Obama reminds Americans he inherited the high deficit from Republicans

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: Reuters

Feb 1, 2010 16:35 EST

Lest there be any doubt, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, blames Republicans for leaving him a huge deficit when he took office.

Heard that before? Many times, probably. The president, who is under pressure for spending associated with the $787 billion stimulus package, bank bailouts and car company rescues, introduced his budget on Monday with another reminder of what he faced when he came into office.

“The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon,” Obama said.

“Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and funded two wars without paying for any of it — all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs,” he said.

The result: a $1.3 trillion deficit when he first took over the Oval Office.

On Monday his administration forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010.

Administration officials acknowledge that even though Obama didn’t create the full problem, it’s now his to fix.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">What do you think? Is it right for Obama to put most of the blame for the high deficit on the opposition party and his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Expect to hear the reminder again.</SPAN>
 
It's not a question of if he's right to put the blame on the Republicans.
The bdget deficit as incurred by the Republicans and by his administration are measurable and can be apportioned accordingly.
It is either a fact or not!!!!!
 
When you hear BS statements like "What were Bush's yearly deficits, are Obama's monthly deficits" or you see ignorant Americans and pundits blaming the deficit "IN ITS ENTIRETY" on Obama. I would remind the country every chance I got.

If people knew the facts, and understood economics behind the actions he's taking they wouldnt be pointing the finger. Some may argue different solutions which is fine, but for the simple fact we are slowly seeing improvement, people need to STFU and let the man do his thing.

I can only imagine if the response to the freefall that was occurring in early 2009 was: spending freeze, tax cuts on the wealthy, let the banks fail... :smh:
 
It's not a question of if he's right to put the blame on the Republicans.
The bdget deficit as incurred by the Republicans and by his administration are measurable and can be apportioned accordingly.
It is either a fact or not!!!!!

You’re making the mistake of assigning equivalence to the deficit blame. What you are implying is that the house is on fire, let’s blame the fire fighters for causing water damage while putting out the flame. We have high unemployment, the deficit was $11 trillions on the day any of Obama’s programs took effect. We have two wars the day Obama took office. Anyone who has a realistic knowledge of economics recognizes that when an economy is in recession, the private sector has already failed and the last resort to re-jump start the economy is Keynesian economic principles.
 
You’re making the mistake of assigning equivalence to the deficit blame. What you are implying is that the house is on fire, let’s blame the fire fighters for causing water damage while putting out the flame. We have high unemployment, the deficit was $11 trillions on the day any of Obama’s programs took effect. We have two wars the day Obama took office. Anyone who has a realistic knowledge of economics recognizes that when an economy is in recession, the private sector has already failed and the last resort to re-jump start the economy is Keynesian economic principles.

Actually I haven't blamed anyone , Im just making the point that who is to blame is measurable and apportionable....
 
Actually I haven't blamed anyone , Im just making the point that who is to blame is measurable and apportionable....

The blame has to be totally apportioned to GW and the republican congress. Despite Clinton's short comings he did leave Bush with a better economy than Bush 1 left Clinton. That’s a fact!
 
The American people voted the people into office who created the deficit. They had a choice between Gore or Bush, you know how that turned out. They elected Reagan even though he was running up deficits. They voted out GB father, because he raised taxes. The American people are greenlighting deficit spending, we vote for politicians that tell funny jokes, gives good speeches, and lowers taxes.

At least the deficit will prevent politicians from bribing voters with more tax cuts. There shouldn't be any deficit spending when the economy is not in a recession.

The debt ceiling should be voted on by the people...

:lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
When does a manager have to start taking responsibility for the mess. President BO was not blind going in. It's time to stop blaming the the other guy and start fixing the problem.

Lead, follow or get the fuck out of the way
 
When does a manager have to start taking responsibility for the mess. President BO was not blind going in. It's time to stop blaming the the other guy and start fixing the problem.

