Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: James on July 11, 2009, 05:11:27 AM
-
Oba-ma-commie has spent more of the taxpayers money in 6 months than W spent in EIGHT YEARS.
WTF???
And they can't account for where it went? 800 BILLION??!?!
And they want another stimulus ?
-
Well the economy did completely collapse. If they hadnt pumped in liquidity you wouldnt have an economy right now.
no doubt some of it found its way into people's back pockets though.
-
Well the economy did completely collapse. If they hadnt pumped in liquidity you wouldnt have an economy right now.
Through which program did they do that? TARP? The stimulas? Where was this liquidity pumped, the banks? How much of that money has found it's way into the system in any kind of meaningfull way? Why hasn't it? Were you just being sarcastic? :)
-
We should be slowly coming back...now its endless mediocrity.
-
We should be slowly coming back...now its endless mediocrity.
I dunno about that...even before obama came into office the most optimistic estimates were that it would start improving by 2010.
-
Through which program did they do that? TARP? The stimulas? Where was this liquidity pumped, the banks? How much of that money has found it's way into the system in any kind of meaningfull way? Why hasn't it? Were you just being sarcastic? :)
There were banks that were forced to take the Tarp money, they started actually lending again. Then the government started trying to tell them what to do, they decided the only course of action was to pay the money back. Downside of that they weren't lending money anymore. Way to go federal government.
-
Oba-ma-commie has spent more of the taxpayers money in 6 months than W spent in EIGHT YEARS.
WTF???
And they can't account for where it went? 800 BILLION??!?!
And they want another stimulus ?
It's all BUSH's fault
-
I heard someone say Obama has spent more in six months than all previous presidents combined, from George W. to George W. That's just staggering.
-
I heard someone say Obama has spent more in six months than all previous presidents combined, from George W. to George W. That's just staggering.
Yeah it is.
I just wonder if it was really needed and what would have happen if he didn't do it.
-
Downside of that they weren't lending money anymore. Way to go federal government.
I think the total amount that was lent is less than 50 billion.
The debt issue hasn't been resolved , so it would have made little difference untill that is delt with. There are no individuals that are credit worthy in this enviroment. Individuals are trying to pay off personal debt but the government just spends more. ::)
-
Yeah it is.
I just wonder if it was really needed and what would have happen if he didn't do it.
I don't think it was needed. Companies would have reorganized, gone under, other/new companies would have stepped in to fill the void, people will eventually find jobs, etc. We would have survived. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks we set ourselves on a path to financial disaster.
-
I don't think it was needed. Companies would have reorganized, gone under, other/new companies would have stepped in to fill the void, people will eventually find jobs, etc. We would have survived.
Exactly.
-
I don't think it was needed. Companies would have reorganized, gone under, other/new companies would have stepped in to fill the void, people will eventually find jobs, etc. We would have survived. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks we set ourselves on a path to financial disaster.
So basically you are saying that the disaster that possibly looms is greater then the disaster that would have resulted in no bail outs?
-
I think the total amount that was lent is less than 50 billion.
The debt issue hasn't been resolved , so it would have made little difference untill that is delt with. There are no individuals that are credit worthy in this enviroment. Individuals are trying to pay off personal debt but the government just spends more. ::)
One of the only reasons every major bank isn't bankrupt or insolvent is because the govt. suspended mark to market. These banks all still have gigantic amounts of worthless garbage on their balance sheets that they can't and won't sell because then these assets would have to be valued....and their value is probably close to 0.
-
So basically you are saying that the disaster that possibly looms is greater then the disaster that would have resulted in no bail outs?
Actually I'm saying there haven't been a disaster had there been no bailouts. But yes the one looming seems pretty bad to me.
-
Actually I'm saying there haven't been a disaster had there been no bailouts. But yes the one looming seems pretty bad to me.
??
Not sure what you mean.
-
I heard someone say Obama has spent more in six months than all previous presidents combined, from George W. to George W. That's just staggering.
:o
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 financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President 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.
