting a taste of why you should NEVER elect someone who has never run ANYTHING as the head of a multi-trillion dollar enterprise

Well, that is your problem: The United States of America is not a corporation. It is not in the business of making money for the stock holders. It is a beacon of freedom and justice for the world. Or so we were told for years and years.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 13):
I don't hate this President, I just hate what he is doing to my country.

And I hated Bush for what he did to MY country, too, and I am ashamed for my countrymen who jumped on the bandwagon and started calling people like me, that protested the war in Iraq, the deficit spending, the torture, the secrecy for the past 8 years, that we are terrorists and need to be sent to Guantanimo. Ashamed that all the peace and goodwill that was talked about for decades as what America is all about was simply abandoned in the name of security and freedom and democracy. I never voted for violence and war. I never voted for torture. I never voted for deficit spending. Yet, for eight years, that is EXACTLY what we got. Now, to blame Obama for all of it is just..... I don't have the words.... I would do better to beat my head against a brick wall, for all the good it will do.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 12):
Perhaps you can place some blame on Bush for 2009's deficit, but the trillion dollar + deficit in 2019?

My e-mail is listed in my profile if you want to send me the next 4 weeks of winning lottery numbers. You seem to have a completely secure and reliable crystal ball. I'll be waiting for those lotto numbers!

And, actually, we can blame Bush COMPLETELY for the trillions of dollars in deficit for 2009. He was completely in power when he came up with that budget and the emergency spending for the wars and military that he just couldn't live without. So, yes, I will blame him.

Care to comment on Bush running up a debt larger than ALL presidents before him COMBINED? How is that Obama's fault? I know there is a "reasonable" and "rational" explination for it. When in doubt, blame the other guy.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2314 times:



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 21):
You conveniently leave out the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1990s that started this little subprime brigade. Banks were sued and the Federal Reserve actually rewrote the lending standards to encourage these loans to so called minorities. Social Engineering gone bad.

Correction - the CRA was passed in the 1970s under Carter. Some important facts about the legislation:
- CRA-governed mortgages defaulted at rates roughly equal to those of non-CRA-governed mortages.
- The legislation specifically instructs banks to follow sound lending principles.
- CRA-governed mortgages were less likely to be resold as mortgage-backed securities.
- Half of all subprime mortgages out there have been issued by non-CRA-governed institutions.
- The Bush administration enforced the CRA less strictly than the Clinton administration, yet it was under Bush that the subprime market imploded.

I don't deny that government policy regarding Fannie and Freddie Mac bought into the same blindness toward risk that struck the rest of the market, but blaming that on the CRA is way off base.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 21):
You don't seem to get it. Wall St was the SECONDARY market for these mortgages. Collaterized Debt Obligations are only pieces of mortgages that were already made...You seem to make the argument that derivatives are bad without understanding how they work. You also ignore that the cause of the crisis wasn't the derivatives themselves but the defaulting of the loans that created them..

Umm...no. The mortgage-backed securities (a subclass of CDO's) were only part of the problem. And labeling them "only pieces of mortgages" is misleading; it ignores the fact that by combining and redividing thousands of mortgages (spamifying them, if you will), the bad mortgages were spread throughout the economy.

The other part of the problem, that you seem to be ignoring, was another derivative, the credit default swap. This blog post explains it about as well as any source I've seen:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/16/1002/9542/629/660423
To summarize, the CDS was initially a sort of loan insurance. If Bank A was nervous that Person B wouldn't pay off the loan they took out, they could pay Firm C a regular fee in exchange for the promise that, if Mr. B defaulted, Firm C would pay off the loan. Bank A reduces their risk (and doesn't have to hold as much cash in reserve, allowing them to make more loans). Firm C earns some income. Everyone is happy. Then along come some Republican lawmakers championing deregulation (primarily Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm), who prohibit the SEC from regulating CDSs.

First result - now no one is checking to see if Firm C actually has the resources to pay off the loan in case it fails. But hey, housing values are only going up! It's not like we'll ever have to pay off a CDS, right?

Second result - Bank A looks at all Firms C (and D, E, F, etc.) all wanting to sell it swaps. Bank A starts making riskier loans--after all, if they don't work out, all those CDS's will cover it.

Third result - Someone realizes that nothing says CDS's have to be on your own loans. Firm C sells CDS to Firms G, H, and I that will pay off if Mr. B's loan fails, even though those firms have nothing to do with the initial loan. Money for everyone! Million dollar bonuses at the end of the year! How could this possibly go wrong?