Lead, follow or get the fuck out of the way

That's all republicans do is blame the democrats. Reagan did it, Bush did it. The democrats have always inherited a down economy from a republican president. Keep telling the truth President Obama!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zh2DeQtVyJM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zh2DeQtVyJM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​

<iframe src="http://www.newsweek.com/id/164211/page/1" width=800 height=1000></iframe>

<iframe src="http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/01/17/the-actor-and-the-detail-man.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>

<iframe src="http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/Blame_Clinton.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
 
I can only imagine if the response to the freefall that was occurring in early 2009 was: spending freeze, tax cuts on the wealthy, let the banks fail... :smh:

Shoulda let them cats crash & burn ! ! ! Let the market decide the winners and losers in the economy. Instead, we had Bush & Obama leading us down this road to facism :smh: One thing is for sure, we wouldn't have to worry about those bonuses! By now, we would be on our way to a healthier, more productive economy if they would've let the banks go.

Most Keynesian economists confuse the problem with the consequence. And this is no different. What many fail to realize is that the real problems are in front of us, not behind us!
 
thoughtone said:


<span style="background: yellow"><b>What do you think? Is it right for Obama to put most of the blame for the high deficit on the opposition party and his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Expect to hear the reminder again.</b></SPAN>




Knowledge is fundamental, Reading is fundamental.

For the overwhelming majority of Americans who get their so-called “news” exclusively from television, they have NO CHANCE of knowing what’s really going on……<b>The Truth.</b>

American mega-corporate owned mass media is nothing more than a huge concerted <b>PSYOPS operation,</b> designed to befuddle, persistently frighten,and then anesthetize the American people into a fetal position of helplessness.

I’ve posted the facts below before. Ask yourself how often, and in as plain simple terms as below, did television “news” explain to the 90% of americans whose sole source of new is television, the absolute financial carnage the eight years of cheney-bush handed off to Obama??????????
Where were the “special-reports”?
Where was the special “60 Minutes” broadcast?

Fast forward to today (Feb. 2010) and as President Obama explains on national television with millions watching what he inherited from the bushit administration, most of the pundits & talking heads shaping public opinion are acting like what he is saying is a revelation.

The corporate media of mass deception is <b> Nothing but a huge concerted PSYOPS operation.</b>

<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"></hr>

Bush was an unmitigated failure for 99% of all U.S. citizens.
1% of U.S. citizens benefited financially in a spectacular fashion.

The autopsy chronicling the bush camarilla’s spectacular failure to better the lives of 99% of U.S. citizens has been completed. Those pesky non-partisan, US government bureaucrats, the same people who are ‘scoring’ the various health reform bills, issued their autopsy on bush.

Most Americans don’t even know about it because the “media of mass distraction” didn’t mention it on television. They are too busy spending day-after-day covering?? – John Edwards' ugly mistress that he is fucking, while his wife is dying.

Below are the irrefutable facts and inconvenient truths culled from the bush autopsy report.

You can read the original thread I started & a link to the full autopsy report using the link below.

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=424356

<b><span style="background: yellow">
On every major measurement, the official US Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office,-
The median household income declined,
Poverty increased,
Childhood poverty increased even more,
And the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.</span>

By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.</b>


The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

<b>
<span style="background: yellow">
...Today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension</span></b>-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year.

Consider first the median income. <span style="background: yellow"><b>When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).

<font size="4">When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.</b></span></font>

<span style="background: yellow"><b>
<font size="4">That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms</span></b></font> notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute. <b>

The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent).</b> As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. &quot;What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office,&quot; Mishel says.

<b><span style="background: yellow">Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak.</span></b>
When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.)

<b><span style="background: yellow">Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.</span>

<b><span style="background: yellow">The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty</span></b>. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. <b>
<span style="background: yellow">When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.</span>
</b></span>

bush-history-909.JPG

nob-predictable.jpg


<hr noshade color="#333333" size="6"></hr>
 
Yeah Obama did inherit a high deficit from Bush and than turned that into an even higher deficit and has spent more money in 1 year than all presidents combined through out American history since George Washington to present:smh:. Does this make sense that he keeps saying how he has inherited a deficit from Bush when he has out spent Bush in one year than Bush's 8 years and ALL presidents combined through US history. Why do people always fall for this double talk....WHY????????

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am in Ongoing Priorities with 304 comments Print This Post

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/






CNSNews.com
Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer




President Barack Obama making announcement canceling missile defense shield. (AP photo) (CNSNews.com) – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.

“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”

According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.

By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”

Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.

Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.

Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.

Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.

“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game the taxpayer can never win.”

Changing how the money is spent could go a long way in achieving better results, the study says.

