Obama to increase 10 year deficit to $9trillion

[RobMoney$]

In an a pre-emptive effort to avoid this thread becoming an "Attack the messenger, ignore the message" thread that often happens with something posted from FoxNews/HuffPo/ect., I took the liberty of posting FoxNews', HuffPo's, and CNN's articles on the issue.
I did get a chuckle out of HuffPo's next to nothing article.
Feel free to choose whichever slant on the issue floats your boat.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/21/official-obama-increase-year-deficit-trillion/?test=latestnews


The 2010-2019 cumulative deficit projection replaces the administration's previous estimate of $7.108 trillion


So much for the crystal ball.

In a report next week, the Obama administration will increase its 10-year budget deficit projection to roughly $9 trillion, an increase of about $2 trillion from the previous projection, an official at the Office of Management and Budget told FOX News.

The 2010-2019 cumulative deficit projection replaces the administration's previous estimate of $7.108 trillion.

The official said the prolonged recession and the ensuing decline in federal revenue prompted a recalibration of the deficit numbers. The numbers also reflect a projection that post-recession economic growth may not be as robust as after previous recessions, the official said.
Budget projections are rarely static. As economic conditions change, so do the estimates.

The White House also plans to announce this year's federal deficit will end up about $262 billion less than officials had predicted earlier this year -- in part because the administration has provided less aid than expected to Wall Street.

The federal deficit this year will total $1.58 trillion, a senior White House official told the Associated Press late Wednesday. That's three times more red ink than last year. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the report before its release next Tuesday while President Obama will be on vacation in Massachusetts.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to release its mid-session review the same day. It estimated in June a one-year deficit of $1.825 trillion.

The report for the budget year that ends Sept. 30 also will predict Washington to spend $3.653 trillion this year, the official said. Revenue, however, would reach only $2.074 trillion.

"Whether it's $1.6 trillion or $1.8 trillion, it's pretty bad," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the bipartisan fiscal watchdog The Concord Coalition. "I hope no one tries to spin that as good news."

The midsummer report was supposed to have been released in mid-July, but was delayed, leading to speculation the White House was delaying the bad news until Congress left on an August recess. Other administrations delayed releasing their versions of this report during their first year.
Obama's budget had included a $250 billion placeholder for a second bailout of the nation's troubled banks, but he did not ask Congress for it amid concerns the administration was spending too heavily. The administration also had anticipated more banks failing, but the survival of most banks saved billions for Washington.

The report comes during a rough patch for Obama's presidency. The rancor surrounding the Democrats' proposed health care overhaul came during a monthlong break when much of Washington is in a lull.
The administration earlier this year predicted that unemployment would peak at about 9 percent without a big stimulus package and 8 percent with one. Congress did pass a $787 billion two-year stimulus measure, yet unemployment soared to 9.4 percent in July and appears headed for double digits. Most of that stimulus will occur in the coming fiscal year.
The nation's debt now stands at $11.7 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the deficit, which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and ignores previous debt that is still outstanding.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/obama-revises-10year-budg_n_265559.html


[B][I]cnbc.com:
The Obama administration will increase its 10-year budget deficit projection to roughly $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.


And finally, CNN's version...

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/21/obama-officials-to-forecast-2-trillion-spike-in-deficit/


Obama officials to forecast $2 trillion spike in deficit (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/21/obama-officials-to-forecast-2-trillion-spike-in-deficit/)
[SIZE=1]Posted: 07:04 PM ET

By Ed Henry and Rebecca Sinderbrand
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The U.S. deficit will reach about $9 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a new budget forecast to be released next week by the Obama administration.
The figure is a significant jump from the $7 trillion deficit that officials had projected at the beginning of the year. Obama officials pin most of the blame for the projected deficit spike on the bleak financial picture: the government is not taking in as much tax revenue, while it continues to spend to try and stimulate the economy out of recession.
The new projection is likely to fan the flames of the already-heated health care debate, with Republicans charging the new projections show the president is spending too much money and can not afford a vast health reform bill.
But administration officials are already making the opposite case: that the forecast shows that exploding health care costs need to be reined in for the budget to be brought into balance.