And this is just the half of it :o
Obama, through cap & trade, is attempting to deliver the final death blow to America. The purpose of cap & trade is a transfer a wealth, from those who worked for it (working Americans) to those who didn't. Obama's loyalities with Europe, not the US. Then there's national "health care", which is not health care but a eugenics plan. My mother, who is in her 80s, had state of the art cardiac surgery which saved her life. In Canada or Britian, she would not have gotten it becaue the NHS considers expensive, life saving measures for the elderly a waste of money.
Americans better wake up and realize their strengths and the good society they have built, because the plan is to take away from them !
-
Then there's national "health care", which is not health care but a eugenics plan. My mother, who is in her 80s, had state of the art cardiac surgery which saved her life. In Canada or Britian, she would not have gotten it becaue the NHS considers expensive, life saving measures for the elderly a waste of money.
That's fear based BS. We are not Britain or Canada and will not model our health system after them. It will never happen. There's too much already in place. The most you'll see is a national basic health care with the option for insurance that pays for premium care. Even in Britain you can opt to pay for instances of medical care.
-
I don't think it was needed. Companies would have reorganized, gone under, other/new companies would have stepped in to fill the void, people will eventually find jobs, etc. We would have survived. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks we set ourselves on a path to financial disaster.
Come on you know how bad the situation was...It seems sometimes when people talk on here that they dont understand the scale of this problem. For god's sake entire countries were going bankrupt. If the money didnt go back into some of those banks you would have seen a complete collapse of the financial system, I dont think there's any if's or buts about it. Anybody with a wachovia or bank of america account would have said goodbye to their savings overnight. The fact that they now want even more money is quite frankly horrendous, but i garuntee if you think you're in a disaster now I cannot even think how bad it might have ended, it would have taken the west the best part of ten to twenty years to recover, as a result we're probably gonna be in the shit till mid-late 2010, ill take that rather than the alternative.
I was so angry and pissed when governments started buying up all these big businesses, I saw it exactly the same anybody who believes in limiting government saw it. But at the end of the day it would have been a complete catastrophe had the governments not stepped in, you can thank you're lucky stars because China would be bitch slapping us to the hilt if the government hadnt done anything.
-
That's fear based BS. We are not Britain or Canada and will not model our health system after them. It will never happen. There's too much already in place. The most you'll see is a national basic health care with the option for insurance that pays for premium care. Even in Britain you can opt to pay for instances of medical care.
I went private almost all the time in Britain, the good thing about having a two tier system is that private healthcare really is a load better than National Health System in that respect. In the US where everything is private you have to pay for a substandard shitty checkup...that I never understood, at least in england you get what you pay for.
-
I heard someone say Obama has spent more in six months than all previous presidents combined, from George W. to George W. That's just staggering.
who said it?
-
Libs are, once again, strangely silent.
They derided Bush for 6 years on spending and yet I haven't heard a peep regarding Obama's use of taxpayer money.
-
Libs are, once again, strangely silent.
They derided Bush for 6 years on spending and yet I haven't heard a peep regarding Obama's use of taxpayer money.
Actually, it was only the tax cuts that they derided. Which doesnt make sense, because the federal government took in more than enough revenue. Its only now that they are criticising Bush for spending, because they are trying to label conservatives as hypocrites for criticising Obama's spending. But conservatives and libertarians were the ONLY ones criticising Bush for the big spending. They just didnt do it as vigourously as they should have, but that's probably because they knew that liberals would be far worse.
-
In the US where everything is private you have to pay for a substandard shitty checkup...that I never understood, at least in england you get what you pay for.
If you arent covered by medicare or medicaid you have to pay, but usually if you have insurance the fee is rediculously low. But that is actually the biggest part of the problem. 85% of all healthcare expedentures are not payed out of pocket, whether because of government or insurance premiums that are payed for by big employers. Because you do not see these costs until you are hit with higher premiums, higher taxes, or lower salaries, you have no incentive to be concious of these costs, and doctors and insurance companies have no incentive to offer you a service at a competitive price. But I have never had a substandard shitty checkup.
-
Libs are, once again, strangely silent.
They derided Bush for 6 years on spending and yet I haven't heard a peep regarding Obama's use of taxpayer money.
