Obama Meter

[An1m]

Get ready for the war-time economy.

Bush tried that already and it got us into this mess.
As tired as I am of the whole "green" thing I really believe that it will be our way out.
Millions of good paying jobs and lower energy prices = a lot more spending on stuff.

While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even with its supposed uselessness, did cause our government (under President Bush) to spend wildly, government spending didn't get us into this "mess," a combination of a housing bubble, subprime lending, and consequent trading of bad debt in the form of securities is to blame. Even still, I am sure some would blame our current recession on other considerations/causes, it is, at base, a financial crisis, having to do with finance, not poor government investments/spending.

The trigger to the economic collapse is exactly what you stated, but, just imagine if we still had all those spent Iraqi billions right now, this bailout would have been a little better to swallow for the country, and the stimulus less than the amount of money we've spent rebuilding a foreign country that we just finished destroying.

Not at all, we've been borrowing to finance those wars too so what you're thinking is absolutely misleading. The real question should read: Could you Imagine if we hadn't borrowed those spent Iraqi Billions? The end result would have been that we would have borrowed less money to date. That has very little bearing on the current financial crisis which is a product of government intervention in the marketplace after the dot com bust. Recessions are politically unpopular and so politicians always want to appear to be "doing something" about them while constantly espousing their faith and confidence in the free market. I dislike many apsects of capitalism but I understand how it works and it is this fundamental lack of understanding coupled with a desire to be reelected and the pervasiveness of Keynesian economics that has gotten us into this predicament.

If we had just let the dot com bubble burst, we go into a short recession and then we recover in a sustainable wya. Instead we loosen credit and print money which makes it very easy for home builders to build homes, and for lenders to lend money. All of these people reasoned that since home prices only go up, it was fine to keep loaning people money for homes they couldn't afford and to keep on building them because the easy credit would be there for people to buy them. Furthermore, the economic aftershocks from the largely unregulated derivatives market was only a symptom of this.

The problem isn't really that money is "being lost" the problem is that the money was never there. It is imaginary and based on people's perceptions of certain things. In certain climates, when people have one perception of something a commodity is worth one thing but once EVERYONE realizes what they thought was wrong this commodity declines in value. This is natural and needs to happen for the economy to get healthy again. This adminisrtration's, and the last one's are terrible. The government is not the answer to the problem in this instance, however they have currently fucked things up so badly that I can't even imagine how long this depression would last without some sort of well guided government programs, which I doubt that we will ever see. So my best hopes are that the government only fucks things up slightly more than it already has.

Never expect any government policies in the United States to actually benefit the masses. It is very clear that this government's number one priority is playing sidekick to the private banks that run the world, the world's economies and own our federal reserve. Edited March 4, 2009 by An1m

[f22a4bandit]

There has only been one time in U.S. history that we have EVER had a balanced budget. That would be during the years of Andrew Jackson.

It would be amazing if we could balance the budget now, but we're so far in a hole right now with so many programs and loans that it will be many more years before we every come CLOSE to achieving that goal.

[Will_Evo]

Balance the budget? How do you balance a budget that doesn't exist? Yes we have been "borrowing money" but even that money has no real backing. Money these days is literally just a piece of paper with a government value assigned to it. What incentive do we have to balance the nations budget when it, in all reality, isnt a deficit at all...just a number with nothing behind it. The world's nations as a whole are in debt, and will continue to be. Like An1m said, until governments around the world quit piggy backing private banks, and give the dollar a actual value..we will always be in "debt". Along these lines, if you have paid attention to the news recently..apparently as a publicity stunt...Obama says he is going to reform federal contracting to save money for our economy. Now that would work if A. the money used for those contracts was ours, and B. if spending that money truly had an effect to the average American. Obama could raise federal funding by 100 trillion dollars tomorrow, and you and me wouldn't even notice it...I still say that all of this is a perfect platform for a government regulated economy not to exclude loans for homes, cars, and any other large investment. Heres hoping it doesn't happen.

