Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• gut

  Footwedge;846615 wrote:The coming inflation will only come if the GDP grows..

  
  Look up stagflation. I guess it's something else you forgot about economics.
• Footwedge

  gut;846658 wrote:Look up stagflation. I guess it's something else you forgot about economics.

  No...you look up stagflation. My post has absolutely nothing to do with stagflation. And you have the stones to call me ignorant regarding economics. Look up the term "irony"....after you look up the definition of the term stagflation.
• Footwedge

  gut;846657 wrote:Has absolutely nothing to do with your complete ignorance of economics, nor do you have much of a grasp over what is really driving where we are today. You don't know my politics either, but it doesn't stop you from making blanket and inaccurate statements. I have many positions that lean either Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian, but mostly my options in the voting booth have been crap.

  The only innaccurate statements around here are spewed by you. And I don't really give a rat's ass about your politics either.
• Footwedge

  gut;845497 wrote:My question is, if Obama is so bad for business (and he is), where are all his campaign funds coming from? Other than Soros, surely even liberals can't honestly look at this guy and say "he's the one for the job".

  Ignorant....Ibid.
  
  "Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector"
  
  http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21
  
  And Obama is getting his pockets lined yet again for the next election as well.
  
  You toot your horn regarding your "economic prowess" yet you are oblivious to the realities that don't surface on your radical right winged blob sites.
  
  Listen up....Wall Street owns the government...not just the GOP....and they don't care who is in office. The sooner that you understand this, the more educated you will be.
• gut

  Footwedge;847219 wrote:Ignorant....Ibid.
  
  "Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector"
  
  http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21
  
  And Obama is getting his pockets lined yet again for the next election as well.
  
  You toot your horn regarding your "economic prowess" yet you are oblivious to the realities that don't surface on your radical right winged blob sites.
  
  Listen up....Wall Street owns the government...not just the GOP....and they don't care who is in office. The sooner that you understand this, the more educated you will be.

  LMAO, you do realize that corporations tend to give to both parties, right? And you do realize that some of the uber-rich, like Soros, heavily tilt the scales? And you do realize that many of those contribution leaders are actually registered Democrats, right? Perhaps (though certainly doubtful) you are also familiar with corporation donations tending to favor the favorite, and tending to be more balanced in "coin-flip" type scenarios. The goal is normally to back the winner.
  
  I know where Obama's contributions are coming from...hence the "doubling down on a loser" comment.
• gut

  Footwedge;847207 wrote:The only innaccurate statements around here are spewed by you. And I don't really give a rat's ass about your politics either.

  
  LOL. Yeah, I'm the one quoting inaccurate facts. Feel free to point out what's wrong with credible sources (blogs don't count, so I suppose you are SOL). You are truly a joke. Tell me again about all the economics you've forgotten, to the point it's as if you've never taken any.
• gut

  Footwedge;847205 wrote:No...you look up stagflation. My post has absolutely nothing to do with stagflation.

  good lord, now you are contradicting your own pointless arguments. You said "the coming inflation will only come if GDP grows". I'll say it again, look up stagflation - brush the dust off your economic books or even just wikipedia it. And other than that, read what you wrote! LMFAO, by coming inflation do you mean, like, I'm right that inflation is coming, or do you struggle with grammar as much as economics as well?
• Ty Webb

  

  THERE HAS BEEN A DEAL REACHED TO RAISE THE NATION'S DEBT CEILING
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Ty Webb;847803 wrote:THERE HAS BEEN A DEAL REACHED TO RAISE THE NATION'S DEBT CEILING

  
  WHAT A RELIEF! LET US CELEBRATE BY SIGNING A NEW MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR ENTITLEMENT INTO LAW! WE CAN BORROW FOREVER!
• majorspark

  

  Ty Webb;847803 wrote:THERE HAS BEEN A DEAL REACHED TO RAISE THE NATION'S DEBT CEILING

  Thank God. I was about to sell everything off and head for the bunker. Happy days are here again. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow......
• BGFalcons82

  

  Just saw Nancy P state she has to read the details of the agreement before she makes up her mind as to whether to support it or not. Huh...2000 pg healthcare overhauls need passed before they are read, but spending cuts must be disected in minute detail. A little consistency from this looney would go a long way.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Ty Webb;847803 wrote:THERE HAS BEEN A DEAL REACHED TO RAISE THE NATION'S DEBT CEILING

  
  I didn't know the House and Senate passed anything.
  I'll breath a sigh of relief when both Houses pass the measure.
  