Not exactly a small alteration, is it?
30% increase because once again, they didn't understand the nature of the economic picture they were looking at.
Why should we believe they can accurately determine the cost of Health Care, the cost of Cap and Trade, or the long term affects of any of this on the Economy?

The public opinion of his Healthcare plan continues to drop, along with his approval numbers. Can anyone still buy into the LIE that a Government controlled option will control costs?

Obama is burning up political capital on this like GM goes thru bailout funds.

[Echewta]

So the increase in deficit is because of the health care option that hasn't even been put in place yet?

These articles talk about the current economic condition that is chuck full of stuff including the "war on terror", unemployment, less taxes being collected, bail outs/government lending (how you look at it) and health care so i'm confussed on how this is suppose to show that the government can't help with health care costs with a public option. Less people have jobs, less people use insurance for an option, and perhaps more people are now using "free services" that is costing the government (local, state, federal) more than before (I'm assuming). Could a public option be a stimulus to the health care industry like Cash for Clunkers was in general?

Does medicare control costs?

I'm saying this with a calm voice, not pointing fingers RM.

[Echewta]

Stimulus is helping economy, U.S. budget experts say (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE57O5V720090825)

Most of the spending so far has been in four areas, CBO said: Medicare health coverage for the poor; unemployment benefits; one-time $250 payments to retirees; and grants to states for education and other government expenses.

Spending on housing and transportation projects is going more slowly than anticipated, CBO said.

[RobMoney$]

So the increase in deficit is because of the health care option that hasn't even been put in place yet?

These articles talk about the current economic condition that is chuck full of stuff including the "war on terror", unemployment, less taxes being collected, bail outs/government lending (how you look at it) and health care so i'm confussed on how this is suppose to show that the government can't help with health care costs with a public option. Less people have jobs, less people use insurance for an option, and perhaps more people are now using "free services" that is costing the government (local, state, federal) more than before (I'm assuming). Could a public option be a stimulus to the health care industry like Cash for Clunkers was in general?

It's the fact that he and his economic advisers have been mind-boggling inept at projecting.
The Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act was supposed to save the economy. We were told Unemployment rates would not go above 10%, they did.
In Obama's attempt to sell the the $787 Billion Dollar stimulus to America, he stated he and his advisors projected the stimulus would create Two million jobs. When he needed that extra push to get the bill through Congress he raised the projections to three to four million jobs it would save or create. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/us/politics/11radio.html)

Obama said he estimated the stimulus would save or create 600,000 jobs in the first 100 days. (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5572M020090608)


Unemployment was at 7.6% in January 2009.
August 2009 were looking at 9.4%.

If he's going to create 3.5 million jobs by Sept. 2010 as promised, he's got a long way to go.
So far, he's lost jobs at a higher rate than the previous administration.
And now he's changed the 10 year plan from a $7 Trillion to a $9 Trillion deficit?

How can we be expected to have any faith that his projections for the Government Healthcare option are now suddenly going to be accurate?

I know you don't have kids Chewy, but I have a hard time accepting the fact that I'm going to be leaving mine with a $9 Trillion dollar bill, if we are to believe that projection. It's reckless spending on a level this country has never seen.
It's as if we're being conditioned to accept the fact that we'll be running at unconceivable deficits from now on. Like just $1 Trillion is nothing.


Does medicare control costs?

I'm saying this with a calm voice, not pointing fingers RM.

Does Medicare control costs?...And how, brother.
Medicare dictates how much it will pay for what.
They're the Wal-Mart of Healthcare.
It's actually one of the reasons for the exploding costs of private insurance as hospitals and doctors have to increase what they charge private insurance to make up for the losses they take on Medicare patients.
You better believe Medicare isn't paying $20 for that Tylenol in the ER.
A Public Option will control costs alright, but it will be by ruining the system through laws to 'control costs'. How can Private Insurance really be expected to compete with the Government?

[Dorothy Wood]

well, why don't you run for office if you have all the answers.

[yeahwho]

So is Obama to blame? Did this all happen on his watch? I know the theme is Obama is a "Bad Man" because he's causing all of these problems.

