6
   

Bush's economy

 
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 05:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The US budget deficit is expected to reach a record $438bn in 2009, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

It also warns the deficit could go higher as the figure does not take into account possible government costs for taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The CBO added the US government will run a deficit of $407bn this year.

During the next fiscal year - starting on 1 October - a "turbulent" economy would cut revenues, the CBO warned.

'Increase in spending'

The CBO estimate for 2009 does not include the possible costs of rescuing the two stricken giant mortgage firms, which was announced on Sunday.

Its assessment of $438bn would breach the 2004 record of $413bn and far outstrip the $161bn budget shortfall last year.

"The significant expansion in the deficit is the result of a substantial increase in spending and a halt in revenue growth," the CBO report said.

In 2008, the CBO estimates, federal spending will be 8.3% higher than it was in 2007; at the same time, total revenues will be less than they were in 2007.

'Past recessions'

At a news conference, CBO director Peter Orszag said it was too soon to say whether the US officially is in a recession.

But he said that the recent rise in unemployment and economic weakness "are consistent with the pattern seen in past recessions, the past few recessions to be precise".

He also said CBO's budget estimates did not take into account possible costs related to the US government for taking over Fannie and Freddie.

But he said the cost of the operation should be directly incorporated into the federal budget, which could further swell deficits.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7607872.stm?ref=opinion
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:46 pm
@Ramafuchs,
The whole univerce is immensely pleased with the american intellectuals.
And the world is ready to face USA's intellectual LEADERSHIP
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 03:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Barclays, considered the leading contender for Lehman Brothers, said it could not reach a deal, and Lehman appeared headed toward liquidation.

Both Barclays and Bank of America expressed interest in buying Lehman and were negotiating hard, initially insisting that the government provide financial support. But federal officials were adamant that no public money be used " a big point of contention because many of the top Wall Street executives believe that their banks, which have each written down tens of billions of dollars in assets, do not have the capacity to lead the rescue on their own.

The prospects of a deal involving Bank of America appeared to fade as talks progressed Saturday and it became clear that the government would not stray from its position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I am not for the government's intervention But I am for putting restriction to those institutions to make business rationally which I failed to see in BUSH's administration.
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 03:50 pm
@Ramafuchs,
That is great news for officials who prefer to hide the cost of the bailout since it is due, in large part, to their failure to adequately regulate the financial markets and steward the economy. But it is an insult to taxpayers, whose money is at risk, and it is a reckless gambit.

The Congressional Budget Office reported on Tuesday that the government’s finances are deteriorating rapidly: the budget deficit for this year is expected to reach $407 billion, more than double last year’s shortfall, and to exceed $500 billion in 2009. The takeover of Fannie and Freddie, necessary though it is, will add to the deterioration. Airbrushing that away will only open the door to uninformed " or negligent " decisions on spending and tax cuts.

The White House says that the extent of the government’s control of Fannie and Freddie does not warrant including the companies’ operations in the budget. That is absurd. The government has seized the companies, firing their executives and installing new ones, offering to invest up to $200 billion in the companies if necessary, and most significant, making an ironclad promise to pay their trillions of dollars in obligations, if need be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14sun1.html
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 11:05 am
@Ramafuchs,
This is the 10th attempt to draw the attention of the author of this thread.
Why the hell rest of the members of Able2Know shout with silence?
Are they dissatisfied about Bush's Economy?
Or are they fully rewarded by his intellectual stewardship?
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 12:47 pm
@Ramafuchs,
I know i am diving in the deep ocean of able 2know.
But seldom I find a gem or pearl.
Am i blind?
or wasting my valuable time
like
a blind man in a dark room
who is searching a black cat
which is not there?
Bush#s economy had shattered the global economy.
His politics anything other than christian culture.
He had a handfull of fans who will never go to the market to buy potatoes.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:41 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Bush policies has brought us to the threshold of a global recession and global banking collapse unless interventionist government action is taken.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 07:58 am
@Ramafuchs,
A big pack of lies! Happy New Year, Rama and everyone!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush's economy
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 03:55:25