Then the housing market slows down, and Mr. B calls up Bank A and says he can't afford the loan anymore. Bank A calls up Firm C and requests the payout on its CDS. So do firms G, H, and I. Firm C doesn't have the cash to pay out all these, but never fear! It took out CDSs against this scenario. They call up Firm J--as do all the other people Firm J sold CDSs to. Firm J can't afford to pay all these out, so they call up the guys they bought CDSs from. This happens a few more times, and before long Firm C gets a call from Firm Z asking for the payout on the CDS they bought. Oops.

And that, my friend, is how unregulated derivatives shelled the financial industry.

By the way, the total value of CDS trades in 2007? 70 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the entire planet.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 893 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2314 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 22):
1. EVERYONE is screaming and crying that this won't kick in for a year or better. At the same time, EVERYONE is screaming and crying that no one read any of this stimulus package because it was too long. So, now, it is Obama's fault because NO ONE in the legislative check over the executive branch did their homework? *NO ONE* Not Republicans, not Democrats. NO ONE. So, it is Obama's fault. Huh?

Honestly, you're making this too easy for me. Republicans DID exercise their check over the executive branch on the Obama budget. Which is why EVERY SINGLE one of them voted against Obama's budget. (this is why I'm considering bucking the supposed general trend and registering as a Republican, changing from Libertarian for the first time) The ladies from Maine - Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - even voted against it. ALL of them voted against it, as did 20+ Democrats. Face it, your party owns the deficits now. Remember, you keep telling us we're irrelevant?  Yeah sure Well that means you're entirely responsible for the damage you're causing to my country. Can't have it both ways.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 22):
My e-mail is listed in my profile if you want to send me the next 4 weeks of winning lottery numbers. You seem to have a completely secure and reliable crystal ball. I'll be waiting for those lotto numbers!

Again, these are the government's OWN projected budget deficits. I didn't pull them out of a hat. And it's already clear they were extremely unrealistic and the deficits will be much higher since the GDP numbers for this quarter were way below projections, and the government just had a "terrible" Treasury auction, meaning interest rates (and thus financing the Obama deficits) will be much more costly than originally projected by the government.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/08/...n-exposes-hole-in-obama-econ-plan/

As expected, this is already starting to cause "crowding out" of private investment, and an increase in other interest rates, such as mortgage rates. In other words, everything that critics of this administration said would happen is happening and everything the government said would happen has proven to be false.

You don't need to apologize for voting for these incompetent fools. But I do expect you'll correct your mistake and vote accordingly next time.


