Obama in 6 months spent MORE than W Bush did in 8 YEARS

[ToxicAvenger]

obama has spent MORe than the iraq war cost???

i doubt that

[Dos Equis]

??

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Dos Equis]

who said it?

Some talking head on TV.  Don't remember who. 

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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? 

[Bindare_Dundat]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Hedgehog]

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.

[the_steevo_uk]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[Hedgehog]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Hedgehog]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Hedgehog]

I think they meant borrowed, not actually spent. 

You = teh smart.

I just couldn't figure out what the fuck these clowns were on about.