BS: Obama Goes For Broke

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: bald headed step child
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:54 AM

Thank you Don, and Carol for those links.

One of the big Republican myths is that WW2 got us going again. In reality, the economy was growing at a slow but steady rate in the mid to late 30's. GDP increased at an average of about 6% during those years.

Yes, when we entered the war, unemployment went down due to those entering military service, but all of our manufacturing went to war production.

Consumerism fell to record lows, because everything had to go to the boys at the front. New cars weren't bought because they weren't available. Everything went into the war. Munitions manufacturers made out fine, but a sustainable economy can't be built on things you blow up. Overall, the economy as measured by GDP dropped during the war, and dropped further when the war ended.

Incidentally, the nominal tax rate, for the top 1% at that time, and thru Eisenhower's Republican administration was at 90%. And the Repubs are bitching now about 36%? Of course most don't even understand what the nominal tax rate means.

Studies like the one Q, and Sawzaw linked are easy to find, and easy to make. All you have to do is decide what you want the results to be, and then cherry pick and twist the facts to show what you want. Hardly scientific, but hey, you can convince yourself of anything that way, even that global warming doesn't exist, or that the Republican party really gives a shit about anybody that makes less than $10 million a year. That's been a trademark of theirs for years, can't expect them to change now.

Of course this is just my opinion, formed through time spent looking at facts, and not listening to some drug addled gas bag.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:14 AM

I'm not surprised by the polls. The smartest thing Obama has done has been to push transparency and the truth in budgeting, etc. Defending the indefensible gets very tiring after a while: any psychiatrist knows that lying and covering up take a psychic toll -- and it is a great relief to be able to look at what is going on honestly. That is why the cult of secrecy (and which, alas, the Obama administration is still piddling around with in the justice system) is so dreadful in a democracy, and needs to be disentangled from the military needs.

A related piece of smartness is allowing photographs of returning coffins. That was another example of hiding the truth. In Canada, this has not for a moment altered anyone's views of the war, but it gave the weight of the burden dignity. The arguments pro and con suddenly became adult. Our beloved Prime Minister, who I despise, nevertheless has decided that honesty about our goals in Afghanistan is the best policy, and he is right. The opposition howls, but he is right. It makes no sense in a democracy to lie about war.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:24 AM

Great, Carol C., we will meet back here in one year to compare predictions. I have no idea how "tasty" crow might be, but for you sake, I hope it is delicious.

And to you folks quoting Olberman and his ilk, that has about as much impact on conservatives as conservatives quoting Limbaugh.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:51 AM

Speaking of eating, in the NY Times today, Thomas Friedman worries that Obama's whole first term "could be eaten by Citigroup, A. I. G., Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and the whole housing/subprime credit bubble..."
Payments so far are just a start- no one knows how much will be needed, but it is trillions.

Crows- wasn't there a rhyme about blackbirds in a pie? Could be that the crows would be the only sufferers in the eating.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:12 PM

SO, lemme see--DougR's man has left such a profound, deepseated cocksup that it may be impossible to improve things because the clean-up will take all our resources?

Nice work, oh Ye of Blinde Faythe.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 01:35 PM

Time to consult the orishas? Will Obama be the sacrificial goat?

--------------
HSBC reports a paltry $18 billion profit for the last quarter of 2008 (One of the more careful banks), and is looking to raise money. Their assets are something like $3.4 trillion. Haven't looked it up, but A. I. G. was probably larger. The bailout so far looks like a token amount.
------------
A report on CNN today suggests one in 4-5 mortgages is 'underwater.'
-------------------

Perhaps the orishas aren't strong enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 02:21 PM

The $75 billion loan modification and refinancing program details, released today, looks good. I am afraid I must give the Obama administration a plus on this.

Real property is involved here, unlike some of the bank bailout money; this program is an investment in the future and gives mortgage holders some stability. House prices are depressed, but any turnaround will increase their value.

One of the most worrying features of the foreclosures was that a perfectly good house would be left vacant and would deteriorate over time.

(I got the above from a CNN online summary; better coverage will appear in the better newspapers tomorrow).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM

In one year? The deal was "by the year's end". That would be December 31, 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:14 PM

Sayeth DougR?

