So, you want to talk deficits?

[vanitybinge]

VB - don't take this the wrong way, but I propose you lay off the reefer for a while.

Come on don't get cheap on me! I made valid points and you know it, so if you want to question my criticism on that article then by all means go ahead. Or, maybe you need a bowl to catch up!

Sorry dude, I don't quite understand your math. We "borrow" that money from the Fed? How do we borrow if from the Fed since "we" (well, American taxpayers) finance the Fed in the first place?

The Federal Reserve is a bank. It's the only bank allowed to print money for the US, so it loans this money to the United States. Remember, it's not a federal entity. There's nothing federal about it at all. It's just a bank. But because it's a central bank, it has a monopolistic nuthold on all the money.

So, the FED loans money to the united states treasury, and that loan comes with an interest. That interest in turn, drives our deficit up because we can never actually pay it back if they're the only ones who can print the money.

[Ugmo]

I still don't really get your point. So the Fed loans the government 1.9 trillion dollars - where does that money come from? Because when it loaned the money to AIG, the taxpayers financed that (or rather it got added to the deficit and thus eventually the national debt). Or if it just prints the money with no backing of any kind, that translates into inflation. I think we'd be loaning the money to ourselves, so although I don't claim to be an expert I still think your theory is a little off-kilter.

[VinnieKulick]

I still don't really get your point. So the Fed loans the government 1.9 trillion dollars - where does that money come from? Because when it loaned the money to AIG, the taxpayers financed that (or rather it got added to the deficit and thus eventually the national debt). Or if it just prints the money with no backing of any kind, that translates into inflation. I think we'd be loaning the money to ourselves, so although I don't claim to be an expert I still think your theory is a little off-kilter.

The money for most of the spending that Obama is responsible for was borrowed from China.

[Ugmo]

I still don't really get your point. So the Fed loans the government 1.9 trillion dollars - where does that money come from? Because when it loaned the money to AIG, the taxpayers financed that (or rather it got added to the deficit and thus eventually the national debt). Or if it just prints the money with no backing of any kind, that translates into inflation. I think we'd be loaning the money to ourselves, so although I don't claim to be an expert I still think your theory is a little off-kilter.

The money for most of the spending that Obama is responsible for was borrowed from China.

Right, and the taxpayers eventually have to pay it back.

[vanitybinge]

I still don't really get your point. So the Fed loans the government 1.9 trillion dollars - where does that money come from? Because when it loaned the money to AIG, the taxpayers financed that (or rather it got added to the deficit and thus eventually the national debt). Or if it just prints the money with no backing of any kind, that translates into inflation. I think we'd be loaning the money to ourselves, so although I don't claim to be an expert I still think your theory is a little off-kilter.

I understand your confusion. If a central bank loaned money to the US at interest it means we're in automatic debt to the Federal Reserve. Vinnie is right that we borrowed most of the stimulus money from China, which is why it doesn't show up in the pie chart on your other thread as stimulus. it would fall under international loans or something.

You mention the money coming from the Fed with no backing, and that's true. Since the gold standard was abolished, our only real backing is the currency itself! There's no gold behind your dollar! So yea, it translates into inflation, and in turn we end up in more debt to the Fed. It's a brutal endless cycle that ensures our eternal debt to a central bank, with the bank gaining more power in the government all the time.

Every president fought tooth and nail to keep the Federal Reserve from happening, and warned us against such an institution, until the one guy who was talked into letting the bank fund his campaign in exchange for authorizing the central banking system. As soon as he was elected in 1913, he admitted that he sold us out to the Central Banking System. His name was Woodrow Wilson.

Again I understand why you think my theory is off, but when you understand what the federal reserve really is, you'll get it.

http://www.historycentral.com/documents ... serve.html

[SmokingGun]

I still don't really get your point. So the Fed loans the government 1.9 trillion dollars - where does that money come from? Because when it loaned the money to AIG, the taxpayers financed that (or rather it got added to the deficit and thus eventually the national debt). Or if it just prints the money with no backing of any kind, that translates into inflation. I think we'd be loaning the money to ourselves, so although I don't claim to be an expert I still think your theory is a little off-kilter.