Do you you think that Obama spent all of this money in the few months he has been in office? Get Real! This is the cost of two unpaid wars and terrible tax policy all done by the Bush administration and cheered on by the very people who are ranting against Obama. At least real numbers are being reported as bad as they are so that the public is aware of the problem and we respond properly. Now lets fix the problem.

[Documad]

So is Obama to blame? Did this all happen on his watch?

Only for a small portion of it. And no.

As you well know, when Bill Clinton left office, we were in pretty good economic shape. But we deficit spent for two wars that are still unbelievably expensive and now we have to pay the financing on all that debt. I'd like to see what the (republican congress') prescription drug bill is costing, both in real terms and in financing on the deficit. And no one has the guts to say they're going to cut entitlements.

Then there's the part that's just plain bad luck. The same thing goes for a lot of states. You make your projections based on the money you expect to come in (in taxes) and the money you expect to pay out (social programs, infrastructure, etc). But when a shitload of people lose jobs and it's beyond your control or a shitload of businesses go under and it's beyond your control, your state is taking in a lot less revenue and paying out a lot more in things like unemployment compensation.

I'm sick to my stomach at the size of the deficit, but I've been complaining since the Iraq war first started. The crap the republican congress passed pissed me off to no end. Because they spent and spent and spent and cut taxes at the same time. You don't have to be an award winning economist to know that that is going to put you into a shitload of debt and that when you have a shitload of debt you have to pay a shitload of interest. If Bush, et al, had passed the real cost of these wars onto the american people via higher taxes instead of cutting taxes then not only would we not be in this situation but I'll bet that fucking war wouldn't have been as popular as first was.

So once we're already in a shitload of trouble, and then people like my family members have recently lost jobs that they had held for a decade or more and they have no hope of finding another anytime soon because of age or general economic conditions, well then I'm fine with the part of the deficit that is giving my family members longer unemployment benefits. I'm also fine the part of the deficit that is putting money into infrastructure that both creates jobs and makes for better bridges and roads, etc.

I'm not a fan of how anyone has handled the health care debate but that's a separate issue. I also think that Obama and the current democratic congress have to find things to cut. It's fucking unfair that they inherited this mess given how much better things were 8 years ago, but they've got to cut things. Just not my family members' unemployment benefits. :p

EDIT: Those were my thoughts in general -- obviously not directed at yeahwho or lecturing him.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Some of you have probably seen the cost of war counter website. Well it is still working and the costs are impressive and still mounting:

http://costofwar.com/

Below is an article written over a year ago on the subject with 'conservative' estimates over three trillion:

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/03/09/the-cost-of-war-over-3-trillion/

The costs of war largely contributed the $9 trillion problem America faces. All citizens should be ashamed that this has happened and that it was allowed to happen in a country that is presumably a democracy. Dollar costs are only part of the picture as the human costs for Americans and Iraqis go well beyond dollar figures. The human costs are more than sad, they were preventable, illogical and irresponsible. If we as citizens of the world cannot learn from these mistakes the planet is surely doomed to a persistent cycle of failure.

[kaiser soze]

It is unfortunate that Robmoney has fallen victim to the "I've forgotten so quickly" syndrome his contemporaries succumbed to January 20th. This is continuity in it's ugliest. A candidate has inherited a massive shitball of a mess and receives all the blame for it.

If I were Obama I'd put it all out on the table, let the trials begin, let the convictions fall where they may and show the American people that people who leave their fucking messes for others to clean up will be held responsible.

[valvano]

its also obvious that so many of the Obama kool aid drinkers have forgotten the "change" hype. what change has there been other than mounting deficits, broken promises, and continued secrecy?

the fed govt under obama couldnt even manage a car rebate program...how in the hell can they manage national health care?? he's not organizing voters any more..he's clearly over his head

its clear most of you young punks dont remember the Jimmy Carter years, the last time we had a Dem president and veto proof Dem control of the house and Senate. well Obama is on his way of returning us to those years of high inflation, high interest rates, and economic stagnation.

get out your dictionary and look up the word "malaise", you may see Carter's name next to it..

[saz]

sounds just like the reagan and bush administrations to me.

