cawacko
Well-known member
What are those historically failed ideas again?
The Deficit Did Not Cause The Recession, The Recession Caused The Deficit
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
What are those historically failed ideas again?
cawacko
Well-known member
What power is he currently being denied by the right that other Presidents have had?
Uh, no. A return to Clinton era spending and rates would produce a $1T surplus in year 1 alone and would lead to a severe recession or depression.
Bfgrn
New member
Thanks for reminding us. Obama took the responsible action of putting the cost of the wars in the budget. Bush tried to irresponsibly hide the costs by using emergency funding.
dixon76710
New member
??? We already have. Republican Reps and senators still get to vote in our democracy. We are not a dictatorship.
dixon76710
New member
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Obama hasnt signed a budget since hes been in office. What the hell are you talking about. And no one hid the cost of the war. They simply funded it through separate congressional authorizations. You know, like how under Obama the ENTIRE federal government is funded.
dixon76710
New member
And by June of 2009 the recession was over. And creating Fannie and freddie wasnt our idea. Failing to regulate fannie and freddie was by design of the democrats.
Bfgrn
New member
Study Criticizes Bush Approach to War Funding, Calls for Changes
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 26, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama's administration needs to monitor war spending much more closely than the current White House has, according to a new study that criticizes President Bush's approach to funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- a bill that is projected to approach nearly $1 trillion next year.
Even with declining troop numbers in Iraq, the direct price tag of the two wars could grow as high as $1.7 trillion by 2018, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments reported last week. The defense think tank's figure does not include potentially hundreds of billions more in indirect economic and social costs, such as higher oil prices and lost wages.
The war in Iraq alone has already cost more in inflation-adjusted dollars than every other U.S. war except World War II, the CSBA found.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, named by Obama to continue in that job, has made it clear that the incoming administration will scrutinize defense spending, which has mushroomed since 2001 as a result of the wars and related costs.
"There clearly is going to be very close scrutiny of the budget," Gates said this month, adding: "We need to take a very hard look at the way we go about acquisition and procurement."
The CSBA agreed and blamed the ballooning budgets on the Bush administration's unprecedented decision to fund the wars through giant emergency spending measures rather than through appropriations requests.
"The process has reduced the ability of Congress to exercise effective oversight. It has also tended to obscure the long-term costs and budgetary consequences of ongoing military operations," the report says. It also warns that such emergency bills have included "substantial amounts of funding for programs unrelated to the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Steven M. Kosiak, a defense budget expert and author of the study, said the Obama administration should "budget in a more straightforward way, to provide better justification for war-related costs" by having a budget for military operations and long-term force modernization, and limiting supplemental spending to "a real emergency."
Bfgrn
New member
Fanny and Freddie didn't cause the financial crisis. Private lenders did.
dixon76710
New member
Nothing there that contradicts a thing I said and you quoted. AND Ann Scotts criticism of Bush's funding of the wars can now be applied to Obamas funding of the entire federal government. Sooo not sure of your point.
dixon76710
New member
Not when those private lenders are making loans according to Fannie and Freddies standards for them to buy those loans.
Bfgrn
New member
Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.
Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity. ref
apple0154
MEOW
If you recall from 2008 to 2010 the debate was going on regarding ObamaCare. Recall people asking after 2010 why Obama didn't just push ObamaCare through when he had the majority? He tried to get everyone on board and while it ultimately ended up being a waste of time he learned a valuable lesson. One might say he wasn't a smart enough politician or a ruthless enough politician but no one can accuse him of not trying to be fair.
Did he blow the chance to do certain things? Sure. Was the damage done by the Repubs extensive? Absolutely. And the majority of the people understood that. The people know the Repubs are deliberately trying to thwart anything Obama tries to do. The Repub's primary mission was/is to get rid of him. They came straight out and said that. Not concentrating on fixing the country. Not seeking solutions. Their principal goal is to get rid of Obama and that includes obstructing and destructing every effort he makes.
Maybe the majority of Americans just like fairness. They see a guy trying his best and the Repub party hell bent on opposing him even if they drag down every Ameircan with them. Well, except the 1%.