The money for most of the spending that Obama is responsible for was borrowed from China.

Right, and the taxpayers eventually have to pay it back.

They will *never* be able to pay it back. Ever.

I'd like to point out that after one year in office Mr. Obama ‘owns’ the (fast failing) economy; ‘owns’ everything actually; including the present “homicidal foreign policies”, most certainly. And there are more (49 precisely they tell me) lobbyists holding high positions (and more ‘wingnuts’ generally) in the White House presently than under the Bush Presidency. So whatever your beef about Bush (and believe me I had more than a few too, including trampling on freedom and a complete lack of transparency, not to mention starting senseless wars with an idiot called Tony), these beefs have all gotten very much WORSE under Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party. Every promise he made, he broke it. Everything he complained about Bush doing (especially running up DEBT) he quadrupled it. To my way of thinking this makes Barack Obama a hypocrite.

[Ugmo]

They will *never* be able to pay it back. Ever.

I'd like to point out that after one year in office Mr. Obama ‘owns’ the (fast failing) economy; ‘owns’ everything actually; including the present “homicidal foreign policies”, most certainly. And there are more (49 precisely they tell me) lobbyists holding high positions (and more ‘wingnuts’ generally) in the White House presently than under the Bush Presidency. So whatever your beef about Bush (and believe me I had more than a few too, including trampling on freedom and a complete lack of transparency, not to mention starting senseless wars with an idiot called Tony), these beefs have all gotten very much WORSE under Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party. Every promise he made, he broke it. Everything he complained about Bush doing (especially running up DEBT) he quadrupled it. To my way of thinking this makes Barack Obama a hypocrite.

"Fast-failing economy" - wrong, the economy grew by nearly 6 percent in the fourth quarter, after contracting by, what, six percent a year before. That is a huge turnaround.

"Homicidal foreign policies" - what was he supposed to do, cut and run in his first week in office? He will have removed all combat troops in Iraq by the end of the year. If he cut and run in Afghanistan the right-wing would accuse him of being soft on terrorism. And by the way, he is doing exactly what he promised: drawing down the war effort in Iraq and ramping it up in Afghanistan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... r-in-iraq/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... from-iraq/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ghanistan/

"More lobbyists than under the Bush presidency" - who is "they" who told you this? Maybe you should be getting your numbers from independent sources:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... olicy-mak/

Still, open government groups have given Obama high marks for reducing the number of lobbyists at the White House and for making the process more transparent than other administrations.

"I think that by any fair measure ... the reported number is certainly much fewer," said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center. "In fact, I'd say the waivers are good. It allows them to go in and say, 'Here's someone we think has unique skills.'

"Trampling on freedom" - Please explain how that's gotten worse under Obama. Thanks in advance.

"Complete lack of transparency" - see above. You are just making shit up without checking the facts.

"Every promise he made, he broke it" - 91 promises kept vs. 14 promises broken:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

"Especially running up debt" - you really need to check the facts, because the facts are that the deficit has skyrocketed primarily because of the shitty economy and the related tax revenue shortfalls.


In short, you need better sources than the ones you are using. The site I've linked above is a good place to start.

And read this editorial about the deficit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opini ... man&st=cse

[SmokingGun]

They will *never* be able to pay it back. Ever.

I'd like to point out that after one year in office Mr. Obama ‘owns’ the (fast failing) economy; ‘owns’ everything actually; including the present “homicidal foreign policies”, most certainly. And there are more (49 precisely they tell me) lobbyists holding high positions (and more ‘wingnuts’ generally) in the White House presently than under the Bush Presidency. So whatever your beef about Bush (and believe me I had more than a few too, including trampling on freedom and a complete lack of transparency, not to mention starting senseless wars with an idiot called Tony), these beefs have all gotten very much WORSE under Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party. Every promise he made, he broke it. Everything he complained about Bush doing (especially running up DEBT) he quadrupled it. To my way of thinking this makes Barack Obama a hypocrite.