[valvano]

sounds just like the reagan and bush administrations to me.

yeah there was no economic growth under reagan :rolleyes:

the only ones who complain are those who chose to sit on their ass and not be productive...

[RobMoney$]

Yes, the wars hurt us economically, as well as the lives that were lost.
Yet they continue, and in the case of Afghanistahn are increasing, and it's Obama's plan to do so.
Not exactly why you voted for him, is it?

The estimates for 2009 put the US at $1.58 Trillion deficit.
Call me crazy, but I contend we not create any more entitlement programs until we get that number in the positive.

Estimating it'll be at 9 trill. in 10 years is just unacceptable.

[RobMoney$]

It is unfortunate that Robmoney has fallen victim to the "I've forgotten so quickly" syndrome his contemporaries succumbed to January 20th. This is continuity in it's ugliest. A candidate has inherited a massive shitball of a mess and receives all the blame for it.



As if every other President in history has stepped into the office, problem-free.

Everyone who's inhereted the office has stepped in with problems to fix from day 1. The ability for fixing shitballs is sort of a requirement for the job.

[saz]

yeah there was no economic growth under reagan :rolleyes:

the only ones who complain are those who chose to sit on their ass and be productive...

oh, but reagan raised taxes multiple times. he cut and ran from lebanon after the marines barracks bombing. he ran up the debt to astronomical levels. he also granted amnesty for immigrants, and of course the black monday crash of '87. sounds like the perfect candidate for your hatred.

[valvano]

oh, but reagan raised taxes multiple times. he cut and ran from lebanon after the marines barracks bombing. he ran up the debt to astronomical levels. he also granted amnesty for immigrants, and of course the black monday crash of '87. sounds like the perfect candidate for your hatred.

i didnt know disagreement was the same as hatred...:rolleyes:

he also cut taxes (as did liberal icon John Kennedy) which increase govt revenue which the dem controlled house and senate proceded to spend and then spend beyond that revenue, i recall the 1987 crash during college ( i am guessing you werent born yet, markets always have correction and economic grown is always cyclical).

give it up.

[saz]

well considering that all you do is come on here and whine and cry about taxes etc, it's a given that anything to do with taxation immediately incurs your angst ridden gibberish.

sorry, but cutting taxes does not increase tax revenue. and right, the market has really corrected itself since the '08 crash. and saddam's wmds are in syria.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I have no idea about Obama really. He seems nice enough, his speeches can be inspiring and I liked how during the campaign kids who could not even vote yet due to unfair age restrictions were posting on his myspace page that they wished they could vote. In an age of voter apathy that is wonderful. But I do know that I want change and wish we had a system that was amiable to change. It seems that change is not what the majority of people in power want. It is a shame and I have no idea how we can change this situation. Complaining about it only goes so far...

[yeahwho]

I have no idea about Obama really. He seems nice enough, his speeches can be inspiring and I liked how during the campaign kids who could not even vote yet due to unfair age restrictions were posting on his myspace page that they wished they could vote. In an age of voter apathy that is wonderful. But I do know that I want change and wish we had a system that was amiable to change. It seems that change is not what the majority of people in power want. It is a shame and I have no idea how we can change this situation. Complaining about it only goes so far...

There are reasonable Americans who don't talk like assholes. There are millions of them who voted for Obama, the majority realize the colossal failure the Bush administration was, the results of which became evident during the Bush tenure.

Who knows what sort of depth of degradation we might currently be in if we didn't throw money at these failing banks. I have a feeling we're very lucky to not be in a depression much worse than the Great Depression. This has been one of the most mismanaged economies to ever exist. There are pandemic fears and now the military has planned for Global Warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?hp) fallout. It is insane times, yet what really bothers many Republicans (lets face it they have become a cult of ditto heads) is perhaps, just maybe the American Dream will die with Health Care available for all citizens. Amazing.

[yeahwho]

EDIT: Those were my thoughts in general -- obviously not directed at yeahwho or lecturing him.

I'm grateful to still be holding on to a job I love and having choices for dinner during these tumultuous times. I have no problem having to make nazi sacrifices for the needed socialism that helps those less superior than my elitist self.

obviously.

