Obama '08?

Advocate says BO has achieved "bank reform". How? By putting us into a 3 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT? I doubt that Advocate knows that BO's deficit budget for next year equals nearly one quarter of OUR ENTIRE YEARLY GDP!

Since Advocate knows NOTHING about Economics, that won't bother him!

Foxie wrote:

What's a "deep ditch" Foxie? Please give us numbers at it relates to GDP, and the actual amount "spent?" You claim to have studied economics, but your posts doesn't show it. Are you more knowledgeable then Geitner or Bernanke?

Bush was utterly incompetent when we measure the health of the country he inherited when he took office to the one he turned over to his successor. McCain made no effort during his presidential campaign to distinguish the way he would govern this country from the way that Bush governed. Your conclusion that McCain would be infinitely better than Obama is wholly unsupported. It is mere speculation.

After the Obama Administration has completed one or two terms, then you may look back and determine for yourself whether Obama governed competently or incompetently taking into consideration the health of the country he inherited when he took office to the one he turns over to his successor. If Obama has pulled this country somewhat out of the bottom of the deep CANYON that Bush crashed it into, then perhaps he will be deemed to have managed a successful presidency.

Did "Change" mean a change of mind once elected?

hey.. ya know what ci? maybe they're right.

we should all just do nothing. nothing at all.

let everything fail.

the banks, the car companies, the tire companies, fan belt companies, bob's good nuts & bolts co., alpine radio, russtogs car upholstery division, the glass & mirror works, delco batteries, ace spark plugs, auto zone, prestone, the plant the prints all of those manuals that make no sense, the carpet companies...

and then, more housing developments, screw the construction people, catapillar, makita, craftsman, joe bob's nails, home depot, snap on, the guys that make those tool belts, california contractor's supply...

mcdonald's, taco bell, burger king, subway, el pollo loco, kfc, safeway, kroeger's, winn/dixie, piggly wiggly, ralph's, von's, albertsons..

proctor and gamble, mars, colgate, pinesol, BEER companies (that's just effin' wrong.), coca cola, pepsi co., carnation, hunt's, heinz, del monte

rite-aid, cvs, rexall, express scripts...

and of course, since noone is going to have 2 nickels to rub together, there won't be any 10% tithing to the churchs.

it'll be great! we can all have a real close up look at what the dark ages were like.

now that spells F U N, eh?

I have not been able to find out much about the Dark Ages but what little there is sounds pretty good to me. Camelot and the Romance of the Rose. Toothache cured by a blacksmith with a punch.

that's because everything failed.

I doubt that. A fair number of seductions must have succeeded.

wtf are you going on about? maybe it's alright for you, over there in your socialist nanny state, mate.

WTF are you talking about with your rant on basically every business in America failing?

Nothing was an option, and it's one that we should have chosen. Don't worry though, all you baby-boomers can retire and die while my generation pays for your mistakes. I'd be afraid if I were you; once my generation realizes the hole you dug for us, we're going to be very pissed off.

Even Obama throws his own policies under the bus! Is this guy a piece of work or what! He proposes all the spending, rams it through as if it is an emergency, then he goes around making speeches saying it is unacceptable. Is he a mental case, or what? Hes the one that did it. I've seen lots of things but this one takes the cake.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20603037&sid=abXWfVxx_e8w&refer=home

"Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’ (Update2)
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.” "

ever heard of synchronicity?

are you seriously trying to argue that letting the car companies fail will have no effect on the supporting industries?

and that a lack of income to those industries, and their employees will have no effect on businesses that those people shop with??

frankly, i don't give a **** what your generation gets pissed at. it's largely keeping some of you brats supplied with game boys, computers and trips to the mall that have caused your parents to live way beyond their means.

deal with it.

what he's telling us is, the party's over. gonna have to start paying taxes again.

I note from your profile, that you are about 30, maporsche.
Amusingly (I guess), I asked a question a year or so back that went something like: "What has the baby-boom generation accomplished?"
There were few responses. I would like to propose the question again.

DTOM, the rich are paying more and more of the tax. If Obama is dumb enough to bleed all the wealth out of this country, to fritter it away, to spend it, and he has a good start on this already, the country will be bled dry. We will no longer be a wealthy country that gave us the high standard of living. If you spend the wealth without creating any more, we are on the road down, DTOM. Spending is the problem, not taxation, he is 180 degrees out of phase. The government is not an efficient wealth creator, it just isn't, and never has been, anywhere.

P.S. You imply that we aren't paying taxes now, which is a crock. I have to plan months ahead to pay quarterly taxes. Too bad I can't skate like Geithner. Maybe Obama just needs to get his appointees to pay tax, that would help.

we're already there. that's the problem. we no longer own the country. the three largest holders of u.s. debt are china, japan and germany. ironic isn't it?

now imagine a scenario where china (i'm not worried about the other 2 in this scenario) is involved in an international situation that requires the u.s. to get involved.

wait, let's put it this way. while going thru an intersection, a car runs a red light and creams your car. you get out, the other guy gets out. words are exchanged. the guy is just being an asshole, so you clobber him one. and remind him he's an asshole.

and then it hits you. "oh ****... he's the president of the bank that is holding my mortgage".

uh-ohh...