  Still, this is the worst of DC.
• tk421

  

  yeah, a deal that won't do a damn thing for the deficit. Cutting a fucking puny 1 Trillion over 10 years, if that's the best the so called "politicians" in D.C. can do than this fucking country is doomed.
• believer

  

  tk421;847967 wrote:yeah, a deal that won't do a damn thing for the deficit. Cutting a fucking puny 1 Trillion over 10 years, if that's the best the so called "politicians" in D.C. can do than this fucking country is doomed.

  Quite expected.
  
  All these idiots did was kick the can down the road.
  
  There is absolutely no sense of responsibility, no evidence of courage, and zero moral leadership on Capitol Hill.
  
  P-town, you can breath a sigh of relief in the short-term, but this simply masks the symptoms. It certainly doesn't cure the disease.
• Con_Alma

  ptown_trojans_1;847945 wrote:I didn't know the House and Senate passed anything.
  I'll breath a sigh of relief when both Houses pass the measure.
  
  Still, this is the worst of DC.

  They haven't!!!! I think the Senate will pass this but the House is going to be very interesting.
• believer

  

  Con_Alma;848062 wrote:...but the House is going to be very interesting.

  There will likely be enough cross-over voting and back room dealing in the House to get just enough votes to pass it. My guess is these clowns are burned out on dealing with it.
• derek bomar

  

  the "Grand Bargain" that was pushed for > this piece of shit
• QuakerOats

  believer;848060 wrote:Quite expected.
  
  All these idiots did was kick the can down the road.
  
  There is absolutely no sense of responsibility, no evidence of courage, and zero moral leadership on Capitol Hill.
  
  P-town, you can breath a sigh of relief in the short-term, but this simply masks the symptoms. It certainly doesn't cure the disease.

  
  
  To be expected because the lib's still control 2/3rds of the federal goverment; they are complete hypocrites, liars, and spineless beings. November 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.
• fan_from_texas

  It'll be interesting to see what happens with the committee they're setting up. I'm afraid they'll end up doing something stupid like raising taxes in a backhand manner by removing the mortgage interest deduction.
• tk421

  

  So, who was it that was optimistic that we could overcome this problem? Ptown, I think? Are you still optimistic about it? A puny 1 Trillion in "cuts" (political speak for reducing future spending) over ten years, pathetic. That's like having 100,000 in credit card debt and deciding cutting your morning coffee is going to fix the problem. I believe my favorite Congressman sums it up pretty well, too bad there isn't about 430 more Ron Pauls in Congress.
  

  "One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involved one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase. No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it.
  
  Instead, the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda."
  
  "In Washington terms a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger cut than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow."
  
  Ron Paul .com

• tk421

  

  Also, I saw this on another board. Is his analysis right? I don't know anything about how debt financing and credit ratings work, but it pretty much sums up what is in the future for this country. We may be able to run the huge deficits for a few more years, but eventually our rating will be bad enough that the credit card will be cut off. Maybe then we will have some fiscal responsibility, too bad it will probably involve massive damaging problems to huge portions of the population.
  

  That depends.
  
  I understand what you're saying, but you need to be aware that US treasury securities are going to be down-graded no matter what happens, and under the current circumstances, it is unavoidable and inevitable.
  
  It's important to recognize that foreign governments, foreign federal reserves, foreign municipalities, foreign corporations, foreign trusts, US States, US municipalities, US corporations, US banks, US trusts, both private and charitable (like the Gates Foundations and others who support PBS, the Arts, numerous charities, medical research, and provide grants and loans for construction projects like museums, performing arts centers and the like) are barred or prohibited by law, statutes, by-laws, rules or regulations from purchasing securities that do not have a certain credit rating.
  
  Even when they are not barred, they may be limited in the amount that they can invest. For example, their laws, statutes, by-laws, rules or regulations may say they cannot risk more than 3% of their total investments in securities that are rated below AA+ or something like that.
  
