Where is the US economy headed?

@mysteryman,

If it hasn't "happened yet," it might be because no company met the requirements for the $3000.

@cicerone imposter,

According to the change.gov website, all a company had to do was hire people.
Are you saying that no companies have hired anyone so far this year?

0 Replies

Quote:

On April 20, President Obama challenged his Cabinet to cut $100 million in spending over the next 90 days.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/obama.spending.promise/index.html

Well, its now 90 days later.
Where are those savings?
What has been cut to reach that goal?

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Well, I don't know of anyone that has good credit that has a sound reason that can't get a loan.

But another point about this, why is it not surprising that the inspector general complains that the money is not traceable? Just another day of standard operating procedure for the federal government. Who knows where billions have ended up, or will end up? That is precisely why conservatives oppose this kind of stuff, and also why we oppose Obama care.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/white-house-tarp-money-mi_n_242267.html

"The White House is downplaying a government watchdog's harsh assessment about the lack of transparency in the financial industry bailouts by arguing that the money they are lending is, in many ways, untraceable.

On Tuesday, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), and several congressman on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform criticized the Treasury Department for not adequately accounting for the hundreds of billions of dollars it has loaned to troubled banks. In particular, Barofsky testified that Treasury has failed to institute rudimentary of reforms including requiring bailout recipients to track just where, exactly, they are spending taxpayer funds."

2 Replies

@okie,

That's very funny coming from MACs-conservatives when billions were lost in Iraq - without a trace, because we didn't hear a peep! Now that the liberals tried to save our economy, they want a trace on every dollar.

Weren't the first TARP money approved by Bush?

No cure for stupid!

0 Replies

Who will rescue our economy from Obamanomics?

1 Reply

Obamacare is predicted to kill jobs by the thousands... this can't be good for the economy.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Who will rescue us from you? You contribute nothing on a2k, and stick up all the treads.

0 Replies

@okie,

I gotta agree with CI on this one: you didn't say one ******* word about the lack of oversight in Iraq and Afghanistan, where dozens and hundreds of billions were stolen from the taxpayers over the years by crooked contractors and other groups.

It makes your current complaints ring pretty hollow, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

What about my complaints? I've bitched about both the I & A wars and our current spending ****-ups.

Are my complaints hollow as well? If I asked the same question Okie did, would you be more inclined to answer?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

What about my complaints? I've bitched about both the I & A wars and our current spending ****-ups.

Are my complaints hollow as well? If I asked the same question Okie did, would you be more inclined to answer?

No, it is an individualized thing; for example, I couldn't accuse CI of the same thing, for he did complain about such things back then, as you say you did as well.

What question did Okie ask, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm just curious why you think attacking the questioner is an appropriate response to an inquiry.

I don't even know that Okie asked a question.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

okie is a special case; his posts are usually without any reliable source or support for his position - on most topics he seems to involve himself.

I will challenge him whenever I can, and all who read my posts are free to challenge mine.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I'm just curious why you think attacking the questioner is an appropriate response to an inquiry.

I don't even know that Okie asked a question.

Oh, I thought you did, because you wrote:

Quote:

If I asked the same question Okie did, would you be more inclined to answer?

Okie wasn't making an inquiry, he was bitching about the Democrats. It doesn't really matter what the subject is; it's his favorite pass-time these days. But am I really all that wrong to point out how hollow his complaints are, when he never complained about any of these things when Republicans were in charge? It cuts to the quick of his credibility, even if the questions he asks are indeed valid ones.

I guess, more than anything, I get sick of the hypocrisy that he and other Bush-supporters throw around, constantly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Even though Obama has been in the white house for over six months and the democrats have controlled Congress for years...
it is painfully obvious that both Cyclotroll and CI want the economy to tank so they can somehow blame it on Bush.

This is an example of the pseudo intellectual liberals thought process.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

waterboy is pissing in our presence again! His posts doesn't provide anything of value except stink. He can't even prove what he posts. He's got a mental problem; total ignorance.

0 Replies

Now back to the economy

Recession eased in second quarter, data show

It's too bad about the stimulus starting to work, isn't it Squirt?

0 Replies

Nobody has yet shown where the $100 million the govt was supposed to save in the first 90 days has been saved.
Does anyone know, or was that also lost in the shuffle?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Nobody has yet shown where the $100 million the govt was supposed to save in the first 90 days has been saved.
Does anyone know, or was that also lost in the shuffle?

Well there was a great deal of attention given to the fact that they found out they could save some money by printing on both sides of the paper recently. Hey they're working on it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Again bringing up trivia based on history:

Quote:

But let’s go further back and take a look at the average increases in national debt by president. It is most useful to look at the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). Since 1945, there have been seven presidential terms held by Democrats and nine held by Republicans. During every term held by a Democratic president since this time, that president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. The Roosevelt/Truman administration made the greatest dent with a 24.3% reduction. By contrast, only three terms held by a Republican president since 1945 showed a reduction in the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Further, Eisenhower made the most significant reduction for Republicans at a 10.8% decline between 1953 and 1957. This is less than half the decline made by the Democrats Roosevelt/Truman. Even further, every single Republican president since 1973 (beginning with Nixon/Ford) has increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Let’s summarize: Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% per year. Republican presidents out-borrowed and out-spent Democratic presidents by a three-to-one ratio. Putting that in very real terms, for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know