"Fast-failing economy" - wrong, the economy grew by nearly 6 percent in the fourth quarter, after contracting by, what, six percent a year before. That is a huge turnaround.

"Homicidal foreign policies" - what was he supposed to do, cut and run in his first week in office? He will have removed all combat troops in Iraq by the end of the year. If he cut and run in Afghanistan the right-wing would accuse him of being soft on terrorism. And by the way, he is doing exactly what he promised: drawing down the war effort in Iraq and ramping it up in Afghanistan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... r-in-iraq/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... from-iraq/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ghanistan/

"More lobbyists than under the Bush presidency" - who is "they" who told you this? Maybe you should be getting your numbers from independent sources:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... olicy-mak/

Still, open government groups have given Obama high marks for reducing the number of lobbyists at the White House and for making the process more transparent than other administrations.

"I think that by any fair measure ... the reported number is certainly much fewer," said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center. "In fact, I'd say the waivers are good. It allows them to go in and say, 'Here's someone we think has unique skills.'

"Trampling on freedom" - Please explain how that's gotten worse under Obama. Thanks in advance.

"Complete lack of transparency" - see above. You are just making shit up without checking the facts.

"Every promise he made, he broke it" - 91 promises kept vs. 14 promises broken:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

"Especially running up debt" - you really need to check the facts, because the facts are that the deficit has skyrocketed primarily because of the shitty economy and the related tax revenue shortfalls.


In short, you need better sources than the ones you are using. The site I've linked above is a good place to start.

And read this editorial about the deficit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opini ... man&st=cse

What's the point of a growing economy if billions are being poured into it just to nudge it up a few % points? And where are the jobs, shouldn't they be the first effect of a 'growing economy'? Unemployment is skyrocketing, despite the billions flushed down the toilet by Obama and co.

And no, he can't cut and run a week/year in office. But he's doing the opposite. More soldiers sent to die, more money used to bribe the terrorists into not shooting US soldiers. A real plan would be nice, not just doing the same shit Bush did, on an even larger scale.

As for lobbyists, it is a known fact that Obama has surrounded himself with a plethora of FORMER lobbyists.. so on paper they are no longer lobbyists.. you got that right. But if you think they are suddenly serving the public, and not the hand that has been feeding them their whole lives, you've got another thing coming. They serve big business and nothing else, and have direct access to Obama's ear.

Trampling on freedom.. hmm.. how about warrantless wiretapping? Yes, Bush started it. But Obama promised fairness and transparency. And one of the first things he signed was to continue warrantless wiretapping, a massive infringement on human rights.

Ok, he didn't break every promise. But most 'casual' Obama voters will tell you, he certainly hasn't kept the core promises he made, the ones he was voted into office on: less spending, smaller government, get out of Iraq/Afghanistan, transparency etc.

And debt.. are you serious? Borrowing from China at this rate is going to give them all the leverage they need to make the US do anything they want them to, from shutting up about human rights abuses, to the value of the US dollar (they could dump their trillions and the US would effectively become pre WWII Germany).. to buying up key infrastructure. The borrowing simply has to stop, it's insanity to keep going like this.

[Ugmo]

What's the point of a growing economy if billions are being poured into it just to nudge it up a few % points?

Just to nudge it up a few points? Do you know how many jobs those "few points" translate into, and what the resulting tax revenues amount to?

And where are the jobs, shouldn't they be the first effect of a 'growing economy'? Unemployment is skyrocketing, despite the billions flushed down the toilet by Obama and co.

Why no, no they they shouldn't. Job growth ALWAYS lags behind economic growth:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... economic-/

Motherfucker dude, check your fucking facts!

And no, he can't cut and run a week/year in office. But he's doing the opposite. More soldiers sent to die, more money used to bribe the terrorists into not shooting US soldiers. A real plan would be nice, not just doing the same shit Bush did, on an even larger scale.

Good fucking help me for this, and I'll probably never live it down, but Bush eventually did the right thing in Iraq. More troops + cutting deals with the enemy (the moderate ones at least) = less violence. That is what Obama is now doing in Afghanistan, presumably because it WORKED in Iraq.

