drbrumley
Well-known member
Right! :up:
toldailytopic: Will America survive Obama's presidency?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Right! :up:
Alate_One
Well-known member
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we borrow now and we should be paying back once the economy recovers. The problem is the idiots of the past have gotten us in so deep I am not sure how we can get out.
He is different. He's going to get health care reform.
drbrumley
Well-known member
But Obama is doing the same thing they did. On a faster scale. And your blind to it.
He is different. He's going to get health care reform.
Which means more debt. Congratulations!
Mr. Beeks
New member
I don't recall the government ever spending us out of a recession - except maybe wars, where our factories go into overtime - and I've seen lots of debate on that one. Simply creating more bureaucracies to push papers around can't fix things. The tax money has to come from somewhere, unless somebody invented economic perpetual motion recently. It's not going to help us that our dollar's value is falling worldwide either. Not much bang for our buck, since we're pretty much dependent on imports now. The way I see it, we're simply borrowing more money, trying to create jobs (that don't actually produce anything), and hoping that future generations will figure out a way to pay off the notes.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm not blind to it. I'm aware of it, he has an actual good REASON for doing it, unlike anyone before him. That's the point.
Unprecedented economic downturn gives unprecedented debt, and this should be a surprise because?
You can't expect to stop the debt bleeding when the economy is going down the tubes.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Dude, it is absolutely STUPID and retarded of me to go into debt cause I can't pay my bills. Same thing with the government. Cause you will never see the light of day again, so yes I can expect it and they should do that. It is the ONLY way we will survive.
Alate_One
Well-known member
That's not what the spending bill was about, creating bureaucracies. If you want to get angry about creating new bureaucracies you need to look back to the last 8 years. Most economists think we did at least avert disaster through government spending.
Falling dollar isn't necessarily a bad thing, it helps our exports, makes imports more expensive. You want to be lest dependent on them, let the market make them more expensive . . . .
Alate_One
Well-known member
you want to cut spending/raise taxes at the beginning of a depression? Okay Herbert Hoover, how about you do that in some other country . . .not mine.
You saying its IMPOSSIBLE for people to get out of debt once they get in it? Do you realize how stupid that is?
GoingGoldenWCU
New member
I think so. We will just have to make a conscious effort to cooperate with people we may not necessarily agree with. It is not just the effort or lack of effort of one man that makes a country fail - it requires equal pull from everyone.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Raise taxes? Who said anything about raising taxes. We get taxed enough already. Taxes should be cut BIGTIME, if any taxes at all.
I didn't say that you dude, what I am saying is it is the cycle. If you don't break the cycle, it will continue. Why can't you grasp that simple sentence?
Alate_One
Well-known member
How are we supposed to balance our books if we CUT taxes? You can claim economic growth from reduced taxes but the tax rate is already relatively low, its probably not going to do much, just like the Bush tax cuts didn't do much but inflate the debt. :idunno:
You didn't state it clearly.
I agree the cycle must be broken but right this moment isn't the time to do it. This coming year . . . maybe.
Mr. Beeks
New member
That's pretty much where the bulk of the money's going, though. And no, I don't give the Bush Administration a free pass on this. I lay most of the blame for this entire mess on him and the corrupt republican congress, who made the public mad - who voted in the democrats as a result.
What about the cost of oil? We don't essentially "run on" that anymore? I don't see a lot of good in the falling dollar, when we import just about everything, including metals for construction materials. Nobody's going to want to start a big construction project when the costs overrun the budgets. Pretty much everything we do will be affected by this.
Wait for the interest rates to raise next...
drbrumley
Well-known member
No doubt! We are nowhere close to being out of this yet, esp with Helicopter Ben running the show.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Where's your evidence for that
We could . . .I don't know do something INSANE and develop our own energy technology and become self sufficient instead of beholden to the middle east. Fancy that.
Lots of construction materials are produced in the US, We dont' HAVE to import wood from china, or concrete, or steel. The USA has plenty of natural resources. If it becomes cheaper to produce something locally, we will.
Only if the economy starts growing quickly.
drbrumley
Well-known member
The Bailout Bubble
While the bailout, or the “stimulus package” as it is often referred to, is getting good coverage in terms of being portrayed as having revived the economy and is leading the way to the light at the end of the tunnel, key factors are again misrepresented in this situation.
At the end of March of 2009, Bloomberg reported that, “The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year.” This amount “works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nation’s gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.”[10]
Gerald Celente, the head of the Trends Research Institute, the major trend-forecasting agency in the world, wrote in May of 2009 of the “bailout bubble.” Celente’s forecasts are not to be taken lightly, as he accurately predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the fall of the Soviet Union, the 1998 Russian economic collapse, the 1997 East Asian economic crisis, the 2000 Dot-Com bubble burst, the 2001 recession, the start of a recession in 2007 and the housing market collapse of 2008, among other things.
