Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, that's true. Bush never vetoed a spending Bill, and it caused a major problem. President Bush set a number of records in deficit spending: No Child Left Behind; 15 billion for AIDS relief in Africa (most ever spent to fight AIDS); federally funded embryonic stem cell research; and created (up until Obama's health care plan) the single biggest entitlement program in American history, the Medicare Prescription Bill. Bush pushed for and authorized Congress to spend like a drunken sailor.

How typical of you. You consider those things out of control spending but ignore Bush's two wars and his tax cuts which cost about 1 trillion each.

How typical of you. I acknowledge that Bush spent too much money, which is precisely the allegation you made, and somehow you manage to take issue with me nevertheless.

He spent like a drunken sailor, and should not have.

Now, however, just when we thought it couldn't get worse, we have a President that is making Bush look like he was running the country on a shoestring budget. We'll probably break $1.55 trillion for the deficit this year. By the 2012 election it will probably be $16 trillion dollars in total national debt.

Here it is today:



And, it is going up at record pace of about $6 billion a day.

YOU want to blame Obama for all of that!!!

Where did I blame Obama for "all" of that? I blame him for increasing spending beyond even the excesses of the prior administration.

How much was the debt when Obama took office?

Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913
As of May 19, 2010: $12,975,292,327,568
Increased by: $2,348,415,278,655

He is outspending FDR in real dollar.

How much was the debt when Bush took office?

I haven't defended Bush, so I don't know what the relevance is here. Are you saying that if Bush was an idiot, it's ok. for Obama to be a bigger idiot? It sure sounds like that's what you're saying.

On the day Bush took office the national debt was $5.7 trillion. So, for round numbers sake, let's say that Congress under the Bush Presidency added $5 trillion in 8 years.

In 15 months, the Congress under Obama's stern hand has added nearly half of what was added to the debt in the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration. At this pace by September or October of 2011, the current batch of clowns will have managed to add the same amount to the national debt - in about 2 1/2 years - that was added in the previous 8.

There is no end in sight to the spending. You piss and moan about wars? Obama has EXPANDED the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan, and upped the number of troops there in a surge, and is spending MORE money than Bush did there. Obama has also reneged on his promise to draw down troops from Iraq, which he said he would do in 16 months. Next month is 16 months, and there are still about 130,000 troops in Iraq. He also reneged on his promise to close Guantanamo, and they've even stopped talking about it.

There is no end in sight for domestic spending either, with additional spending measures introduced constantly. By the 2012 elections, at the current pace, we are looking at $16 to $17 billion of total national debt.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"He is outspending FDR in real dollar."

He has a hell of a mess to fix, just like FDR did after Hoover screwed the pooch in 1929.

[Coito ergo sum]

"He is outspending FDR in real dollar."

He has a hell of a mess to fix, just like FDR did after Hoover screwed the pooch in 1929.

Too bad Obama's not doing anything that could be construed as "fixing" the economy, except perhaps in the "cutting the balls off" sense of the word "fix."

[Rum]

Bottom line - we in the 'advanced west' are due to get quite a bit poorer as the developing world gets quite a lot richer. If they can keep up a head of steam of course.

All of which begs the question about the sustainability of the sort of industrial growth we are talking about.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"He is outspending FDR in real dollar."

He has a hell of a mess to fix, just like FDR did after Hoover screwed the pooch in 1929.

Too bad Obama's not doing anything that could be construed as "fixing" the economy, except perhaps in the "cutting the balls off" sense of the word "fix."

Oh really?

[Coito ergo sum]

"He is outspending FDR in real dollar."

He has a hell of a mess to fix, just like FDR did after Hoover screwed the pooch in 1929.

Too bad Obama's not doing anything that could be construed as "fixing" the economy, except perhaps in the "cutting the balls off" sense of the word "fix."

Oh really?

Really.

[Ian]

"He is outspending FDR in real dollar."

He has a hell of a mess to fix, just like FDR did after Hoover screwed the pooch in 1929.

Too bad Obama's not doing anything that could be construed as "fixing" the economy, except perhaps in the "cutting the balls off" sense of the word "fix."

Oh really?

Really.

The bill that just passed the Senate can't possibly be construed as fixing anything?

[Coito ergo sum]

"He is outspending FDR in real dollar."

He has a hell of a mess to fix, just like FDR did after Hoover screwed the pooch in 1929.

Too bad Obama's not doing anything that could be construed as "fixing" the economy, except perhaps in the "cutting the balls off" sense of the word "fix."

Oh really?

Really.

The bill that just passed the Senate can't possibly be construed as fixing anything?

If eliminating jobs, driving capital out of the United States, and increasing credit card costs is your idea of "fixing" things, then yes.

Note - the bill doesn't address the mortgage lender issues that were a big part of what caused the financial mess in the first place, and the Democrats blocked any reform of FannieMae and FreddieMac which were a big reason why subprime and high risk mortgage lending got out of control.

The bill increases banks’ costs by restricting the ability of banks to enter into contracts charging retailers for the convenience of using credit or debit cards to collect payment from customers. When Australia did this credit card holders suffered, as banks passed on the increased costs to them by hiking annual fees and getting rid of cash-back, rebate, and rewards programs. Ironically, recent interest rate hikes are partly the product of a law recently passed by Congress, the CARD Act, which forces responsible people to bear the costs of irresponsible borrowers.