As for lobbyists, it is a known fact that Obama has surrounded himself with a plethora of FORMER lobbyists.. so on paper they are no longer lobbyists.. you got that right. But if you think they are suddenly serving the public, and not the hand that has been feeding them their whole lives, you've got another thing coming. They serve big business and nothing else, and have direct access to Obama's ear.

Well that's grand, but I gave you demonstrable facts backed up by demontrable numbers, and you're giving me opinions and hyperbole.

Trampling on freedom.. hmm.. how about warrantless wiretapping? Yes, Bush started it. But Obama promised fairness and transparency. And one of the first things he signed was to continue warrantless wiretapping, a massive infringement on human rights.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -flop-yes/

He had already flip-flopped on that during his campaign, so no, he didn't break any promises.

Ok, he didn't break every promise. But most 'casual' Obama voters will tell you, he certainly hasn't kept the core promises he made, the ones he was voted into office on: less spending, smaller government, get out of Iraq/Afghanistan, transparency etc.

You're not even looking at the independent sources I gave you! He has 100 percent kept his Iraq/Afghanistan promise, demonstrably so. Obama promised smaller government? Seriously? Let's see that promise. If you claim it, you had better back it up. Less spending? Well I guess it's conceivable that he promised that, but once again, the U.S. was in a recession when he took office, and that requires more spending, not less. But don't take my word for it, take Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman's word:

The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opini ... man&st=cse (I linked that in the last post, but you didn't read it.)

And debt.. are you serious? Borrowing from China at this rate is going to give them all the leverage they need to make the US do anything they want them to, from shutting up about human rights abuses, to the value of the US dollar (they could dump their trillions and the US would effectively become pre WWII Germany).. to buying up key infrastructure. The borrowing simply has to stop, it's insanity to keep going like this.

I refer you to the Paul Krugman editorial above. Or do you know more about this than he does?

[SmokingGun]

What's the point of a growing economy if billions are being poured into it just to nudge it up a few % points?

Just to nudge it up a few points? Do you know how many jobs those "few points" translate into, and what the resulting tax revenues amount to?

And where are the jobs, shouldn't they be the first effect of a 'growing economy'? Unemployment is skyrocketing, despite the billions flushed down the toilet by Obama and co.

Why no, no they they shouldn't. Job growth ALWAYS lags behind economic growth:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... economic-/

Motherfucker dude, check your fucking facts!

And no, he can't cut and run a week/year in office. But he's doing the opposite. More soldiers sent to die, more money used to bribe the terrorists into not shooting US soldiers. A real plan would be nice, not just doing the same shit Bush did, on an even larger scale.

Good fucking help me for this, and I'll probably never live it down, but Bush eventually did the right thing in Iraq. More troops + cutting deals with the enemy (the moderate ones at least) = less violence. That is what Obama is now doing in Afghanistan, presumably because it WORKED in Iraq.

As for lobbyists, it is a known fact that Obama has surrounded himself with a plethora of FORMER lobbyists.. so on paper they are no longer lobbyists.. you got that right. But if you think they are suddenly serving the public, and not the hand that has been feeding them their whole lives, you've got another thing coming. They serve big business and nothing else, and have direct access to Obama's ear.

Well that's grand, but I gave you demonstrable facts backed up by demontrable numbers, and you're giving me opinions and hyperbole.

Trampling on freedom.. hmm.. how about warrantless wiretapping? Yes, Bush started it. But Obama promised fairness and transparency. And one of the first things he signed was to continue warrantless wiretapping, a massive infringement on human rights.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -flop-yes/

He had already flip-flopped on that during his campaign, so no, he didn't break any promises.

Ok, he didn't break every promise. But most 'casual' Obama voters will tell you, he certainly hasn't kept the core promises he made, the ones he was voted into office on: less spending, smaller government, get out of Iraq/Afghanistan, transparency etc.