-Evo

[TheScotsman]

http://business.theage.com.au/business/wor...90306-8qe5.html

Obamameter needs a gauge... er, I mean cliff to show his effect on the market.

funny (in a black humor sort of way) to see a 2-year Ts with a negative interest... as the money (and your job) runs for cover.

[Bulldog_916]

Understandable. It makes sense that Wall Street is checking itself. It should. I know this sounds shocking, but this is actually the healthy level that we were at pre-housing bubble, post-dot com bubble, plus or minus 1000 points. Good growth is ALWAYS gradual. It doesnt come in big bubbles and big busts. Now that we are nearing a bottom, a real bottom, we can establish a foundation and continue our gradual growth. Wall Street is crying that Obama should be focusing on how to get us out of this mess and not assigning blame. I BEG TO DIFFER! Obama should absolutely be assigning blame. Otherwise, this shit can happen again. Unless you break the cycle of companies taking advantage and then getting bailed out without any form of prosecution or persecution, history will likely repeat itself. Someone has to be held accountable for their actions. I think the president is rightly holding those who committed this accountable. That counts for investors, hedge funds, banks, and asset funds too. I say, TAR AND FEATHER! TAR AND FEATHER! THEN and only THEN will we be able to move forward and understand that the RULES APPLY to you (me included), not just the rules of law, but the rules of financial prudence. If you break those rules, accountability needs to be maintained.

[An1m]

Wall street is not a proper gauge of the true strength of our economy. Never has been and never will be. Wall street isn't even a good indicator of the companies on the particular indexes strength. The stock market is based on smoke and mirrors, largely in part, perception is everything. Perceived value, perceived profits, perceived capital. Mark to market and mark to model baby!

[judgeposer]

Understandable. It makes sense that Wall Street is checking itself. It should. I know this sounds shocking, but this is actually the healthy level that we were at pre-housing bubble, post-dot com bubble, plus or minus 1000 points. Good growth is ALWAYS gradual. It doesnt come in big bubbles and big busts. Now that we are nearing a bottom, a real bottom, we can establish a foundation and continue our gradual growth. Wall Street is crying that Obama should be focusing on how to get us out of this mess and not assigning blame. I BEG TO DIFFER! Obama should absolutely be assigning blame. Otherwise, this shit can happen again. Unless you break the cycle of companies taking advantage and then getting bailed out without any form of prosecution or persecution, history will likely repeat itself. Someone has to be held accountable for their actions. I think the president is rightly holding those who committed this accountable. That counts for investors, hedge funds, banks, and asset funds too. I say, TAR AND FEATHER! TAR AND FEATHER! THEN and only THEN will we be able to move forward and understand that the RULES APPLY to you (me included), not just the rules of law, but the rules of financial prudence. If you break those rules, accountability needs to be maintained.

+1!

Wall street is not a proper gauge of the true strength of our economy. Never has been and never will be. Wall street isn't even a good indicator of the companies on the particular indexes strength. The stock market is based on smoke and mirrors, largely in part, perception is everything. Perceived value, perceived profits, perceived capital. Mark to market and mark to model baby!

What is a proper measure of economic strength? - as in what do you suggest we look at to determine our economic strength?

[Bulldog_916]

I honestly think there are lots of indicators of the health of the economy. Housing, stock indexes, GDP, unemployment, consumer confidence. You have to see where it all trends. If it trends down, which, most all of that is, minus unemployment, that means the economy is suffering. Company net worth may not be suffering, but that's because most companies are pretty well capitalized to protect against this sort of drop in valuation. It's just that there are some companies that padded themselves better than others. I can only really give the example of FedEx Ground, where I work. Our stock price dropped to 32 dollars today before eeking back. We used to be up into the 70s and even the 90s. But, we're still expanding and still doing well. We're opening a new "superhub" in China. My hub is expanding to be able to do 1.2 million packages per 5 day period at peak capacity. When DHL went under, we took their share of the market. Our execs were smart in positioning themselves. Now we're reaping the reward. It's a jungle out there, to be sure, but if you knew what you were doing, it wasnt as bad. Now, we just need to figure our way out of this. Wall Street wont do it. I think only Pennsylvania Ave. can really pull this out. We'll see what happens.