The bill would also give government officials the ability to nationalize businesses that they "claim" are at risk of failing — and block meaningful judicial review of such seizures by shareholders.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"He is outspending FDR in real dollar."

He has a hell of a mess to fix, just like FDR did after Hoover screwed the pooch in 1929.

Too bad Obama's not doing anything that could be construed as "fixing" the economy, except perhaps in the "cutting the balls off" sense of the word "fix."

Oh really?

Really.

The bill that just passed the Senate can't possibly be construed as fixing anything?

Ian, the faithful won't be swayed by mere facts. You know this by now.

[PsychoSerenity]

Well, capitalism was never going to last, was it? I just hope the guys in charge realise that, rather than going for the military dictatorship.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ian, the faithful won't be swayed by mere facts. You know this by now.

That's a laugh, coming from those who just assume that anything emerging from the maws of Obama, Reid and Pelosi must be wisdom for the ages, without bothering to look at the details. Religion hath no faith, like that of an Obama devotee. He's just so dreamy....don't worry about what bill actually says, after all, we know they have the "best of intentions."

[Martok]

Where did I blame Obama for "all" of that? I blame him for increasing spending beyond even the excesses of the prior administration.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets see, using your own numbers. Obama has increased the debt by 2 trillion dollars. Bush increased it by 5 trillion dollars. Oh yeah, 2 trillion is WAY more than 5 trillion.

You piss and moan about wars?

Who started those wars??

Under Bush both wars have cost 1 trillion dollars.

Under Obama its been less than 200 billion.

Oh that's right 200 billion is way more than 1 trillion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ian, the faithful won't be swayed by mere facts. You know this by now.

That's a laugh, coming from those who just assume that anything emerging from the maws of Obama, Reid and Pelosi must be wisdom for the ages, without bothering to look at the details. Religion hath no faith, like that of an Obama devotee. He's just so dreamy....don't worry about what bill actually says, after all, we know they have the "best of intentions."

You really are half a lap behind and fading, youngling.

[PsychoSerenity]

That's a pile of bullshit if I ever heard one.

Nothing bad has happened? Talk about the record numbers of people in mortgage default. Talk about the record number of people who have lost their homes to foreclosure. Talk about the 9.9% unemployment rate in the US and the 10.6% in Ireland and the 17% in Spain....the 8.8% in France...and the 8.3% (and rising) unemployment rate in the European Union overall.

Talk about the record losses in people's U.S. 401k Plans and IRA's (or equivalent retirement savings accounts in other countries). People lost 30%, 40% and 50% - and more - of their savings due to the stock plunges. Talk about the people who have had to take record numbers of loans and early withdrawals from those plans, and suffer penalties.

Nothing real has happened? It's all just paper bets between big bankers? What a load of ignorant shit that was.

I'd disagree with you here. I mean, clearly, the system is fucked - but the people who have been kicked out of their homes - the houses are still standing, so there's no real reason why they shouldn't live in them.

Unemployment is only a problem because the system we currently have, requires people to be employed to be able to survive - but the majority of work is now automated, done with machines (or unfortunately, by exploited third world people). The whole point of technology is to make things easier - why don't we accept that and get everyone working two days a week?

Nothing bad has physically happened (apart from as consequences of this mess), it's just an unstable out-dated system is shaking itself to pieces, while the farm land and factories are more efficient than ever.

My only real worry, as I said before, is if the people in control try to enforce a failing system, by going totalitarian. Then there would be big physical consequences, and we might lose much of what has been achieved.

[Ian]

The bill that just passed the Senate can't possibly be construed as fixing anything?

If eliminating jobs, driving capital out of the United States, and increasing credit card costs is your idea of "fixing" things, then yes.

Note - the bill doesn't address the mortgage lender issues that were a big part of what caused the financial mess in the first place, and the Democrats blocked any reform of FannieMae and FreddieMac which were a big reason why subprime and high risk mortgage lending got out of control.

The bill increases banks’ costs by restricting the ability of banks to enter into contracts charging retailers for the convenience of using credit or debit cards to collect payment from customers. When Australia did this credit card holders suffered, as banks passed on the increased costs to them by hiking annual fees and getting rid of cash-back, rebate, and rewards programs. Ironically, recent interest rate hikes are partly the product of a law recently passed by Congress, the CARD Act, which forces responsible people to bear the costs of irresponsible borrowers.

The bill would also give government officials the ability to nationalize businesses that they "claim" are at risk of failing — and block meaningful judicial review of such seizures by shareholders.

Ah, so there isn't much good about the bill. Even though four Republicans broke ranks to sign it. And moreover, the Chamber of Commerce's criticism was that the bill didn't go far enough in regulating banks and trading. I expected them to say the exact opposite, that it was anti-business, etc. Nope, they're whining that it won't do enough. Go figure.

You say the bill doesn't address mortgage lender issues. Wouldn't that responsibility fall to the new consumer protection agency? Why should the bill be so specific and redundant about overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?