On May 13, 2009, Celente released a Trend Alert, reporting that, “The biggest financial bubble in history is being inflated in plain sight,” and that, “This is the Mother of All Bubbles, and when it explodes [...] it will signal the end to the boom/bust cycle that has characterized economic activity throughout the developed world.” Further, “This is much bigger than the Dot-com and Real Estate bubbles which hit speculators, investors and financiers the hardest. However destructive the effects of these busts on employment, savings and productivity, the Free Market Capitalist framework was left intact. But when the 'Bailout Bubble' explodes, the system goes with it.”
Celente further explained that, “Phantom dollars, printed out of thin air, backed by nothing ... and producing next to nothing ... defines the ‘Bailout Bubble.’ Just as with the other bubbles, so too will this one burst. But unlike Dot-com and Real Estate, when the "Bailout Bubble" pops, neither the President nor the Federal Reserve will have the fiscal fixes or monetary policies available to inflate another.” Celente elaborated, “Given the pattern of governments to parlay egregious failures into mega-failures, the classic trend they follow, when all else fails, is to take their nation to war,” and that, “While we cannot pinpoint precisely when the 'Bailout Bubble' will burst, we are certain it will. When it does, it should be understood that a major war could follow.”[11]
However, this “bailout bubble” that Celente was referring to at the time was the $12.8 trillion reported by Bloomberg. As of July, estimates put this bubble at nearly double the previous estimate.
As the Financial Times reported in late July of 2009, while the Fed and Treasury hail the efforts and impact of the bailouts, “Neil Barofsky, special inspector-general for the troubled asset relief programme, [TARP] said that the various US schemes to shore up banks and restart lending exposed federal agencies to a risk of $23,700bn [$23.7 trillion] – a vast estimate that was immediately dismissed by the Treasury.” The inspector-general of the TARP program stated that there were “fundamental vulnerabilities . . . relating to conflicts of interest and collusion, transparency, performance measures, and anti-money laundering.”
Barofsky also reports on the “considerable stress” in commercial real estate, as “The Fed has begun to open up Talf to commercial mortgage-backed securities to try to influence credit conditions in the commercial real estate market. The report draws attention to a new potential credit crunch when $500bn worth of real estate mortgages need to be refinanced by the end of the year.” Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed, and Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary and former President of the New York Fed, are seriously discussing extending TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility) into “CMBS [Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities] and other assets such as small business loans and whether to increase the size of the programme.” It is the “expansion of the various programmes into new and riskier asset classes is one of the main bones of contention between the Treasury and Mr Barofsky.”[12]
Testifying before Congress, Barofsky said, “From programs involving large capital infusions into hundreds of banks and other financial institutions, to a mortgage modification program designed to modify millions of mortgages, to public-private partnerships using tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to purchase 'toxic' assets from banks, TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale, and complexity.” He explained that, “The total potential federal government support could reach up to 23.7 trillion dollars.”[13]
[10] Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry, Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion. Bloomberg: March 31, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4
[11] Gerald Celente, The "Bailout Bubble" - The Bubble to End All Bubbles. Trends Research Institute: May 13, 2009:
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2009/05/gerald-celente-bubble-to-end-all.html
[12] Tom Braithwaite, Treasury clashes with Tarp watchdog on data. The Financial Times: July 20, 2009:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab533a38-757a-11de-9ed5-00144feabdc0.html
[13] AFP, US could spend 23.7 trillion dollars on crisis: report. Agence-France Presse: July 20, 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iuL1HParBuO4WyHJIxw6rlOKdz-A
Source
Take heed Alate.
While the bailout, or the “stimulus package” as it is often referred to, is getting good coverage in terms of being portrayed as having revived the economy and is leading the way to the light at the end of the tunnel, key factors are again misrepresented in this situation.
At the end of March of 2009, Bloomberg reported that, “The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year.” This amount “works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nation’s gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.”[10]
Gerald Celente, the head of the Trends Research Institute, the major trend-forecasting agency in the world, wrote in May of 2009 of the “bailout bubble.” Celente’s forecasts are not to be taken lightly, as he accurately predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the fall of the Soviet Union, the 1998 Russian economic collapse, the 1997 East Asian economic crisis, the 2000 Dot-Com bubble burst, the 2001 recession, the start of a recession in 2007 and the housing market collapse of 2008, among other things.
On May 13, 2009, Celente released a Trend Alert, reporting that, “The biggest financial bubble in history is being inflated in plain sight,” and that, “This is the Mother of All Bubbles, and when it explodes [...] it will signal the end to the boom/bust cycle that has characterized economic activity throughout the developed world.” Further, “This is much bigger than the Dot-com and Real Estate bubbles which hit speculators, investors and financiers the hardest. However destructive the effects of these busts on employment, savings and productivity, the Free Market Capitalist framework was left intact. But when the 'Bailout Bubble' explodes, the system goes with it.”