You're not even looking at the independent sources I gave you! He has 100 percent kept his Iraq/Afghanistan promise, demonstrably so. Obama promised smaller government? Seriously? Let's see that promise. If you claim it, you had better back it up. Less spending? Well I guess it's conceivable that he promised that, but once again, the U.S. was in a recession when he took office, and that requires more spending, not less. But don't take my word for it, take Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman's word:

The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opini ... man&st=cse (I linked that in the last post, but you didn't read it.)

And debt.. are you serious? Borrowing from China at this rate is going to give them all the leverage they need to make the US do anything they want them to, from shutting up about human rights abuses, to the value of the US dollar (they could dump their trillions and the US would effectively become pre WWII Germany).. to buying up key infrastructure. The borrowing simply has to stop, it's insanity to keep going like this.

I refer you to the Paul Krugman editorial above. Or do you know more about this than he does?

I did read his article. And some of the comments. Here are two that I say what I want to say without me having to type it:

Here Dr. Krugman is repeating the Bush White House mantra that debt doesn't matter, and then blaming the Republicans - who else? - for the collapse of the American and European economies. But let's leave aside that key message which is monotonously the point of every column he writes.

Let's look at the economic solution provided by Dr. Krugman:

"The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs."

There's no question that's true. That's why the Republicans came up with the first bailout. There's also no question that state plan to restructure the economies of the west will have to be a key player in any recovery.

Constantly issuing new debt to pay society's everyday survival expenses will not make things better. It will only do what the numbers do: increase overall debt. Dr Krugman says the government must create jobs. No doubt. But the jobs have to be created through productive investments. Otherwise we'll just be growing the debt and preparing ourselves for an even bigger explosion than the one in 2008.

And while the US government can shovel as much debt into the Fed as it likes, the same is not true for the struggling, debt-ridden countries of Europe. As predicted by numerous economists at the outset of the crisis, collapse was staved off by transferring the staggering private consumer debt onto the states' books. Those economists predicted that the second phase of the crisis would the risk of country, or sovereign debt crisis. To all appearances, we're there. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Greece, Portugal and Spain to sell debt, and bond-holders are bailing out, driving up interest rates and making it more difficult for banks to sell their bonds. Which means that the banks in several European countries are at risk. And if Dr Krugman thinks that's not going to influence the people holding America's debt, he should think again.

The collapse of the West's banking system in 1932 began improbably with the shuttering a Creditinstallt, an Austrian bank. Within months, the panic had spread across the world, throwing the US into the Great Depression.

There's no question the Western governments have got to help people in need get through this. But the people who supposedly have serious thoughts about what is to be done will have to come up with something better than "charge it".


Paul, and if Greece defaults or Spain or Italy or Portugal. Is that group think.? Obama math on interest expense is all wrong and you know it. Its based on the wrong assumption that China, India etc will continue to buy our debt at these extraordinary low rates. No, Paul. The Country has pushed the period of pain from one generation to the next with the creation of one bubble after another. Somewhere the buck must stop. The time is now.

[Ugmo]

Where did you get that from? Can you please provide a link?

(Or is that your own response - it's written in kind of a confusing way, so forgive me if I'm having trouble understanding who wrote it.)

Edit: Okay, I see where you got those from. Sorry, two chumps with zero qualifications trying to refute him in the comments section do not take precedence over his expertise.

[SmokingGun]

Where did you get that from? Can you please provide a link?

(Or is that your own response - it's written in kind of a confusing way, so forgive me if I'm having trouble understanding who wrote it.)

Edit: Okay, I see where you got those from. Sorry, two chumps with zero qualifications trying to refute him in the comments section do not take precedence over his expertise.

His expertise eh?

Did he predict the global financial crisis? I did, and I'm not even an economist.

Did he predict the housing bubble and it's subsequent crash? I did, and I'm not even an economist.

ttyl.

[Ugmo]

His expertise eh?

Did he predict the global financial crisis? I did, and I'm not even an economist.

Did he predict the housing bubble and it's subsequent crash? I did, and I'm not even an economist.

ttyl.

Yeah, he did as a matter of fact. I gave you the link on your other "The sky is falling" thread.