[RobMoney$]

Who knows what sort of depth of degradation we might currently be in if we didn't throw money at these failing banks. I have a feeling we're very lucky to not be in a depression much worse than the Great Depression. This has been one of the most mismanaged economies to ever exist. There are pandemic fears and now the military has planned for Global Warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?hp) fallout. It is insane times, yet what really bothers many Republicans (lets face it they have become a cult of ditto heads) is perhaps, just maybe the American Dream will die with Health Care available for all citizens. Amazing.


I'm just wondering where this great colapse of the economy is? Obama is projecting a 1.2% drop in GDP for 2009?
And before you can give me the "Obviously, the stimulus worked" excuse, by Obama's own projections, most of the stimulus wasn't supposed to hit until 2010.

Declaring an immediate emergency and ramming your initiatives through seems to be the new political tool. And let's face it, without a quick recovery his plan to pay for healthcare starts to unravel.

He's really no different than George Bush in my mind.
Bush lied to get into the war and then lied about the cost of it.
Obama's been lying and fear-mongering to get his spending hike enacted, and now he's lying about the economic outlook so that it won't show the deficits it's going to generate.
It's just politics as usual, there is no "change".
It's hard not to laugh at all of the pontificating about "telling Americans the truth about the budget" when they drop stuff like this on us.
Of course, few will dive head first into these projections.

It just amazes me how many voters are like women, and believe it when a politician tells them he's not like other guys.

[travesty]

sorry, but cutting taxes does not increase tax revenue. and right, the market has really corrected itself since the '08 crash. and saddam's wmds are in syria.

Cutting taxes CAN increase tax revenue but it's not guaranteed as some would have you think. It all depends on WHAT taxes you cut and WHEN. Timing is everything. This also means that making a tax cut permanent is a sure way to outlive it's effectiveness.

I think the market is absolutely correcting itself since '08. It's still not pretty but small gains are being made and I think a stronger foundation is being implemented according to the new market regulations and re-shaped investor temperament. I think of the economy as having a "Pardon our dust while we remodel" sign at the grocery store. Half the store is closed to shoppers so it only needs half the staff but it is open. You can get what you need, maybe not everything you want, and it's not as pleasant of an experience as you are used to. But at least the sign doesn't say "Closed" and there's still plenty of SPAM to go around :D

[Dorothy Wood]

I'm just wondering where this great colapse of the economy is? Obama is projecting a 1.2% drop in GDP for 2009?
And before you can give me the "Obviously, the stimulus worked" excuse, by Obama's own projections, most of the stimulus wasn't supposed to hit until 2010.

Declaring an immediate emergency and ramming your initiatives through seems to be the new political tool. And let's face it, without a quick recovery his plan to pay for healthcare starts to unravel.

He's really no different than George Bush in my mind.
Bush lied to get into the war and then lied about the cost of it.
Obama's been lying and fear-mongering to get his spending hike enacted, and now he's lying about the economic outlook so that it won't show the deficits it's going to generate.
It's just politics as usual, there is no "change".
It's hard not to laugh at all of the pontificating about "telling Americans the truth about the budget" when they drop stuff like this on us.
Of course, few will dive head first into these projections.

It just amazes me how many voters are like women, and believe it when a politician tells them he's not like other guys.


yeah, women are so stupid!

[yeahwho]

I'm just wondering where this great colapse of the economy is? Obama is projecting a 1.2% drop in GDP for 2009?
And before you can give me the "Obviously, the stimulus worked" excuse, by Obama's own projections, most of the stimulus wasn't supposed to hit until 2010.

Declaring an immediate emergency and ramming your initiatives through seems to be the new political tool. And let's face it, without a quick recovery his plan to pay for healthcare starts to unravel.

He's really no different than George Bush in my mind.
Bush lied to get into the war and then lied about the cost of it.
Obama's been lying and fear-mongering to get his spending hike enacted, and now he's lying about the economic outlook so that it won't show the deficits it's going to generate.
It's just politics as usual, there is no "change".
It's hard not to laugh at all of the pontificating about "telling Americans the truth about the budget" when they drop stuff like this on us.
Of course, few will dive head first into these projections.

