Whose deficit ?

jeffchr

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
The entire spending spree we're on has nothing to do with Obama's policies. He is merely reacting to W. The increase in 2009 spending can be directly linked with war, TARP and reaction to recession and unemployment. Obama is not spending on policy, he is spending on cleanup.

jeffchr-97952-albums-misc-picture863426-deficit.jpg
 
You don't campaign as long and as hard as Senator Obama did and then feign indignation at the mess we're in once you get elected. The Weasel in Chief reminded supporters every day of how how bad off the country was under Bush.

Making excuses and assigning blame only proves his detractors right. He's a much better candidate than elected official.

Or as the ranchers say, 'He's all hat, no cattle.'
 
Spending in 2009 is 602 billion higher than in 2008, excluding payments on the national debt (which declined). A big chunk of the increase happened before Obama took office. 245 billion, came from TARP and the rescue of Mae/Mac, actions taken by W.

Another 18 percent of the spending increase came from growth in mandatory programs - pre-Obama. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cost the government 110 billion more.

The other rise in mandatory spending was in unemployment benefits, up 51 billion.

Of the 602 billion increase, more than 40% was passed under W, another 26% was automatic spending and 20 percent was for Obama’s Recovery Act. Not exactly the huge expansion in light of the circumstances.
 
Obama the candidate signed off on TARP, he endorsed it fully...sure it was only Bush's fault.
See how silly the Community Organizer is.
The POTUS simply wants it both ways.
Obama's (and Bush) cleanup is a dismal failure, and yet he wants to spend even more money we do not have.
Breathtaking in its foolishness.
 
The dems were in control of congress the last 2 years of the last admin. They first passed whatever Bush signed, but it's all his fault? A dem was in charge of monitoring fannie and freddie. He Barney Frank should be in jail for what he did. what money did Obama spend on cleanup of bush's mess? Banking Crisis? Both parties watched that happen, did nothing.

When will people see that both parties are basically the same. They are both to blame, arguing which is less worse makes you look like a tool. Anyone NOT seeing the problem lies with both parties, is lying to themselves.
 
Resin225 said:
The dems were in control of congress the last 2 years of the last admin. They first passed whatever Bush signed, but it's all his fault? A dem was in charge of monitoring fannie and freddie. He Barney Frank should be in jail for what he did. what money did Obama spend on cleanup of bush's mess? Banking Crisis? Both parties watched that happen, did nothing.

When will people see that both parties are basically the same. They are both to blame, arguing which is less worse makes you look like a tool. Anyone NOT seeing the problem lies with both parties, is lying to themselves.
Click to expand...

i say that my self. it is a shame to few see it the same way though.
 
Wavels said:
Obama the candidate signed off on TARP, he endorsed it fully...sure it was only Bush's fault.
See how silly the Community Organizer is.
The POTUS simply wants it both ways.
Obama's (and Bush) cleanup is a dismal failure, and yet he wants to spend even more money we do not have.
Breathtaking in its foolishness.
Click to expand...

so what would be your solution in lieu of TARP - a program that was put together at the very last minute to prevent an international bank failure?

just let everything fail and start a Bush depression? that would have taken your breath away.
 
Let the banks fail.
That is how it is supposed to work.
They should have gone through bankruptcy.
Like any other buisness.
That way we could have figured out what those derivitives were really worth.
Don't give me that end of the world crap the government spewed.
They should have failed.
Other healthy banks (yes there were healthy banks) would have picked up the peices.
People who were taking risks in the derivitives markets may have lost money.
So what, let the risk takers jump out a window in true wall street tradition.

If we are gonna prop up any company that is to big to fail
then that company is a moral hazard.
(See Goldmen-Sachs whos stock prices have skyrocketed
now that it is known the FED and tresury will always back their play)
It will have no real consequices for its risky behavior.
Because the taxpayers will prop it up.

The financial crisis could (and will eventually have to be)
handled with massive government spending cuts
And long term massive tax cuts.
Or massive government spending and
tax increases and a general loss of our living standard.
See the depression of 1920-21 for proof that tax cuts and government spending decreases
work far better then government spending and tax increases i.e. the depression of 1929-1945.
The Great depression didn't end until after WWII and government cut spending by 2/3 and taxes by 1/3.
 
ilkhan said:
Let the banks fail.
That is how it is supposed to work.
They should have gone through bankruptcy.
Like any other buisness.
That way we could have figured out what those derivitives were really worth.
Don't give me that end of the world crap the government spewed.
They should have failed.
Other healthy banks (yes there were healthy banks) would have picked up the peices.
People who were taking risks in the derivitives markets may have lost money.
So what, let the risk takers jump out a window in true wall street tradition.

If we are gonna prop up any company that is to big to fail
then that company is a moral hazard.
(See Goldmen-Sachs whos stock prices have skyrocketed
now that it is known the FED and tresury will always back their play)
It will have no real consequices for its risky behavior.
Because the taxpayers will prop it up.