  So whether the debt-ceiling is raise or not is immaterial, since the US credit rating will be down-graded no matter what, and as soon as it is down-graded, it will be continually down-graded every 90-180 days depending on the exact circumstances.
  
  So, suppose the debt-ceiling is raised. As soon as your National Debt equals your GDP, you go from AAA to AA+ and in doing so, the number of groups and entities who can purchase your securities is limited/reduced.
  
  That jeopardizes your ability to sell securities and if you cannot sell securities, then you cannot finance your debt, and the result is immediate massive forced budget cuts.
  
  90 days after the first down-grading to AA+ if unemployment is still 9% and the GDP is 1.1% and the previous quarter was revised downward to 0.6% then you drop to AA and every 90 days to 180 days it continues to drop and it continues to drop as your National Debt balloons far in excess of your GDP.
  
  And each time, fewer groups and organizations are allowed to buy your debt.
  
  And then at some point, many of those entities have laws, statues, by-laws, rules or regulations that require them to dump their securities at the first sign of trouble. As soon as your credit hits BBB+ a lot of entities will be cashing out. Yes, they'll forfeit some interest, but that's better than losing completely.
  
  The real question is can you have a deficit of $1.5 TRILLION per year and the real answer is no. At some point you'll be cut off.

• fan_from_texas

  tk421;848231 wrote:Also, I saw this on another board. Is his analysis right? I don't know anything about how debt financing and credit ratings work, but it pretty much sums up what is in the future for this country. We may be able to run the huge deficits for a few more years, but eventually our rating will be bad enough that the credit card will be cut off. Maybe then we will have some fiscal responsibility, too bad it will probably involve massive damaging problems to huge portions of the population.

  
  His analysis is generally in the right direction, but he takes it too far. It is most assuredly not the case that every 90 to 180 days the US' credit rating will drop. It is very likely that we'll see a downgrade, regardless of this deal.
  
  As far as whether you can carry a $1.5 trillion deficit each year . . . tough to say. It's theoretically possible, certainly in the short term, but it is probably not sustainable unless the US economy starts growing quickly. Running a primary deficit isn't really a big deal, as long as it's small in relation to GDP/revenues. Debt, if used wisely, can be a very good thing (borrowing to buy a house, or borrowing to attend college--most companies rely significantly on debt because it makes sense and is cost-effective). The question is whether we're using debt wisely, and whether we're taking on too much. I'm inclined to think we're not using it wisely, and we're taking on too much. But that's not the same thing as asking whether taking on debt, in general, is a bad idea.
• jhay78

  

  fan_from_texas;848261 wrote:His analysis is generally in the right direction, but he takes it too far. It is most assuredly not the case that every 90 to 180 days the US' credit rating will drop. It is very likely that we'll see a downgrade, regardless of this deal.
  
  As far as whether you can carry a $1.5 trillion deficit each year . . . tough to say. It's theoretically possible, certainly in the short term, but it is probably not sustainable unless the US economy starts growing quickly. Running a primary deficit isn't really a big deal, as long as it's small in relation to GDP/revenues. Debt, if used wisely, can be a very good thing (borrowing to buy a house, or borrowing to attend college--most companies rely significantly on debt because it makes sense and is cost-effective). The question is whether we're using debt wisely, and whether we're taking on too much. I'm inclined to think we're not using it wisely, and we're taking on too much. But that's not the same thing as asking whether taking on debt, in general, is a bad idea.

  You mean you're still only "inclined", and not yet "convinced"?
  
  I don't think anyone's saying any and all debt is bad.
• fan_from_texas

  jhay78;848517 wrote:I don't think anyone's saying any and all debt is bad.

  Isn't the whole point of the balanced budget amendment to prevent us from taking on additional debt?
• majorspark

  

  fan_from_texas;848565 wrote:Isn't the whole point of the balanced budget amendment to prevent us from taking on additional debt?

  The point of a balanced budget amendment is limit congress's ability to incur large amounts of debt. Mainly debt of the unsustainable kind. There are ways an amendment could be structured and allow debt to be added.