Pay no attention to the irrelevancy behindg the curtain.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:20 PM

December 31, 2009? No problemo! Bring your bib.

Amos: So Obama inherited a Recession on Bush's watch. So what? Bush inherited one on Clinton's watch. Obama can no longer point the finger at Bush (Oh he can, and I'm sure he will) but Obama is spending all the money now, not Bush.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:21 PM

P.S.: Let me know when you personally feel the positive effects of all of Obama's spending, por favor.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:26 PM

????

It was my understanding that Clinton left a budget surplus at the end of his term. Would you car to document your assertion, Doug?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:13 PM

Would you car to document your assertion, Doug?

Never has, never will.

Don't try to change his mind with facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:33 PM

Aw, JEsus, Doug, wake up and smell the numbers. The budget and general economic picture in 2000 was a HELL of a lot better than it was in 2004 or 2008; you'd have to be stone blind or half-crazed not to see that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:53 PM

Only HALF crazed? I think you're underestimating the depths of his psychosis.

He still doesn't get it - and never will- that its his kind of thinking that got the U.S. in the $hithole its currently in.

Unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 06:24 PM

Sorry, forgot my name, again

Compare this paragraph in the New york, Times, that i posted in its entirety:.......

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

To this blind opinion:..........From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:26 PM


It was my understanding that Clinton left a budget surplus at the end of his term. Would you car to document your assertion, Doug?

Isn't this a cause of what is happening now??....Denial Denial!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 06:37 PM

One of the biggest wastes of money I have seen was all the out sourcing and private contractors being given goverment work.

Obama today has decreed that the private slush fund for private contractors is going to end.

Wow

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 06:41 PM

That was all part of the "any free market capitalist is more efficient than any government" nonsense. It is fairly clear that a large part of the Iraq debacle was due to private contractors.   
The Medicare situation is similar. Complete ignorance about how to orchestrate public - private partnerships.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 06:45 PM

Fannie Mae wasn't the cause of the problem, it was only a part of the problem. Other banks were engaging in predatory lending practices with no external pressure other than the desire/need to be competitive with other banks. And none of those bad loans would have had the kind of devastating effect on the world economy that we see now had they not been bundled into derivatives and sold as the best of the best for investment purposes, and had the banks been using open and honest bookkeeping and evaluation of assets.

This is where having Obama in the White House will help to correct these kinds of problems, if, as he promised, he helps to strengthen the way banks and the market are regulated.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 08:32 PM

Well, Dougie... Seems that a senior moment has set in upon you yet again... Awww, jus' funnin'...

But really... If ya recall back to 2000 it was Bush who was going out of his way to talk down the economy... Everything he said on the subject was negative... But bottom line, Clinton handed him a surplus... But Bush's people (campaign donors) wanted a big tax cut... So Bush dialed 'um up the rest is well known history... It didn't quite work out for our economy and in not working for our economy has meesed up everyone elses...

Real nice, Dougie... Real nice...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 08:57 PM

Nevertheless, GfS, Clinton did leave a budget surplus at the end of his term. I was answering Doug's erroneous assertion.

I am fascinated at how the Right-Wing-nuts try to blame Bush's eight years worth of serial blunders and general bad judgment, both foreign and domestic, on one Democrat or another. It's a bit like watching a whole pack of bewildered dogs trying to bite their own tails.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:30 PM

Continued (or new) investigations, documentation and possibly prosecution of the Bush/Cheney actions are worthwhile expenditures of time and money. It may seem backward looking, but it could help point up future indiscretions when they occur, and prevent a lot of harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:13 AM

Don Firth (and other misguided "lefties") The country was in a recession when Bush became president. That is a fact. Check it out.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:24 AM

Oops! Didn't supply a source. Google Clinton Recession. Lots' of info there about the Recession Bush inherited from Ole' Bill.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:57 AM

IT was a pissant recession; the market had been climbing regularly for eight solid years and the national budget had a surplus.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:00 AM

Yes, Doug, according to "The National Review." (Surprise surprise)

But "Business Week" says that's a crock, and they have the figures.