I'm not sure i understand this whole thing. Can you explain to me what would have happened if BUSH and Obama hadn't done this? Would it have been worse? Would have it been better? BB seems to think it would have been better not to bail anyone out and that there is a pending large disaster as a result of his actions. What would your answer be and why?
-
obama has spent MORe than the iraq war cost???
i doubt that
-
??
Not sure what you mean.
Sorry. Typo. Was trying to say that if Bush and Obama had not done these bailouts, the country would not have collapsed.
-
Come on you know how bad the situation was...It seems sometimes when people talk on here that they dont understand the scale of this problem. For god's sake entire countries were going bankrupt. If the money didnt go back into some of those banks you would have seen a complete collapse of the financial system, I dont think there's any if's or buts about it. Anybody with a wachovia or bank of america account would have said goodbye to their savings overnight. The fact that they now want even more money is quite frankly horrendous, but i garuntee if you think you're in a disaster now I cannot even think how bad it might have ended, it would have taken the west the best part of ten to twenty years to recover, as a result we're probably gonna be in the shit till mid-late 2010, ill take that rather than the alternative.
I was so angry and pissed when governments started buying up all these big businesses, I saw it exactly the same anybody who believes in limiting government saw it. But at the end of the day it would have been a complete catastrophe had the governments not stepped in, you can thank you're lucky stars because China would be bitch slapping us to the hilt if the government hadnt done anything.
I understand how bad things were. But we already have mechanisms in place to deal with failing companies. Printing money and throwing it after bad money, with increased government control over private business, was/is not a good idea.
-
who said it?
Some talking head on TV. Don't remember who.
-
Sorry. Typo. Was trying to say that if Bush and Obama had not done these bailouts, the country would not have collapsed.
How do you know that?
And what's going suggests that BUSH and Obama have been told to do it.
-
How do you know that?
And what's going suggests that BUSH and Obama have been told to do it.
I don't know that. That's just my opinion. Companies fail all the time. Failure of one is opportunity for another.
Not sure what you mean about Bush and Obama?
-
Come on you know how bad the situation was...It seems sometimes when people talk on here that they dont understand the scale of this problem. For god's sake entire countries were going bankrupt. If the money didnt go back into some of those banks you would have seen a complete collapse of the financial system, I dont think there's any if's or buts about it. Anybody with a wachovia or bank of america account would have said goodbye to their savings overnight. The fact that they now want even more money is quite frankly horrendous, but i garuntee if you think you're in a disaster now I cannot even think how bad it might have ended, it would have taken the west the best part of ten to twenty years to recover, as a result we're probably gonna be in the shit till mid-late 2010, ill take that rather than the alternative.
I was so angry and pissed when governments started buying up all these big businesses, I saw it exactly the same anybody who believes in limiting government saw it. But at the end of the day it would have been a complete catastrophe had the governments not stepped in, you can thank you're lucky stars because China would be bitch slapping us to the hilt if the government hadnt done anything.
Thank god government and Fed saved us huh?
What would we do without them?
Forgive my sarcasm.
-
Well the economy did completely collapse. If they hadnt pumped in liquidity you wouldnt have an economy right now.
no doubt some of it found its way into people's back pockets though.
Govt spending does not create jobs, it creates UE in the private sector since resources are transfered from productive people to non-productive people.
-
Govt spending does not create jobs, it creates UE in the private sector since resources are transfered from productive people to non-productive people.
I think the point steevo is trying to make is that had there not been any bailout of the banks, there would not have been any banking system today.
A lot of people's savings would've been lost, stock markets would've fell, et al.
Explain to a single mom with two kids that has saved for her kids college in one of the major banks that "We should just let the banks collapse".
Sure, there are problems, even with how the bailout was conducted. I for one believe that the government should've stepped in much firmer from the start.
That would've been less costly and the control would've been much higher of where the money went.
Institute a bank ER, where ailing banks could've run for help, but in return giving up the control of their boards.
Then, once the banks were ok, in a few years, de-nationalize them, let them loose again.
So saving the banks were not really something that could've been skipped.
The question though, is if it were done right.
You and I seems to be in agreement that it was wrong to let a shark like Hank Paulson, former exec of Goldman Sachs (!), get free hands.