Celente further explained that, “Phantom dollars, printed out of thin air, backed by nothing ... and producing next to nothing ... defines the ‘Bailout Bubble.’ Just as with the other bubbles, so too will this one burst. But unlike Dot-com and Real Estate, when the "Bailout Bubble" pops, neither the President nor the Federal Reserve will have the fiscal fixes or monetary policies available to inflate another.” Celente elaborated, “Given the pattern of governments to parlay egregious failures into mega-failures, the classic trend they follow, when all else fails, is to take their nation to war,” and that, “While we cannot pinpoint precisely when the 'Bailout Bubble' will burst, we are certain it will. When it does, it should be understood that a major war could follow.”[11]
However, this “bailout bubble” that Celente was referring to at the time was the $12.8 trillion reported by Bloomberg. As of July, estimates put this bubble at nearly double the previous estimate.
As the Financial Times reported in late July of 2009, while the Fed and Treasury hail the efforts and impact of the bailouts, “Neil Barofsky, special inspector-general for the troubled asset relief programme, [TARP] said that the various US schemes to shore up banks and restart lending exposed federal agencies to a risk of $23,700bn [$23.7 trillion] – a vast estimate that was immediately dismissed by the Treasury.” The inspector-general of the TARP program stated that there were “fundamental vulnerabilities . . . relating to conflicts of interest and collusion, transparency, performance measures, and anti-money laundering.”
Barofsky also reports on the “considerable stress” in commercial real estate, as “The Fed has begun to open up Talf to commercial mortgage-backed securities to try to influence credit conditions in the commercial real estate market. The report draws attention to a new potential credit crunch when $500bn worth of real estate mortgages need to be refinanced by the end of the year.” Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed, and Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary and former President of the New York Fed, are seriously discussing extending TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility) into “CMBS [Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities] and other assets such as small business loans and whether to increase the size of the programme.” It is the “expansion of the various programmes into new and riskier asset classes is one of the main bones of contention between the Treasury and Mr Barofsky.”[12]
Testifying before Congress, Barofsky said, “From programs involving large capital infusions into hundreds of banks and other financial institutions, to a mortgage modification program designed to modify millions of mortgages, to public-private partnerships using tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to purchase 'toxic' assets from banks, TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale, and complexity.” He explained that, “The total potential federal government support could reach up to 23.7 trillion dollars.”[13]
[10] Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry, Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion. Bloomberg: March 31, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4
[11] Gerald Celente, The "Bailout Bubble" - The Bubble to End All Bubbles. Trends Research Institute: May 13, 2009:
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2009/05/gerald-celente-bubble-to-end-all.html
[12] Tom Braithwaite, Treasury clashes with Tarp watchdog on data. The Financial Times: July 20, 2009:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab533a38-757a-11de-9ed5-00144feabdc0.html
[13] AFP, US could spend 23.7 trillion dollars on crisis: report. Agence-France Presse: July 20, 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iuL1HParBuO4WyHJIxw6rlOKdz-A
Source
Take heed Alate.
Mr. Beeks
New member
Other than my conversations with several people that work at the nearby Hanford Reservation and across the country, talking to many people throughout the construction industry, and my watching the bidding opportunities for the past year, I don't have any links. They wouldn't matter to anyone anyway. Everyone's set in their opinion on this, just as they are about religion, evolution, etc. People either love big government or hate it.
Like maybe nuclear power for instance? No, wait. Environmentalists don't like that, and the democrats can't be alienating them...
Exactly. And when it's more profitable to export them - we do. Copper wire, steel products, and concrete products have been going up radically for the past couple of years because China was buying everything they could find, worldwide.
Well, there may be one bright spot, then.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I think you're promoting a false dichotomy. I'm not "pro big government". I'm for government doing what it NEEDS to do, and not doing whatever it wants to do. Government regulations are important, government subsidies . . .not so much. I don't know of any new major bureaucracies created from the stimulus package.
Nuclear power isn't evil, but if misused it can be incredibly damaging. Problem comes from the waste. And its not just environmentalists all freaked out about that. NOBODY wants it in their back yard. Volunteer to put it in your back yard and convince your neighbors to accept it and you may be able to get somewhere. There's plenty of other technologies than nuclear also . . .
A weak dollar may make the trade balance work for us. Cap and trade may force us to be technological innovators again rather than sitting around complaining about how too much regulation hurts our 100 year old coal and oil industries that foul the water and air.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I've not said the tarp program as run was the best idea. But it wasn't even begun under the Obama administration . . .
However there is another bubble in the commercial real estate industry which may put us into more trouble. Letting banks explode is simply bad for the economy and the deficit.
Like the undoing the damage FDR did? It depends. So far, Obama has failed most of which he has tried. Like Carter. With ole Jimbo we just had to survive, like a cold winter. If Obama does half of what he wants, we might as well move in with Chavez.
Wow, where to start? Better in what way? Romans 13, are you serious? Romans 13 is a mandate for government to represent God. Obama hates him, and spits in his face every time he can. Government should not profane God by killing people that should live, and letting those that should die stay alive. Obama wants the opposite, and wants the opposite of the mandate for defense and infastructure. He is trying to run the economy, rather than macro manage it.
Never. It gives a voice against the machine known as the national media. Which is a bunch of liberal idiots like yourself. You want to silence them, then all we have is Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric.
- Status