[judgeposer]

I honestly think there are lots of indicators of the health of the economy. Housing, stock indexes, GDP, unemployment, consumer confidence. You have to see where it all trends. If it trends down, which, most all of that is, minus unemployment, that means the economy is suffering. Company net worth may not be suffering, but that's because most companies are pretty well capitalized to protect against this sort of drop in valuation. It's just that there are some companies that padded themselves better than others. I can only really give the example of FedEx Ground, where I work. Our stock price dropped to 32 dollars today before eeking back. We used to be up into the 70s and even the 90s. But, we're still expanding and still doing well. We're opening a new "superhub" in China. My hub is expanding to be able to do 1.2 million packages per 5 day period at peak capacity. When DHL went under, we took their share of the market. Our execs were smart in positioning themselves. Now we're reaping the reward. It's a jungle out there, to be sure, but if you knew what you were doing, it wasnt as bad. Now, we just need to figure our way out of this. Wall Street wont do it. I think only Pennsylvania Ave. can really pull this out. We'll see what happens.

It sounds like you're saying that we have to consider a constellation of factors to determine the health of the economy, which I can easily accept. I do think among those considerations we should include the typical Wall Street indicators, like indicies such as the Dow Jones (Industrial) though, no?

Edit - I reread your post, and you did mention stock indicies - Asked, and answered. Edited March 7, 2009 by judgeposer

[TheScotsman]

What about that campaign promise about getting the world to respect the USA?

I must say, between the presses treatment (or rather lack of any acknowledgment) of Gordon Brown, and those fine choices of airport-giftshop pieces of junk he gave to the Browns... it's well, appalling.

I wonder if those tacky-ass DVDs are even region encoded for the UK?!



Obama... proving he's an amateur every waking moment. bahahaha

[Boricua]

What about that campaign promise about getting the world to respect the USA?

I must say, between the presses treatment (or rather lack of any acknowledgment) of Gordon Brown, and those fine choices of airport-giftshop pieces of junk he gave to the Browns... it's well, appalling.

I wonder if those tacky-ass DVDs are even region encoded for the UK?!



Obama... proving he's an amateur every waking moment. bahahaha

Such a fine and smart comment, oh pardon my sarcasm....

An amateur President? Yes, well that's what you would call EVERY first term President because guess what? That's why it's their first term - because they're new at it. Obama is already better than George W and Bush Senior at being President and he hasn't even been in office for 100 days....

Anyway, who really cares about Gordon Brown - one of the most boring speakers ever and well not even taken that seriously back home in the UK.

[Bulldog_916]

What about that campaign promise about getting the world to respect the USA?

I must say, between the presses treatment (or rather lack of any acknowledgment) of Gordon Brown, and those fine choices of airport-giftshop pieces of junk he gave to the Browns... it's well, appalling.

I wonder if those tacky-ass DVDs are even region encoded for the UK?!



Obama... proving he's an amateur every waking moment. bahahaha

We dont even know how deep the Bushian rabbit hole from hell has gone yet. It seems as if every day there is a new investigation going on of something either illegal or unethical that they did. It's gonna take a while to sort through all of the executive orders and to issue new orders. Each one seems to be its own little shit basket that Obama has to deal with, on top of all this economic turmoil, the Iraq withdrawl, and trying to accomplish the dozen or so other big things he has planned. I'm with Cramer (even though he was thoroughly skewered by Jon Stewart- go Jon!), put a few of these things on hold for a bit. But dont lose the ambition. That's why we put him in there.

[Will_Evo]

Not saying I like W Bush, but I recently saw a very interesting economy report that showed how we got into this mess and made it clear that this economic struggle is not just his fault. It actually started in Clinton's day and age, while he was president he allowed certain guidelines to be relieved or changed when it comes to the relationship between banks and insurance....apparently it continued under Bush, until you get what we have now.