Past my bedtime right now. I'll provide you with links tomorrow.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:12 AM

The US National Debt is the result of the US government spending more money than it takes in: overspending.

The current US National Debt is the result of overspending by the US government for the last 100+ years.

Politicians are able to confuse many people by talking about an annual "budget deficit" which refers to the amount of money authorized for a given year. The problem seems to be that the executive branch spends what it wants, regardless of the budget.

Don't be fooled by the tricks. In a year when the US government takes in less than it spends, the US National Debt goes up. In a year when the US government takes in more money than it spends (rare), the National Debt goes down.

Here the raw numbers from 1900 on. No spin, no BS, no "blame game". Here are "just the facts, m'am":

                                                    raw data: US National Debt 1900-2005

Note the National Debt change between 1959 and 1960. Also note the change between 1999 and 2000.

Another interesting figure is the revenue that came into the federal government in 1995-2005. The annual debt will change equally do to lower revenue or increased spending. Usually it is from a spending increase, other times a drop in revenue (rare).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:15 AM

Phone call ... U.S. to China ... "the cheque's in the mail"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:29 AM

pdq- try the debt link again (doesn't work). Sounds interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:38 AM

US National Debt (raw data):


http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/TheNationalDebt.htm


                                              or...here

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:54 AM

Looks like the debt was decreased only from 1926-1930, and sSome slight decreases in the 1950s.
Thanks for posting the figures. Up, up and away!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:08 PM

The last time the US National Debt decreased (slightly) was between 1959 and 1960.

Clinton's best year was 2000 when he had an $18 billion deficit. This good show was caused by a huge boom in federal revenue from "dot.com" stock value explosion (to a large extent).

What followed was a serious drop in federal revenue:

          $2,025 trillion total federal revenue ~ 2000

          $1,798 trillion total federal revenue ~ 2004

That drop in revenue would increase the National Debt by $227 billion (annually) even if spending did not go up.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:58 PM

Don Firth: Let me get this straight. You don't accept the posting by National Review because it is more associated with conservative policies than Liberal ones, and you are going to provide us with information from Liberal sources to support your POV.

Is that correct?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:11 PM

pdq, she asks mildly, Isn't there a difference between the US National Debt and a given year's Budget?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: pdq
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:29 PM

I believe the problem is this: the "budget" in a piece of paper that directs next year's spending. The actual spending does not seem to always follow the "plan".

In any case, by definition, if the federal government spends more than it takes in, the National Debt will rise.

If the federal government spends less than it takes in, the National Debt (which is about 235 years old by now) will get smaller. That last time that happened about 1950-1960.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:58 PM

Patience, Doug, patience. I was doing a bit of research. I highly recommend reading widely rather that limiting yourself to material that supports your viewpoint..

The first article I encountered in searching "Clinton recession" was by a contributing editor to "The National Review," the Conservative organ of the late William F. Buckley. Buckley was one of the few people who was able to give an intellectual spin to some of the principles of the conservative movement. Some years ago, there were some great debates on television between Buckley and Liberal advocate Gore Vidal. Would that we could hear intelligent debates like those these days, instead of self-styled conservative television personalities whose idea of an intelligent debate is to tell their liberal guests or anyone else who doesn't share their prejudices to "SHUT UP!!"

But how low the mighty have fallen! I don't know who's running the store at "The National Review" these days, but Buckley would never have allowed a story as patently refutable as THIS to be published in his magazine. One of the points about Buckley that I appreciated was that he considered his readers to be intelligent, not fools. The NR article linked to is put in more measured terms, but it's the same sort of revisionist history that someone like Rush Limbaugh might come up with if he had the necessary verbal skills and emotional restraint.

This tells the real story:   CLICKY.   And before you start, I don't really believe that "Business Week" can be accused of being a member of the "liberal media."

Here's another on the same subject:   CLICKY #2

And there are heaps more where that came from. Revisionist history is quite easy to blow to bits.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 02:06 PM

"Business Week" is a liberal mouthpiece? What???? Where was I when this happened?