“Annual means tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States,” the study reports. “If welfare spending were converted into case benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.”


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54400



Joe Biden: ‘We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt’
Thursday, July 16, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer




Vice President Joe Biden (Photo by Penny Starr/CNSNews.com) (CNSNews.com) – Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.” (Listen to Audio)

The event, sponsored by the AARP – which supports the Obama administration’s plan – was attended by mostly AARP members who were bussed in for the meeting.



Biden took time from answering questions to chat with a member of the audience, who were mostly members of the AARP. (Photo by Penny Starr/CNSNews.com.) Biden told the group that the Obama health plan will not eliminate people’s ability to choose their health care insurance and that people who cannot afford insurance will be covered by the plan.

“They’ll be a deal in there so there’s competition, so what you’ll have in there is you’ll have the ability to go in there and say, ‘Now look, this is the policy I want. This is the one,” Biden said.

“And those people who can’t afford to get in there, up to a certain income, we’re going to subsidize them, you get in there and we’ll help you pay for it,” Biden said.

After opening remarks by Biden and AARP CEO A. Barry Rand, the audience asked questions, which were fielded by Biden, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform.


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=51162




Obama: We Can't Continue to Spend As If Tax Dollars Are "Monopoly Money"

This is off the charts outrageous, this man has spent more money in one year than any other person who has ever walked the earth, (really)..
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Word can't express the fraud of the above video
Obama: 'We need a government that's more efficient, more effective and far more fiscally responsible. When my Adm. walked through the door the country faced a growing economic downturn as well as a deepening fiscal hole....

The previous 8 years the National deficit doubled... In the long run we can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the about the next election than the next generation".

deficitgraph2.jpg


GBTP.jpg
 
Shoulda let them cats crash & burn ! ! ! Let the market decide the winners and losers in the economy. Instead, we had Bush & Obama leading us down this road to facism :smh: One thing is for sure, we wouldn't have to worry about those bonuses! By now, we would be on our way to a healthier, more productive economy if they would've let the banks go.

Most Keynesian economists confuse the problem with the consequence. And this is no different. What many fail to realize is that the real problems are in front of us, not behind us!

Shoulda let them cats crash & burn ! ! ! Let the market decide the winners and losers in the economy. Instead, we had Bush & Obama leading us down this road to facism

Your perpetual rhetoric has very little if any basis in reality or history. Your talking points are straight out of Faux Snooze/CNBC scrolling headlines. The reality is, if at least some actions were not taken to shore up the economy in 2008/2009, you may not be posting on BGOL. Unemployment would be at 20% or more. I don’t agree on the tactics that were taken, but history shows us what could and did happen to the economy when there are little controls or safety net on the economy, The Great Depression.

One thing is for sure, we wouldn't have to worry about those bonuses!

That is a separate issue. The economy crashed and then the bank criminals were allowed to profit. This is not new. When you rail against taxing corporations this is where the profits go, not back in to the business. More billionaires were created under GW than any other president and the economy fell farther under GW than any other president.

By now, we would be on our way to a healthier, more productive economy if they would've let the banks go.
:lol:

Is this the new Palin/Tea Bagger, Ron Paul talking point? Since the wing nuts were mostly silent on the economy in between 2003 and 2007, where were their fantastic remedies then? Hmmm?

Most Keynesian economists confuse the problem with the consequence. And this is no different. What many fail to realize is that the real problems are in front of us, not behind us!

Anyone can predict what might happen, but it is foolish to not recognize what has happen.
 
Yeah Obama did inherit a high deficit from Bush and than turned that into an even higher deficit and has spent more money in 1 year than all presidents combined through out American history since George Washington to present

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit


Ha, what spin!

Who took a balanced budget and turned it in to the greatest budget defect in world history, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up.

Wing Nuts!

:roflmao:
 
Anyone can predict what might happen, but it is foolish to not recognize what has happen.

One thing about "livin in a bubble" is that you don't realize your living in a bubble! :D

Gotta get to work, i'll respond later. & I told you I don't need Fox to tell me what is goin on, I don't even watch TV bruh.
 
Im the wing nut...LOL. Look at the spin you are talking about he reminds Americans he inherited the high deficit from Republicans and than pushed it to levels the world has never seen before. Show me something that says Obama has not spent more money than Bush Jr. in 1 year than Bush did in his 8 years. I am not a advocate for Bush Jr. I think he is one of the worst presidents of all time but you have to stop this spin. :lol::lol::lol:


Ha, what spin!