It just amazes me how many voters are like women, and believe it when a politician tells them he's not like other guys.


I think the numbers are horrible. We have everything to protect us from sinking that the Titanic had. The iceberg hasn't been hit yet (excuse the fucked up sea-going Hollywood analogy) but we're swerving in and out of icebergs and I agree it's getting more foggy everyday.

Fear-Mongering? WTF? Obama is a piker at fear mongering. Like I've said before, he has been handed a shit sandwich, it was in our mouths for awhile, now it's back on the table... but the taste is still pretty pretty fresh.

[yeahwho]

yeah, women are so stupid!

Whats up with that?

[RobMoney$]

yeah, women are so stupid!


You get the analogy.

[RobMoney$]

I think the numbers are horrible. We have everything to protect us from sinking that the Titanic had. The iceberg hasn't been hit yet (excuse the fucked up sea-going Hollywood analogy) but we're swerving in and out of icebergs and I agree it's getting more foggy everyday.

Fear-Mongering? WTF? Obama is a piker at fear mongering. Like I've said before, he has been handed a shit sandwich, it was in our mouths for awhile, now it's back on the table... but the taste is still pretty pretty fresh.


I don't even know how to respond to this.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

It just amazes me how many voters are like women, and believe it when a politician tells them he's not like other guys.

Man that is a little over the top, no? I mean speaking as a guy (and I know other guys) who have erroneously believed their girlfriends were being faithful to them. Let's face it, both sexes can be deceitful and easily deceived. Being gullable is not a special affliction restricted for women.

Deception (and self-deceit in particular) is a major problem among politicians, in its discussion between rival party followers and prevents the development of genuinely positive political change. The late Huey Newton when he was in grad school was interested in the topic of how we (and politicians in particular) delude ourselves so that we can better con others. Bush I think is an example. I sincerely hope that Obama is not just another deluded politician taking us down the garden path. But alas most people seem to disappoint and I am shits at judging character. It is probably best for us to watch Obama closely and hope that his promise for change was not empty. But in fairness to him I think there are powerful special interest lobbyists globally who will do their darndest to prevent real change. It is the people who need to rally behind Obama to make any real change as one person (even the president) can only do so much.

[yeahwho]

I'm just wondering where this great colapse of the economy is? Obama is projecting a 1.2% drop in GDP for 2009?
And before you can give me the "Obviously, the stimulus worked" excuse, by Obama's own projections, most of the stimulus wasn't supposed to hit until 2010.

Declaring an immediate emergency and ramming your initiatives through seems to be the new political tool. And let's face it, without a quick recovery his plan to pay for healthcare starts to unravel.

He's really no different than George Bush in my mind.
Bush lied to get into the war and then lied about the cost of it.
Obama's been lying and fear-mongering to get his spending hike enacted, and now he's lying about the economic outlook so that it won't show the deficits it's going to generate.
It's just politics as usual, there is no "change".
It's hard not to laugh at all of the pontificating about "telling Americans the truth about the budget" when they drop stuff like this on us.
Of course, few will dive head first into these projections.

It just amazes me how many voters are like women, and believe it when a politician tells them he's not like other guys.

I don't think Obama is anywhere near comparing to Bush yet. Obama is not going to become anything near the monumental failure you keep having wet dreams about.

[yeahwho]

I think the numbers are horrible. We have everything to protect us from sinking that the Titanic had. The iceberg hasn't been hit yet (excuse the fucked up sea-going Hollywood analogy) but we're swerving in and out of icebergs and I agree it's getting more foggy everyday.

Fear-Mongering? WTF? Obama is a piker at fear mongering. Like I've said before, he has been handed a shit sandwich, it was in our mouths for awhile, now it's back on the table... but the taste is still pretty pretty fresh.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

That's because it is one of the finest examples of American literature ever posted on the internet.


fuck is wrong with you?

[Schmeltz]

i recall the 1987 crash during college ( i am guessing you werent born yet, markets always have correction and economic grown

So after all that college you ended up as a truck driver who can't spell "growth". What a fucking brain surgeon you turned out to be. You ought to ask for your money back.