Anyways about Obama..

Id give him some shit because of his stimulus plan...if you truly look at it..he is full of shit. He wants to create jobs by investing in green technology, and no doubt it will create jobs...but equally the greener we go, the less we depend on fossil fuels..which will in turn cut jobs. He also wants to dump billions of dollars into an economy that needs trillions. The money just isn't there..everyone is scared of what is going to happen in the next couple years, and are trying to remedy the problem to no avail. I don't like what hes done so far with the economy.

On a good note, at least he raised the ban on stem cell research. I am a big advocate of stem cell research...there are countless possibilities in this research. Can't wait to see what becomes of it all.

-Evo

[judgeposer]

[...]
Anyways about Obama..
[...]
On a good note, at least he raised the ban on stem cell research. I am a big advocate of stem cell research...there are countless possibilities in this research. Can't wait to see what becomes of it all.

-Evo

To be sure, there was never a ban on stem cell research. That means that government and private sector funded research of human stem cells has continued unabated. The debate and Obama's recent Executive Order focuses on the status of embryonic stem cell research, but specifically the means scientists can pursue in their research.

Still yet, however, there existed no ban on government-funded embryonic stem cell research. President Bush's Executive Order on the matter specified that research using embryonic stem cells could continue once those cells "are derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus." More simply, President Bush's restriction in the area of stem cell research concerned only government-funded research and had to do with embryonic stem cells, but specifically whether scientists could, in their research, destroy human embryos, which they used to produce the cells, but no longer needed once the cells were produced.

That leaves President Obama's Executive Order concerning government-funded stem cell research room for one alteration: President Bush's only limitation that government funded research not destroy human embryos in the process. This was Bush's only limitation on research, thus the only area open to Obama for change.

Keep in mind, for the regime of the Bush Executive Order, the private sector could have (and did) conduct the sort of research Bush said the government wouldn't fund. Those groups simply didn't receive government funding.

[Will_Evo]

[...]
Anyways about Obama..
[...]
On a good note, at least he raised the ban on stem cell research. I am a big advocate of stem cell research...there are countless possibilities in this research. Can't wait to see what becomes of it all.

-Evo

To be sure, there was never a ban on stem cell research. That means that government and private sector funded research of human stem cells has continued unabated. The debate and Obama's recent Executive Order focuses on the status of embryonic stem cell research, but specifically the means scientists can pursue in their research.

Still yet, however, there existed no ban on government-funded embryonic stem cell research. President Bush's Executive Order on the matter specified that research using embryonic stem cells could continue once those cells "are derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus." More simply, President Bush's restriction in the area of stem cell research concerned only government-funded research and had to do with embryonic stem cells, but specifically whether scientists could, in their research, destroy human embryos, which they used to produce the cells, but no longer needed once the cells were produced.

That leaves President Obama's Executive Order concerning government-funded stem cell research room for one alteration: President Bush's only limitation that government funded research not destroy human embryos in the process. This was Bush's only limitation on research, thus the only area open to Obama for change.

Keep in mind, for the regime of the Bush Executive Order, the private sector could have (and did) conduct the sort of research Bush said the government wouldn't fund. Those groups simply didn't receive government funding.

No offense...but by limiting the researchers to 21 cell lines, and limiting funding to only those lines, he effectively ceased the research all together. Yes you are right, a ban in the way you interpreted was not instated, but the limit for 21 out of hundreds of stem cell lines, slowed the research to a hundredth of what it could have been.

-Evo

[judgeposer]

No offense...but by limiting the researchers to 21 cell lines, and limiting funding to only those lines, he effectively ceased the research all together. Yes you are right, a ban in the way you interpreted was not instated, but the limit for 21 out of hundreds of stem cell lines, slowed the research to a hundredth of what it could have been.