People are beginning to realize this idea of disparaging social programs is nonsense. People pay taxes to cover social programs and Obama and the Dems are adamant about protecting them. The financial cliff is going to chop more off Repub programs than it will off Dem programs and if that's what it takes to preserve basic social programs, so be it.
I see the Repubs are already considering tax increases. They'll be lapping at the Dem's boots before this is over. Obama's second term has just started and the fun has just begun.
These are the times, you idiot! Did you see the movie where the lawyer asks the guy if he saved for a rainy day and when the guy answers, "Yes", the lawyer replies, "It's raining"; did you see that movie or do you need a cite?
Cut the sh!t and admit the country went to hell under a Republican Presidency. There was a Republican President's ass on the chair in the Oval Office when Iraq was invaded. There was a Republican President's ass on the chair in the Oval Office when the world almost fell off a financial cliff. Do you understand or do you need a fvckin' memo? Now the incompetent nincompoops, the Republicans, are opposing Obama regarding raising the debt ceiling.
Do you understand the situation the country is in, from the wars to the financial crisis, all happened under a Republican Presidency? Are you having difficulty comprehending that? It's like the wife smashing the car and then giving the husband sh!t for paying the body shop to repair it! (No offence Bijou, Christie, etc.)
If the proposed amendment had provisions that would allow the government flexibility during those times then it doesn't make any difference now because those times are now. The Repubs took the country from booming, relatively peaceful times to war and a financial cliff. It was their "watch". Accept it and stop making excuses for their ineptitude.
I'm sick of hearing about Obama's inadequacy. The Repubs made the mess. Obama is trying to clean it up and the Repubs, not satisfied with having made the mess, are interferring with Obama trying to clean it up. The craziness has to stop. The election is over. The Repubs threw out every lie and distortion they could lay thier hands on and the people still voted for Obama. Do the Repubs need a good whack across the head to understand or maybe Obama needs to send in the army and arrest every G D Republican Congressman!
Talk to Cheney about balanced budgets. Talk to Rummy about war being an affordable option. Don't blame Obama and the Dems when they were handed a country that was run for the previous 8 years by people who couldn't run a hot dog stand.
Enough is enough!
On that note I'm going to bed.
I blame the democrats for tripling the stupidity of the republicans. It is inane to say, "the republicans did it badly" then to triple their mistakes and pretend that it is "better".
On that note, stay there.
Reality: You were ignorant of what was in the Balanced Budget Amendment, but thought to give your opinion on how another nation should be run regardless of your ignorance. There is a reason it was one vote away from 2/3 in both houses, and it wasn't because it didn't address what you ignorantly suggested wasn't addressed. Before you give opinions on the laws of other nations, educate yourself first.
There has been no budget since Obama took office. That he put the wars in his proposals notwithstanding. The Senate Majority Leadership has simply chosen not to put forward any vote on the budgets proposed and resolutions to pass his budgets presented by republicans have met with unanimous votes against those proposed budgets.
The bold is just wrong. Both "Obama's Budget" and Paul Ryan's budget were voted on in the Senate and both failed.
Both were resolutions put forward by the republicans, not by Reid. Only one of them was unanimously rejected, the one from Obama.
apple0154
MEOW
It's the cost of fixing the Republican's mistakes. Try to get that into to your head. Obama had to deal with the mess the Repubs left behind and that took money.
So are you saying the Balanced Budget Amendment would not affect social programs? A simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice.
cawacko
Well-known member
Your question can't be answered by a simple yes or no because it is up to Congress to determine how the budget is delegated.
Last edited:
Utter nonsense and blather. It's as silly as saying a mudbath is going to get you clean after mud wrestling.
Strawman, I am saying that the BBA presented, and very close to passed, had provisions for the "bad times" so that programs could continue and it is only your absolute and total arrogance based in flat ignorance that you would presume to tell anybody from another nation how it should be run. At the very least you should educate yourself on what you are talking about before spouting off when trying to tell people from another nation what they should be doing.