25 Windy95 : Actually since congress controls spending most of that deficit came under a Dem controlled congress in which the Messiah was a member. I will never d
26 Falcon84 : Ooooh! Ooooh! (Raising my hand in the back of the class) I know what the answer is! Aaaahem..... "Lower texs and let the economy fix itself!" That's
27 Windy95 : Yes Mr Clinton with the Republcan congress at the time did a pretty good job. No argument from me on that. As for Bush you would be wrong. I was not
28 Seb146 : First off, I have noticed it is only those that hate Democrats call Obama "Messiah." I also find it laughable that you people call Obama "Messiah" wh
29 Post contains links Windy95 : New Projections Show $1.8T Deficit for 2009 The newly projected deficit is now $1.8 trillion, four times last year's deficit and higher than originall
30 Arrow : You're all going to paying for it through substantially increased taxes for a decade or more. The days when an economy could "grow" its way out of th
31 FreequentFlier : The Obama apologists assume just because I oppose their hero that I disliked Clinton. Clinton balanced budgets, passed welfare reform and the economy
32 Seb146 : Yet not one of you Bush cheerleaders said one word about Bush and the Republicans bankrupting this country for six years. Not one person on the right
33 Dreadnought : Where the hell have you been for years? Conservatives have been bitching about deficits for years. But don't try to (again) compare the Bush deficits
34 FlyPNS1 : Maybe they have been bitching, but they haven't actually DONE anything to fix it. How many conservatives turned down the stimulus spending? A few tur
35 Post contains images FreequentFlier : Stop with these liberal arguments you can't back up. Just because you were busy reading the Daily Kos or other left-wing blogs doesn't mean conservat
36 Post contains links Windy95 : And these White House projections include the adding of Cap and Trade. If the people of this country continue to fight the Glbal warning and Carbon c
37 Post contains images Klaus : Well, at least climate change is backed by evidence-based scientific research; Creating cynical euphemisms for the unprovoked Iraq invasion to sell i
38 IgneousRocks : Well, you are all set should ever wish to have second career as a stand up comedian.
39 Klaus : You can choose to laugh about scientific research, but that doesn't alter the results. Only more research might do that, and only if the facts warran
40 Windy95 : If you say so
41 Klaus : Whether I say so or not doesn't change the results either.
42 Seb146 : No. I was just paying attention to regular media. I don't read blogs. Thanks for assuming things about me, though. Yeah. I remember all those budgets
43 Windy95 : Clinton recession, tech Bubble burst and 9/11. Does that explain it enough?
44 Seb146 : Typical: Democrat's fault. 5 minutes into the Obama presidency, the recession is his and his alone. However, Bush was never ever responsible for any
45 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : Saving $17 billion out of $1.75 trillion leaves $1.733 trillion. I think what amuses me the most about that for 8 years while under Bush we heard abo
46 FreequentFlier : You would think the Obama supporters would spend a little less time arguing with their critics and a little more time criticizing Obama to get the de
47 Seb146 : Actually, there were a lot of members of Congress that voiced their opposition to the Patriot Act. They read parts of the Patriot Act, or even the wh
48 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : Sounds about as good as taking money from companies that are actually able to turn a profit and giving it those that can't. There were a GREATER numb
49 DocLightning : I don't think you can really compare the two. An economic crisis is not the same as a terrorist attack. It doesn't have the same shock value. The Pat
50 Yellowstone : It's all about the timing of the deficits. Proper fiscal policy is to go against the swings of the market - run deficits to promote spending when tim
51 Flighty : The graphic you showed makes me really sad because it shows why Obama's sunny personality won't be able to keep the war criminals from returning to p
52 Slider : Don’t know about him, but I’ve offered several alternatives. They start with the mass purging and an enema to 1600 and the 435 members of Congres
53 Flighty : The same forces that financially destroyed airlines, and the American auto industry, are now running the US government and Treasury. Feel better now?
54 Yellowstone : I think part of the problem for ideological conservatives is that, as we get further away from the Cold War and socialism becomes less of a dirty wor
55 Seb146 : No. They were obstructionists. Can you imagine if the markets would have been allowed to do their thing? AIG failing, banks failing, Chrysler failing
56 Slider : You are on the money here—and it grows from our own prosperity. Our success and relative wealth has created a generation of what can only be charac
57 Seb146 : How can you buy into that cr*p? I, and many other, have said over and over and over and over again that when those on the left protested the borrow a
58 Slider : Well, I don't know what you're talking about here, actually. Since I’ve been a vocal critic of Bush here for years, my protestations of Obama are c
59 Yellowstone : Tell that to the thousands of volunteers and millions of donors who put Obama in the White House, and the increasing numbers of young people who are
60 DocLightning : Without Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Clinton would have done no such thing. Yes, this is Doc Lightning. This is not an impostor.
61 FreequentFlier : Beautifully said here Slider. I don't really like the Republicans at all quite frankly and were happy to see them booed off stage at many of the tea
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will Gas Prices Ever Be Less Than $2.00/gal Again? posted Fri Jun 23 2006 06:41:15 by M&M
Who Will Be The Next Secretary-General Of Nato? posted Thu Mar 12 2009 06:55:01 by SKYSERVICE_330
Things That Will Be Remembered In 2000 Years? posted Sun Mar 9 2008 17:03:08 by MaverickM11
McCain Will Be Bush's Third Term posted Wed Mar 5 2008 12:51:44 by BR715-A1-30
Who Will Be Winner Tomorrow Night At Primaries? posted Mon Mar 3 2008 18:56:36 by Boeing743
There Will Be Blood posted Fri Feb 22 2008 16:31:36 by Fumanchewd
When May Hydrogen Be Cheaper Than Oil? posted Sun Feb 3 2008 21:06:39 by Lehpron
Poll: Who Will Be The Democratic Nominee? posted Sun Jan 20 2008 10:09:53 by PPVRA
Will Be In HNL The Dec 31-Jan 6 Any A.netters? posted Tue Dec 25 2007 21:46:01 by UAL747
I Will Be In The Newspaper On Monday posted Thu Sep 27 2007 22:51:41 by MCOflyer