-Evo

No offense taken. I think you're overstating the effect of Bush's Executive Order since private research using embryonic stem cells continued unabated between then and now. The pertinent distinction here is whether the government would a specific type of research, namely the sort that destroyed the embryos from which the stem cells were obtained. In addition, I believe you're creating a false dichotomy that pits the sort of research Bush's Executive Order denied funding to against research in the area generally. The federal government's ban on embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of human embryos lasted from June 2007 to now, less than a year later. Moreover, in September 2007 scientists researching stem cell use created induced pluripotent stem cells, which they could induce to replicate the properties of an embryonic stem cell. That is to say, without resorting to using embryonic stem cells (which hadn't been banned outright), these scientists could induce non-embryonic stem cells to become any other sort of cell, thereby maximizing the potential for future scientific research having to do with future stem cell research. So, from June 2007, the date of Bush's Exec. Order, to September 2007, we saw scientists develop a way to produce the sort of research potential critics of Bush's Order sought to accomplish using government funded embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't seem then that Bush's Executive Order produced the sort of stalled research or scientific paralysis its critics thought it would. We now have a way to produce effective stem cells without resorting to destroying human embryos. So, I'm not sure you've characterized the situation rightly to say that scientific research was stalled or slowed given the breaktrhough we witnessed within three months of Bush's Exec. Order coupled with the freedom of the private sector to conduct freely its own research using embryonic stem cells during that time.

[Will_Evo]

No offense...but by limiting the researchers to 21 cell lines, and limiting funding to only those lines, he effectively ceased the research all together. Yes you are right, a ban in the way you interpreted was not instated, but the limit for 21 out of hundreds of stem cell lines, slowed the research to a hundredth of what it could have been.

-Evo

No offense taken. I think you're overstating the effect of Bush's Executive Order since private research using embryonic stem cells continued unabated between then and now. The pertinent distinction here is whether the government would a specific type of research, namely the sort that destroyed the embryos from which the stem cells were obtained. In addition, I believe you're creating a false dichotomy that pits the sort of research Bush's Executive Order denied funding to against research in the area generally. The federal government's ban on embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of human embryos lasted from June 2007 to now, less than a year later. Moreover, in September 2007 scientists researching stem cell use created induced pluripotent stem cells, which they could induce to replicate the properties of an embryonic stem cell. That is to say, without resorting to using embryonic stem cells (which hadn't been banned outright), these scientists could induce non-embryonic stem cells to become any other sort of cell, thereby maximizing the potential for future scientific research having to do with future stem cell research. So, from June 2007, the date of Bush's Exec. Order, to September 2007, we saw scientists develop a way to produce the sort of research potential critics of Bush's Order sought to accomplish using government funded embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't seem then that Bush's Executive Order produced the sort of stalled research or scientific paralysis its critics thought it would. We now have a way to produce effective stem cells without resorting to destroying human embryos. So, I'm not sure you've characterized the situation rightly to say that scientific research was stalled or slowed given the breaktrhough we witnessed within three months of Bush's Exec. Order coupled with the freedom of the private sector to conduct freely its own research using embryonic stem cells during that time.

Ok, yea I completely understand the point brought up here. The research was not stopped all together...but the problem, even with a "fake" stem cell that is capable of becoming another, is applying it to modern medicine. The stem cell lines Bush had restricted federal funding to, were all but helpful in the fact that they only represented a few out of the hundred of "Types"(In quote because they are not necessarily types of cells, rather different strands, or bases) of stem cells avaliable. Without these other hundreds of lines of cells, scientists were very limited in that they could not research in its entireity the nature of a "Grown" liver cell and its relationship to a liver, and the differences, due to the lack of saids "grown" liver cells in the different lines that exist. Its like this, if someone told you to put together a 200 piece puzzle with only 50 pieces, not only would you be drastically slower to piece those 50 pieces in their correct positions than you would have been with 200 pieces, you would not be able to continue without the missing pieces. See what I mean? yes the research continued and may have made advances, but without the ability to compare and cross reference off other cell lines, they were forced to make marginal advances in applying this science.