Maybe the Wall Street Journal would be an acceptable source...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 02:10 PM

I always thought the "People's Friend" (UK mag) was a commie mouthpiece.

ok ... I'm outta here.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Peter T.
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:15 PM

we've talked about this on numerous threads.   Economics 100: national debt is not like household debt. It is made up of many things, including long term infrastructure costs. The budgets that are talked about as "budget surplus" etc., are the rolling budgets of governments. My country (Canada) has been running budget surpluses for a number of years, but hardly any of the national debt has been paid down -- people talk about it from time to time (it has to do with whether longterm interest rates on government bonds etc, are flexible enough), but no one worries about it much in a reasonable country with some prospects of a future with a return on bonds.

The US is not in that state yet.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:36 PM

" In March 2001, the U.S. economy went into recession for the first time in ten years, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER.) NBER -- the private, nonpartisan organization whose business cycle announcements have long been considered the definitive word on the topic -- announced its determination on November 26, 2001:

    The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.

NBER's president, Martin Feldstein, was a Bush campaign adviser who has long been close to the Bush family, as the National Review's Lawrence Kudlow recently noted"

(From Don's link up thread).

I thought as much--the whole "inherited recession" line was a black PR stunt engineered by the Cheney-Rove Axis of Malpractice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM

The view that the 2001 recession was caused by Clinton, even if it didn't start until after Bush took office, is equally absurd; Obama has inherited a Force 10 recession/depression from the Bush administration. The Bushites inherited a light breeze at worst.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:43 PM

Exactly so, Peter.

I had to remind someone who PMed me that the National Debt and the budget surplus/deficit are two different things.

Let's get straight what it is we're talking about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: bald headed step child
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 07:06 PM

And it don't get any easier to figure when you have 10-12 billion a month that is off the books.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 07:34 PM

Here's an interesting site ... lots of info .. graphs, pie charts, faqs etc regarding the national debt, deficit etc.   .... to mull over when one has nothing better to do on a Thursday evening in the month March.

U.S. National Debt Clock

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 07:57 PM

here's the actual clock BTW ... for those who are interested and maybe missed the link on that other page .....

debt clock

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 08:53 PM

Fascinating stuff, biLL. Lots of information there.

Thanks for posting the links.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 07:53 AM

Yeah, thanks for the Econ 201 refresher course... Lotta folks here seem clueless about this stuff when it comes to their defense of George Bush's lack of understanding on just what is what when it comes to the economy...

Is it any wonder that revenues dropped after the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy??? This ain't rocket suregry here, folks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:32 AM

This is not the time to stand around and point fingers of blame back in history, or standing on the sidelines screaming go team, go and boo to the other team .... there are serious problems with the economy ... econ 101, 201 basics point out the dangers of continuous spending when you don't have the money, let alone already having a debt that is beyond reason .... the country can't afford to keep on borrowing, and it just can't go and print paper money to solve the problem ... at this rate it will be in the same situation as GM ... and there won't be any big sugar daddy around to hand out the cash.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:49 AM

Well, the economics textbooks, such as they are, are only working from past history and models (which are deeply flawed). The theory is that governments should be working counter-cyclically (straight Keynes) and taking over the role that private financial institutions are unable to take over in periods when trust in the institutions and their capacity for lending is crippled (like now). The gamble, and the danger, as remarked over and over again -- even by Keynes -- is inflation with the injection of new money. The gamble is that the deflation of the economy is worse temporarily than the inflation that will come later -- and will somehow have to be paid for. The United States is in a weird position in that its currency is the cornerstone of the international market, so it has been able to do all this fantastic borrowing without paying too much of a cost. But the day will come. The question is: will the economy be around to cope with that? The part that no one knows.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama Goes For Broke
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:17 AM

The core engine gets overheated because the capacity for injecting new money is shared by lenders (>90%) and government (<10%). This potential for rapacious lending is built in to the system and reinforced by the media used to enhance commercial sales.

To fix the system, the capability of generating new money must be dramatically shifted so that banks can only lend, say, 125% of what they have, dampening their inflationary drive, and government controls >90% of money supply additions.


A