Who took a balanced budget and turned it in to the greatest budget defect in world history, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up.

Wing Nuts!

:roflmao:
 
Shoulda let them cats crash & burn ! ! ! Let the market decide the winners and losers in the economy. Instead, we had Bush & Obama leading us down this road to facism :smh: One thing is for sure, we wouldn't have to worry about those bonuses! By now, we would be on our way to a healthier, more productive economy if they would've let the banks go.

Most Keynesian economists confuse the problem with the consequence. And this is no different. What many fail to realize is that the real problems are in front of us, not behind us!

No responsible economists believes that. Had the government done nothing, not only wouldn't we be on our way in a positive direction but we'd still be in freefall.
While of course there are and were other options for both administrations that may have worked better and faster, doing nothing wasn't, and isn't, one.
 
Let me just say one thing: You cannot cut taxes.

So yeah it's ok to blame the Republicans for that.
 
No responsible economists believes that. Had the government done nothing, not only wouldn't we be on our way in a positive direction but we'd still be in freefall.
While of course there are and were other options for both administrations that may have worked better and faster, doing nothing wasn't, and isn't, one.

Oh Contraire! You can believe in doing nothing risking meltdown if you're locked silly on some economic priniciple blind to common sense analysis AND, . . . its not your money anyway. Sometimes the <s>Librarians</s> <u>Libertarians</u> kill me. LOL

QueEx
 
Oh Contraire! You can believe in doing nothing risking meltdown if you're locked silly on some economic priniciple blind to common sense analysis AND, . . . its not your money anyway. Sometimes the <s>Librarians</s> <u>Libertarians</u> kill me. LOL

QueEx


True. A principle should be a guiding force not a rigid code that defies real world situations.
 
Oh Contraire! You can believe in doing nothing risking meltdown if you're locked silly on some economic priniciple blind to common sense analysis AND, . . . its not your money anyway. Sometimes the <s>Librarians</s> <u>Libertarians</u> kill me. LOL

QueEx

QueEx, I'm tellin you & everybody else, the real crisis is in front of us. All that bailout did was allow AIG & the Banks to continue the same reckless policies that brought them to the brink to begin with.

It's sad because your arrogance is consistent with the same people that tried to tell the citizens "the fundamentals were sound". Moreover, the fundamentals are worse now than before the bailout. Cheap $$$ (0 interest rates) lead to malinvestment and nothing has changed to reverse this speculation in the market. What you will see unfold is a predictable consequence!

Remember after 9-11, George Bush got on TV and told Americans to "go to the mall, spend $$$, got to Disneyworld". Well Mr. Obama is promoting the same message. "cash for clunkers", the stimulus etc. Forgive the rock-thrower but its just a heads-up. Both parties are complicit
 
source: Reuters

Feb 1, 2010 16:35 EST

Lest there be any doubt, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, blames Republicans for leaving him a huge deficit when he took office.

Heard that before? Many times, probably. The president, who is under pressure for spending associated with the $787 billion stimulus package, bank bailouts and car company rescues, introduced his budget on Monday with another reminder of what he faced when he came into office.

“The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon,” Obama said.

“Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and funded two wars without paying for any of it — all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs,” he said.

The result: a $1.3 trillion deficit when he first took over the Oval Office.

On Monday his administration forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010.

Administration officials acknowledge that even though Obama didn’t create the full problem, it’s now his to fix.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">What do you think? Is it right for Obama to put most of the blame for the high deficit on the opposition party and his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Expect to hear the reminder again.</SPAN>
TO BAD ITS GONNA FALL ON DEAF EARS.AND THE PUBLIC AINT GONNA BUY INTO IT FOR TO MUCH LONGER IF HE KEEPS BRINGING IT UP.:smh:
 
QueEx, I'm tellin you & everybody else, the real crisis is in front of us. All that bailout did was allow AIG & the Banks to continue the same reckless policies that brought them to the brink to begin with.

And you would think this is the point where the librarian would give at least some credit to the President for moving on banking reform. Yet your single focus rigidity: oppose every utterance of the President and strict adherence to Librarian politico-economic philosophy seems to prevent it.