-Evo

[Bulldog_916]

Not saying I like W Bush, but I recently saw a very interesting economy report that showed how we got into this mess and made it clear that this economic struggle is not just his fault. It actually started in Clinton's day and age, while he was president he allowed certain guidelines to be relieved or changed when it comes to the relationship between banks and insurance....apparently it continued under Bush, until you get what we have now.

Anyways about Obama..

Id give him some shit because of his stimulus plan...if you truly look at it..he is full of shit. He wants to create jobs by investing in green technology, and no doubt it will create jobs...but equally the greener we go, the less we depend on fossil fuels..which will in turn cut jobs. He also wants to dump billions of dollars into an economy that needs trillions. The money just isn't there..everyone is scared of what is going to happen in the next couple years, and are trying to remedy the problem to no avail. I don't like what hes done so far with the economy.

On a good note, at least he raised the ban on stem cell research. I am a big advocate of stem cell research...there are countless possibilities in this research. Can't wait to see what becomes of it all.

-Evo

How do you figure going green will cut jobs? Someone is going to have to maintain wind turbines. Someone is going to have to drill for natural gas. Someone will have to keep the solar power plants running at peak efficiency. Someone will have to maintain the new grid systems that spring up. Someone will have to build and maintain new bullet trains. Commercialism will always make competition. Therefore someone will always be in need of being number 1, which drives research and development. R & D drives people to get newer better equipment, which someone has to install and maintain. I dont think you will necessarily be getting rid of any jobs by going green so much as transferring them from a less environmentally sound occupation to a more environmentally sound occupation. It's crazy to expect us to go backwards from mechanization back to factory workers when it comes to car assembly. Just like it will be crazy for us to go back to fossil fuels from green fuels once we get there. Question is, how fast are we going to get there?

[Will_Evo]

Not saying I like W Bush, but I recently saw a very interesting economy report that showed how we got into this mess and made it clear that this economic struggle is not just his fault. It actually started in Clinton's day and age, while he was president he allowed certain guidelines to be relieved or changed when it comes to the relationship between banks and insurance....apparently it continued under Bush, until you get what we have now.

Anyways about Obama..

Id give him some shit because of his stimulus plan...if you truly look at it..he is full of shit. He wants to create jobs by investing in green technology, and no doubt it will create jobs...but equally the greener we go, the less we depend on fossil fuels..which will in turn cut jobs. He also wants to dump billions of dollars into an economy that needs trillions. The money just isn't there..everyone is scared of what is going to happen in the next couple years, and are trying to remedy the problem to no avail. I don't like what hes done so far with the economy.

On a good note, at least he raised the ban on stem cell research. I am a big advocate of stem cell research...there are countless possibilities in this research. Can't wait to see what becomes of it all.

-Evo

How do you figure going green will cut jobs? Someone is going to have to maintain wind turbines. Someone is going to have to drill for natural gas. Someone will have to keep the solar power plants running at peak efficiency. Someone will have to maintain the new grid systems that spring up. Someone will have to build and maintain new bullet trains. Commercialism will always make competition. Therefore someone will always be in need of being number 1, which drives research and development. R & D drives people to get newer better equipment, which someone has to install and maintain. I dont think you will necessarily be getting rid of any jobs by going green so much as transferring them from a less environmentally sound occupation to a more environmentally sound occupation. It's crazy to expect us to go backwards from mechanization back to factory workers when it comes to car assembly. Just like it will be crazy for us to go back to fossil fuels from green fuels once we get there. Question is, how fast are we going to get there?

I think you misunderstood my point. No doubt going green is going to create jobs, I am not saying it isn't. But according to Obama, going green is going to drastically help in the unemployment rate of the nation, where as if you really look at it, there will be a marginal gain in the beginning, then as we rely more and more on greener power, you will see the employment rates in Power/fuel job market even back out due to the loss of jobs in the conventional fossil fuel/ regular power plants. he is essentially relocating jobs, not creating them.