I think the market is absolutely correcting itself since '08...

...according to the new market regulations

So which is it? The market corrects itself thanks to the omnipotent invisible hand of unregulated economics, or we have to regulate the market ourselves through the actions of elected legislative officials? I think there's a very powerful contradiction inherent in your own terms here.

It just amazes me how many voters are like women, and believe it when a politician tells them he's not like other guys.

I don't even know how to respond to this. Oh no wait I do: you're a fucking idiot. What sports forum did you pull that silly crap off of?

I'm sick to my stomach at the size of the deficit, but I've been complaining since the Iraq war first started. The crap the republican congress passed pissed me off to no end. Because they spent and spent and spent and cut taxes at the same time. You don't have to be an award winning economist to know that that is going to put you into a shitload of debt and that when you have a shitload of debt you have to pay a shitload of interest. If Bush, et al, had passed the real cost of these wars onto the american people via higher taxes instead of cutting taxes then not only would we not be in this situation but I'll bet that fucking war wouldn't have been as popular as first was.

I think this is the most insightful post so far in this thread. The fact is that the current economic situation originated long before Obama was even considered as a Presidential candidate, and the fact is that the crisis started on the Bushies' watch, after they chose to pursue a radically militarist foreign policy along with a radically ideological domestic tax agenda. The worst government the USA has ever had left their successors with a legacy of federal incompetence and a lethal mix of practical dilemmas at every level, and now the RobMoneys of America expect a quick recovery from this debacle, some kind of immediate restoration to a totally imaginary status quo. What a crock. It keeps boiling down to this: for half a decade conservative Americans were perfectly alright with deficit spending that accomplished bombing the shit out of poor brown people they'd never met, but the merest hint of deficit spending on their own health care sends them into a gun-toting, mouth-frothing, paranoid frenzy. And the worst of it all is that Obama's actually willing to listen to this silly garbage. The man is centrist to a fault, and it's proving detrimental to his handling of his office.

[RobMoney$]

You're just mad because you're one of the naive girls who fell for the "I'm different than the other guys" line Obama fed you.

[RobMoney$]

The worst government the USA has ever had left their successors


hahaaaa, isn't this rich.
You're so far up Obama's ass you could see what the guy ate for breakfast.
Now he inhereted the worst government in the history of the country.
He's probably the greatest President in the history of the country in your eyes. And when the market finally does correct itself, you'l be right there to heap all the praise on Obama for it...As if the President has total control over the free market.

And let's just suppose for a minute that were true that he did inheret the worst government in history.
Don't you think his priority should be fixing that mess before he starts introducing cavalier legislation which would incur massive spending on a level this country has never seen before?

[RobMoney$]

INHERETED THE WORST GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY, YOU SAY?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.00c53750ea4b2364db2067bbe3b1d4a 4.2d1&show_article=1


Obama budget projects 1.2% contridiction in GDP for 2009.

President Barack Obama's proposed budget unveiled Thursday projects an economic contraction of 1.2 percent in calendar 2009, a forecast calling for a surprisingly quick recovery from recession.


1.2% loss in GDP even by Obama's own numbers does not equal the worst Governmental situation in the history of this country.
Now quit being insulting and start debating the issue at hand.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/


CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over the long-haul.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

[Schmeltz]

Now he inhereted the worst government in the history of the country.

Actually, if you were halfway literate, you would note that I never said that. I said that the previous government, the Bush administration, left the country in a worse situation than ever before in history. Do try to keep up, Rob. It's bad enough that you keep ripping off other people's posts from other forums. The least you could do is read what people say on this one.

And when the market finally does correct itself, you'l be right there to heap all the praise on Obama for it...As if the President has total control over the free market.

You were the one who raised this issue in the first place; you've linked the poor performance of the DOW to Obama's speeches on multiple occasions. If you're going to make that connection (ASSUMING YOU DIDN'T JUST COPY IT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO) then you have to accept that the DOW only goes up because Obama makes it go up. Right? You backed yourself into this corner. Nobody's going to give you a free out for sympathy's sake.