QueEx
 
TO BAD ITS GONNA FALL ON DEAF EARS.AND THE PUBLIC AINT GONNA BUY INTO IT FOR TO MUCH LONGER IF HE KEEPS BRINGING IT UP.:smh:

Heck, Faux Snooze and the right continually bring up ridiculous assertions such as Obama not being an American citizen, he is a socialist, he is a racist Et al. Evidently it hasn’t fallen on deaf ears among their constituency. I say keep bringing it up. Reagan pounded the lie that Carter was responsible for the mess of the late 1970s, ignoring the oil and stagflation crises of the Ford administrations. Obama has been in office less than 13 months. Is he supposed to clean up 8 plus years of damage in this short time period?
 
QueEx, I'm tellin you & everybody else, the real crisis is in front of us. All that bailout did was allow AIG & the Banks to continue the same reckless policies that brought them to the brink to begin with.

It's sad because your arrogance is consistent with the same people that tried to tell the citizens "the fundamentals were sound". Moreover, the fundamentals are worse now than before the bailout. Cheap $$$ (0 interest rates) lead to malinvestment and nothing has changed to reverse this speculation in the market. What you will see unfold is a predictable consequence!

Remember after 9-11, George Bush got on TV and told Americans to "go to the mall, spend $$$, got to Disneyworld". Well Mr. Obama is promoting the same message. "cash for clunkers", the stimulus etc. Forgive the rock-thrower but its just a heads-up. Both parties are complicit

Unless you, Lammar are willing to move out of you home or lower your living standards to a level just above squalid poverty, all of your talk is just ideology. It is easy for those that are not on the verge of loosing everything to talk about Obama shouldn’t have done this or that. You in particular, are not writing that those fat cats that benefitted from the financial crime wave of the last 30 years give back what they have reaped. Where were you and others when Cheney said back in 2002 that deficits don't matter? Having said this, I do agree that draconian cuts need to be made in the federal budget, starting with the military. I also agree that the system is broken.
 
Last edited:
And you would think this is the point where the librarian would give at least some credit to the President for moving on banking reform. Yet your single focus rigidity: oppose every utterance of the President and strict adherence to Librarian politico-economic philosophy seems to prevent it.

QueEx

My views are a little more complex in regards to monetary policy. I don't believe the Pres. has much to do with the issuance of currency to the nation's banks, thats why my energies are directed towards the Fed Reserve, as I have documented. "Real reform" begins with fractional reserve lending, and it's effects. In short, it's how the banks create "money out of thin air" to benefit those with 'cozy' relationships with the Fed. Bernanke has total control in that arena, and its been demonstrated Pres. Obama will not cross that line.

Thats why I constantly say the politicians, Bush included, spend more time attacking the consequences, instead of the 'core' of the problem.
 
thoughtone said:
.......Lest there be any doubt, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, blames Republicans for leaving him a huge deficit when he took office.

Heard that before? Many times, probably. The president, who is under pressure for spending associated with the $787 billion stimulus package, bank bailouts and car company rescues, introduced his budget on Monday with another reminder of what he faced when he came into office.

“The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon,” Obama said.

“Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and funded two wars without paying for any of it — all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs,” he said.

The result: a $1.3 trillion deficit when he first took over the Oval Office....



The corporate media and Madison avenue, uses pictures & graphics extensively to sell a particular narrative or sell products 24/7; but you will NEVER see this graphic displayed on todays media of mass deceptions (Telescreens) TV’s.


SOURCE Of Data For Graphic Below
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

kcjq12.png
 
I guess Obama thinks his supporters are as dumb as Palin groupies.

How in the hell do you inherit a deficit?

That is the dumbest garbage I've heard that fool Obama say.

That's like me saying I inherited someone else's spending.

How do you inherit a behavior pattern?

I'm telling you, Obama thinks you people who are supporters are a special kind of stupid.

It should be illegal for the government to spend one dime over what they say they are going to spend. Anything else is fraud.

Overspending says that I agree with everything the previous President did, take full responsibility for it, and will add on my own spending.

In fact, saying you inherited deficit spending is so stupid, does anyone have a video of Obama actually saying it?
 
Repost



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1hQjGQgfglM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1hQjGQgfglM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Back
Top