-Evo

[TheScotsman]

The vast majority of the wind turbines in the USA are made by Vestus and Enercon, with a handfull of megawat sized mills from AAER.

-Vestus is in Denmark, with mfg facility in Germany, Denmark, and China (by far the biggest manufacturer)
-Enercon is from Germany with production in India, and Brazil.
-AAER is made in Canada... at least that is in North America.


Ya, let's invest tax dollars in them in a hope of stimulating a job in the USA. I guess I am missing something in that logic. It sounds a bit like we are firing a coal miner in Wyoming or Pa and sending their job to India, and China.

[Sonthert]

I would say there are numerous Bull Shit laws that need to be changed. Free Market is anathema, but the overregulation of the labor markets in the US are one of the causes of the loss of jobs to countries with less regulated labor markets. Why are we trying to stimulate markets that are inherently rigged to prevent people from working and making money?

I think your numbers of 65T dollars are seriously flawed, there Scotsman.

To the anti-Obama people: G W Bush ballooned the national debt from 1.05 Trillion to over 10 trillion in his 8 years...and what did we get out of it? A ruined economy. Why are you bashing Obama spending money in the same degree G.W Bush did? I didn't hear anybody complaining about the national debt last year...most of that debt going to worthless undertakings.

On the other hand, Obama spending more money after Bush spent a lot of money doesn't really seem like a great solution. It sounds like a recipe for inflation and recession.

That being said, the primary causes of the current recession are partially reversed (price of oil). The republican deregulation of the Home Lending Markets is still floating around, waiting to cause more problems. Republican deregulation is the source of a great many financial problems in the US. Obama might just benefit from OPEC taking the vise off our nutsac. We'll see...

[Will_Evo]

I would say there are numerous Bull Shit laws that need to be changed. Free Market is anathema, but the overregulation of the labor markets in the US are one of the causes of the loss of jobs to countries with less regulated labor markets. Why are we trying to stimulate markets that are inherently rigged to prevent people from working and making money?

I think your numbers of 65T dollars are seriously flawed, there Scotsman.

To the anti-Obama people: G W Bush ballooned the national debt from 1.05 Trillion to over 10 trillion in his 8 years...and what did we get out of it? A ruined economy. Why are you bashing Obama spending money in the same degree G.W Bush did? I didn't hear anybody complaining about the national debt last year...most of that debt going to worthless undertakings.

On the other hand, Obama spending more money after Bush spent a lot of money doesn't really seem like a great solution. It sounds like a recipe for inflation and recession.

That being said, the primary causes of the current recession are partially reversed (price of oil). The republican deregulation of the Home Lending Markets is still floating around, waiting to cause more problems. Republican deregulation is the source of a great many financial problems in the US. Obama might just benefit from OPEC taking the vise off our nutsac. We'll see...

By no means am I blaming our debt completely on Obama. I am not a fan of Bush or Obama, BUT Obama's actions, ESPECIALLY recently*, to fix the economy, is a big fat joke.

*The stimulus bill was signed and passed behind closed doors, later Obama comes out in a press conference and says that the imperfect bill is necessary. For a president who campaigned to bring change and "Slash earmarks in half" he sure didn't show any backbone by signing a bill with 7 billion dollars in earmarks.

I am not sure if any of you heard, but literally 1 day after Obama signed this new stimulus bill, there are already talks about the next stimulus bill because they know this one is not going to be enough. If that is not proof enough that what the federal government is doing is not working, I dont know what is. It's like we are taking 1 step foward and two steps back.

-Evo©

lol /\
.....|

[Ralleac]

To the anti-Obama people: G W Bush ballooned the national debt from 1.05 Trillion to over 10 trillion in his 8 years...and what did we get out of it? A ruined economy. Why are you bashing Obama spending money in the same degree G.W Bush did? I didn't hear anybody complaining about the national debt last year...most of that debt going to worthless undertakings.