Don't you think his priority should be fixing that mess before he starts introducing cavalier legislation which would incur massive spending on a level this country has never seen before?

Actually, no. It would be great if newly elected officials could simply clean up all the messes of their antecedents before proceeding on to other equally pressing issues, but their mandate involves much more than that. Do I really need to explain this to you?

INHERETED THE WORST GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY, YOU SAY?

No, Rob. Inherited. I-N-H-E-R-I-T-E-D. Copy and paste from the dictionary if you're still confused.

[RobMoney$]

Actually, if you were halfway literate, you would note that I never said that. I said that the previous government, the Bush administration, left the country in a worse situation than ever before in history.

Bush left the wost government in history, but Obama didn't inherit the worst government in history?
Your splitting hairs is just a desperate attempt for you to be right, somehow, anyhow.
It's not working.



You were the one who raised this issue in the first place; you've linked the poor performance of the DOW to Obama's speeches on multiple occasions. If you're going to make that connection (ASSUMING YOU DIDN'T JUST COPY IT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO) then you have to accept that the DOW only goes up because Obama makes it go up. Right? You backed yourself into this corner. Nobody's going to give you a free out for sympathy's sake.

I don't need your sympathy. I urinate on it.
I can tear your simpleton-like post apart quite easily on my own.

Investors reacting to what Obama says in a speech does not mean he has complete control over the free market.


Actually, no. It would be great if newly elected officials could simply clean up all the messes of their antecedents before proceeding on to other equally pressing issues, but their mandate involves much more than that. Do I really need to explain this to you?

Tell me why this is different in Obama's case from every other exiting administration. Everybody steps into office with problems to fix on day one.


No, Rob. Inherited. I-N-H-E-R-I-T-E-D. Copy and paste from the dictionary if you're still confused.

Thank You Capt. Grammar.
Do you plan on pointing out everyone's spelling mistakes on the internet, or just those you're trying to disparage?

[Schmeltz]

Bush left the wost government in history, but Obama didn't inherit the worst government in history?

Again, I didn't say that Bush left the worst government in history. Go back and check. I said his government was the worst in history, and left America in a sad state of affairs. The only problem here is your total lack of comprehension skills. For someone who makes a habit of stealing what other people say, you're not very good at figuring out what other people are saying.

Investors reacting to what Obama says in a speech does not mean he has complete control over the free market.

It's refreshing to see you adopt that position. Well done.

Tell me why this is different in Obama's case from every other exiting administration. Everybody steps into office with problems to fix on day one.

I guess I do need to explain it to you. Of course they do, and of course newly incumbent governments have a responsibility to correct the mistakes of their forebears. But that's not their only responsibility - they're also expected to pass legislation in tune with the expectations of the voters who put them in power. It would be negligent and irresponsible of Obama or any other President to focus only on the perceived errors of the previous administration, at the expense of every other issue set before them. That's only part of the government's job.

Do you plan on pointing out everyone's spelling mistakes on the internet, or just those you're trying to disparage?

Just yours, actually.

[yeahwho]

This is a huge debt, but this is also a huge economy as Paul Kugman pointed out in his excellent NYTimes op/ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28krugman.html) a few days ago.

The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it’s not catastrophic.

The only real reason for concern is political. The United States can deal with its debts if politicians of both parties are, in the end, willing to show at least a bit of maturity. Need I say more?

Bushes tax cuts can only be explained as inhumane, about 32 percent of the tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people whose annual income will be at least $341,773. About 53 percent of the tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of the population. Remember, those were the Bush administration's own numbers — numbers that it refuses to release to the public.

On top of those tax cuts which Krugman claims is $3trillion dollars worth of that debt, there also is the invention by the Bush administration of the "Clinton Recession" (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm), just part of the magic Bush did to dismantle your Country.

In the four years since that Business Week article was published, Bush never refuted it. Because you what? It's all too fucking true. The whole fucked up 8 years of dismantling our economy...

To really start having nightmares look at the two wars we're waging with not only our military, we've got corporate subcontracts flying out of our wallets. Along with unharnessed soldiers of fortune sucking up the cash and operating without oversight.

These are all inherited policies, not make believe like Bush said.