I can't disagree with your scenario, it makes total sense. And I don't blame Obama for the national debt up to the point of his presidency, but sheesh, its as if he has thrown all caution to the wind and has decided to take whats left and throw it away at several times the rate it was happening already. So I hope people wake up and sweep Congress clean in the next 2 year cycle, so we can stop this whole disaster, or at least slow it down.

Okie- Here's another perspective-

At the same time, a global shortage of creditworthy debt instruments has created low yields, making it difficult to find productive investments. Also, the major role played by the US institutions in financing global debt and equity operations, regardless of where actual investments are taking place, determines the need for channeling funds through the US. Most foreign investors, and not just China, are therefore on the horns of a dilemma, and the need to ensure good returns on their investment while not wanting to be the last one out of the door gives the situation its knife-edge quality.


Over the past decade or so, the benefits of international trade happen to have paradoxically landed on one of the most land-locked asset classes imaginable, namely US housing and mortgage markets. A global savings glut and emerging economy reserves recycled back into the US managed to create a low-interest environment that indirectly may have fed the current crisis. While foreign investors might be tempted to transfer to non-dollar denominated assets leading to dollar depreciation, inflation and related dislocations, there are slim chances of abrupt change on the part of anyone. Despite recent turmoil, continuing purchases by foreigners indicate that there’s no loss in the appetite for US securities.

Debra L A W wrote:

After the Obama Administration has completed one or two terms, then you may look back and determine for yourself whether Obama governed competently or incompetently taking into consideration the health of the country he inherited when he took office to the one he turns over to his successor. If Obama has pulled this country somewhat out of the bottom of the deep CANYON that Bush crashed it into, then perhaps he will be deemed to have managed a successful presidency.

****************************************************************

The Canyon that "Bush crashed it into" is just a ditch compared to the 2o mile deep one that Barack Hussein Obama has put us into. Debra L A W intimates she knows all about legal and governmental affairs. If so,she must know that
the Senate's own Office--the OMB--has predicted that The Anointed One--BO has created a debt that is far far far far more crippling that anything Bush ever did.

Note:

I am sure that Debra L A W thinks she can show that the story that BO is piling up huge deficits is not correct. I think she is actually too stupid to do that being a graduate of a TTT. Note:

Obama's Fuzzy Math
A trillion here, a trillion there . . .
by Stephen Moore
04/06/2009,

In his press conference last Tuesday, Barack Obama said that America must reject the "borrow and spend" policies of the past in favor of a strategy of "save and invest." Sounds good. So why is Obama proposing to borrow and spend more than any president in the history of the republic? Already in the first 45 days of his administration, the federal government has authorized more debt spending than Ronald Reagan did in eight years in office.

Then last week the Democrats' own Congressional Budget Office found that the ten-year deficits of the Obama plan will be about $2.3 trillion higher than the $6.97 trillion the White House is projecting. This is the policy of the party that was swept back into power in 2006 and 2008 promising a return to an era of fiscal responsibility.

Welcome to the Obama doctrine. It is built on the high stakes economic gamble that the public and the bond markets will tolerate trillions of dollars of borrowing to pay for massive expansions in government spending on popular income transfer programs. The corollary to this doctrine is that the left will create a political imperative to jack up tax rates to pay for higher spending commitments made today.

But the news on the red ink front is much worse than the president or even the CBO's budget report suggests. If all of Obama's "transformational" policy objectives--from global warming taxes to universal health care to doubling the Department of Energy's budget--are enacted, the debt is likely
to increase from about 40 percent of GDP today to close to 100 percent of GDP by 2018. The ten-year debt is likely to be at least $6 trillion higher--or more than one-half trillion of higher deficits a year from now until forever--than the Obama budget projects.

These are uncharted levels of debt for the United States--though not for such high-flying nations as Argentina, Bolivia, and Mexico. This hemorrhaging of U.S. government debt will be happening at precisely the time when, in a rational world, the government would be running surpluses, in anticipation of the retirement of some 80 million baby boomers who will soon collect multiple trillions of dollars of government benefits from Medicare and Social Security.

Obama uses highly optimistic assumptions on how fast the economy is going to grow and how many jobs are going to be created over the next five years. I've worked in a presidential budget office before. Believe me: If you manipulate the economic assumptions on unemployment and GDP growth, you can make the budget deficit in the future be whatever you want it to be. You can even, as Obama claims to do, magically cut a deficit in half without cutting a single program. From 2010-13, the head of the OMB, Peter Orszag, predicts that the U.S. economy will grow at a 4 percent annual pace, when the blue chip-economic forecast is closer to 2.7 percent. Of the 51 blue chip-economic forecasters, the OMB's forecast is more optimistic than all but two.