Not that I ever supported Bush, but wasn't the national debt around 6 trillion (up from around 3 trillion in 1990) when he took office? It hasn't been shown below 1 trillion since before I was born (early 1980's)... People have been complaining for years now about what Bush was doing to the national debt. It's disappointing to watch Obama make some of the same mistakes. Edited March 13, 2009 by Ralleac

[Sonthert]

It probably was closer to $2T when Clinton took office, the real debt adjusted for inflation stayed the same. Dollars were worth more back then, so modern numbers, adjusted for inflation will depict them as being higher since a 2006 dollar is worth less than a 1992 dollar. I might have been remembering the public debt, too. The number just sticks in my head. Under Reagan, for the first time since WWII, the national debt, in relation to the GNP (Or GDP, I forget which) rose...appreciably. Under Bush I, it rose again, under Clinton the debt rose but just about the same as inflation (making it a push), and it went up tremendously under Bush...so, ignoring inflation adjusted dollars or inflation-unadjusted dollars, look up the national debt in terms of the GNP (Or GDP) and look at the changes...you'll see that no modern US president has increased the national debt so much in relation to the GNP/GDP as Bush II.

It wasn't $6T, because I looked it up just now on Wiki and the 2008 adjusted dollars for 2000 were $6T. In 2000, it would have been less. Not $2T, but less than $6T. I might have been thing of public debt rather than gross debt. Recollections at my age are a crap shoot at best. The magnitude is unimportant, the trend is what is important. Lots of deficit spending under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, balanced budget spending under Clinton. There is a nice graph on Wiki:

Wiki Link

Reagan was the first president to shoot the national debt over $1T, though. That I remember. Notice that the graph (If we assume that graph is correct) depicts the debt when Reagan took office as $2T, not $1T.

I've got a fire out back right now! Somebody set some gasoline on fire! I guess the best solution would be to throw more gasoline on it! There's some Obama reasoning....sorry unfair. We might give Obama a year and then begin to criticize him. I didn't really begin to criticize Bush until 9/12/01...although I think extraordinary circumstances would allow some wiggle room for me there.

[TheScotsman]

I would say there are numerous Bull Shit laws that need to be changed. Free Market is anathema, but the overregulation of the labor markets in the US are one of the causes of the loss of jobs to countries with less regulated labor markets. Why are we trying to stimulate markets that are inherently rigged to prevent people from working and making money?

I think your numbers of 65T dollars are seriously flawed, there Scotsman.

To the anti-Obama people: G W Bush ballooned the national debt from 1.05 Trillion to over 10 trillion in his 8 years...and what did we get out of it? A ruined economy. Why are you bashing Obama spending money in the same degree G.W Bush did? I didn't hear anybody complaining about the national debt last year...most of that debt going to worthless undertakings.

On the other hand, Obama spending more money after Bush spent a lot of money doesn't really seem like a great solution. It sounds like a recipe for inflation and recession.

That being said, the primary causes of the current recession are partially reversed (price of oil). The republican deregulation of the Home Lending Markets is still floating around, waiting to cause more problems. Republican deregulation is the source of a great many financial problems in the US. Obama might just benefit from OPEC taking the vise off our nutsac. We'll see...

Think it's flawed all you would like... it's just too bad our gov't thinks every new budget is starting at a zero balance, and can't fathom the fact they still owe the debt they incurred the year before, or the fact that they stillo have to fund previously enacted debt.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=88851

From the '06 budget... Ah, the good old days... only 54 trillion in the hole.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article327.html

And from the "priceless" catagory, China tells BO to cut the spending, or else.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/152663/China-w...ckless-spending

Actually, that is a bit on the conservative side of it all. Nice that the gov't budget isn't based around sound, accepted accounting practices. Anti-OB or not, GW was just as bad, calling that guy a conservative is like calling a cherry bomb a hemorrhoid cure. Well, at least GW didn't have China telling him to quit with the spending.