-
I think the point steevo is trying to make is that had there not been any bailout of the banks, there would not have been any banking system today.
A lot of people's savings would've been lost, stock markets would've fell, et al.
Explain to a single mom with two kids that has saved for her kids college in one of the major banks that "We should just let the banks collapse".
Sure, there are problems, even with how the bailout was conducted. I for one believe that the government should've stepped in much firmer from the start.
That would've been less costly and the control would've been much higher of where the money went.
Institute a bank ER, where ailing banks could've run for help, but in return giving up the control of their boards.
Then, once the banks were ok, in a few years, de-nationalize them, let them loose again.
So saving the banks were not really something that could've been skipped.
The question though, is if it were done right.
You and I seems to be in agreement that it was wrong to let a shark like Hank Paulson, former exec of Goldman Sachs (!), get free hands.
Exactly it wasnt about creating jobs...it was about saving the ones that were going to be lost, as well as many peoples pensions, savings and whatever else they were dumb enough to entrust the banks with
-
Exactly it wasnt about creating jobs...it was about saving the ones that were going to be lost, as well as many peoples pensions, savings and whatever else they were dumb enough to entrust the banks with
TARP was to save the banks.
THE stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate what if not jobs?
-
How anyone can believe that Obama is gonna outspend George W Bush in 6 months is beyond me.
If you believe that, you really have to be a fcuking idiot.
In the 2010 budget Obama spends a staggering 3.55 trillion.
Add to that the TARP (circa 700 billions) and the Stimulus package (787 billions). Neither of which where all money have been spent.
A lot of spending.
But how the fcuk is that supposedly going to be more than what George W Bush spent in his EIGHT years?
You got to be real fucking dumb to believe something like that.
Or that Obama now has spent more money than all presidents before him? ::)
Sure, the Vietnam war was real cheap. Not to mention World War II.
In 2008, Bush had a budget for 2.9 trillion.
In 2007, it was 2.8 trillion. Despite being in an economic boom, Bush managed to run a deficit with 400 BILLION.
In 2006, the spending was 2.7 trillion, while the income was only 2.2 trillion. Deficit anyone?
Well, check it out yourself:
2010 United States federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
Even without making adjustment for the depriciation of the dollar, you can't even claim that Obama has outspent Clinton yet.
Btw, where does all the money go?
Over 30 percent of the US budget last year was spent on military and fighting a war abroad.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png/800px-Fy2008spendingbycategory.png)
-
How anyone can believe that Obama is gonna outspend George W Bush in 6 months is beyond me.
If you believe that, you really have to be a fcuking idiot.
In the 2010 budget Obama spends a staggering 3.55 trillion.
Add to that the TARP (circa 700 billions) and the Stimulus package (787 billions). Neither of which where all money have been spent.
A lot of spending.
But how the fcuk is that supposedly going to be more than what George W Bush spent in his EIGHT years?
You got to be real fucking dumb to believe something like that.
Or that Obama now has spent more money than all presidents before him? ::)
Sure, the Vietnam war was real cheap. Not to mention World War II.
In 2008, Bush had a budget for 2.9 trillion.
In 2007, it was 2.8 trillion. Despite being in an economic boom, Bush managed to run a deficit with 400 BILLION.
In 2006, the spending was 2.7 trillion, while the income was only 2.2 trillion. Deficit anyone?
Well, check it out yourself:
2010 United States federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
Even without making adjustment for the depriciation of the dollar, you can't even claim that Obama has outspent Clinton yet.
Btw, where does all the money go?
Over 30 percent of the US budget last year was spent on military and fighting a war abroad.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png/800px-Fy2008spendingbycategory.png)
-
Thank you for proving my point.
Like your pic shows, claiming that Obama has spent more in 6 months than Bush did in 8 years is just ridiculous.
-
Thank you for proving my point.
Like your pic shows, claiming that Obama has spent more in 6 months than Bush did in 8 years is just ridiculous.
I think they meant borrowed, not actually spent.
-
I think they meant borrowed, not actually spent.
You = teh smart. ;D
I just couldn't figure out what the fuck these clowns were on about.