The financial crisis could (and will eventually have to be)
handled with massive government spending cuts
And long term massive tax cuts.
Or massive government spending and
tax increases and a general loss of our living standard.
See the depression of 1920-21 for proof that tax cuts and government spending decreases
work far better then government spending and tax increases i.e. the depression of 1929-1945.
The Great depression didn't end until after WWII and government cut spending by 2/3 and taxes by 1/3.
Click to expand...
I believe it may have been WWII that actually ended the depression, along with the WPA and other Roosevelt spending programs. Cutting taxes to the rich never helped anyone but the rich. Ever heard of the trickle down theory, Reagans theory, well, it doesn't work. The rich just keep the extra money and the poor are fucked like always. All this bullshit about how cutting taxes to the rich promotes jobs is foolish jibberish. Cutting taxes to the rich promotes the rich, period. The rich already have the money to make new jobs. They won't use it untill they can see they'll make a fair return on investment, no matter how much they get in reduced tax liabilities.
 
medicineman said:
I believe it may have been WWII that actually ended the depression, along with the WPA and other Roosevelt spending programs. Cutting taxes to the rich never helped anyone but the rich. Ever heard of the trickle down theory, Reagans theory, well, it doesn't work. The rich just keep the extra money and the poor are fucked like always. All this bullshit about how cutting taxes to the rich promotes jobs is foolish jibberish. Cutting taxes to the rich promotes the rich, period. The rich already have the money to make new jobs. They won't use it untill they can see they'll make a fair return on investment, no matter how much they get in reduced tax liabilities.
Click to expand...

The only thing about the above post that isn't bullshit is what I highlighted in red.

FDR's make-work programs did exactly NOTHING to end the Great Depression. In fact, there were more unemployed at the start of FDR's third term, than at the beginning of his first term. The same thing is happening now ... government spending and debt creation is PROLONGING the recession/depression.

Taxes destroy business. Want business to start hiring? Cut the corporate tax rate in half. Abolish the capital gains and death taxes.

Honestly Med-'O'Mao ... after YEARS of posting in this forum, you have learned exactly NOTHING about American history or free market economics. <Sheesh!>
 
jeffchr said:
so what would be your solution in lieu of TARP - a program that was put together at the very last minute to prevent an international bank failure?

just let everything fail and start a Bush depression? that would have taken your breath away.
Click to expand...




International bank failure???
Hyperbolic gibberish! IMO

TARP was a misguided, unnecessary plan.
The markets are the best corrective.
This was simply a ruse for the Feds to intervene in the financial industry...a grab for power and undue influence.
Back in the late 1980s when Savings and Loans were collapsing like dominoes the Feds brought into existence a quasi governmental agency called Resolution Funding Corp...RFCO sold bonds to investors and used the proceeds to assist in the bail out of the beleaguered S&Ls.
The taxpayers were not hung out to dry.
Investors were not forced to buy these bonds.
A similar solution to last years hysteria (politically ginned up) would have snugged up the imperiled institutions without a direct and dubious taxpayer commitment.
 
Obama is managing to turn a slump into a depression. People are not forgetting that he said if his bill didn't pass unemployment would rise to 8%. If a president wanted to damage the US economy they couldn't find a better way.
 
thanks for the laugh MM. That was funny. Cuz you can't be serious. IF you are, do you believe that WWII was an inside job, started by the govt, to get us out of the depression? Were those really Jap zeros? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....
 
hmm its bush's fault really? yeah i know he started us down the road of bailouts but what happened to obama's change? whats the difference between bush and obama's policy? can u spot the difference? i sure as hell can't.
 
the government announced last week that there would be a pay cap on the executives of companies who resorted to a government bailout because their companies were failing. the cap was 500,000 dollars per year, not exactly chump-change.....the exception to the rule applies to companies that have paid the government back the 'loans'...

Citigroup and WellsFargo quickly reacted...

by paying back the loans within 1 week of the announcement of the new regulations.... 20billion for citigroup, 25 billion for WellsFargo.... and I thought these companies were struggling?? struggling to make the year-end bonuses for the board.....

500k a year, are you fucking nuts?? do you think these greedy mo'fo's can live on 500k a year??

i guess the old rule still applies:

if you want them to notice you, hit 'em where it hurts....

in this case, the wallet....

american greed at its finest..... :bigjoint::bigjoint::bigjoint:

it's a double-post... but nobody noticed in the business section so I can put it here.... enjoy....
 
What private stockholders choose to pay their execs is everybody's business but whether Obama is eligible to hold the office is nobody's business.
 
jeffchr said:
The entire spending spree we're on has nothing to do with Obama's policies. He is merely reacting to W. The increase in 2009 spending can be directly linked with war, TARP and reaction to recession and unemployment. Obama is not spending on policy, he is spending on cleanup.

jeffchr-1181-albums-misc-picture863426-deficit.jpg
Click to expand...


Hmmm ... interesting graph, Jeff. Question: When the economy turns around, and Obama is taking credit for his administration turning things around, will he also give credit to Bush for spending the TARP money? Who's recovery will it be ... Obama's or Bush's. As for me, I'd credit the forces of the natural business cycle ... in spite of all of the governmental interference. :lol;
 
All the graphs in the world aren't going to allow Obama to blame things on Bush anymore. In fact by summer most people will be wishing they had Bush back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top