Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Unspeaked, Jun 10, 2009.
The part I bolded sounds especially harsh...
"...the administration is serious about getting control of the deficits once the current downturn and financial crisis have passed."
And his audience reacted by giving him a Ten! on the laugh-o-meter.
Note the lack of trust/faith in the US Govt: 30-year bonds are now up to 5.875%. Two weeks ago? 4.625%. Nobody wants our long-term paper. The three-year paper is about all that's viable.
Obamanomics is becoming a reprise of Carter. There are all manner of guesses as to when the consumer price inflation will accelerate. It's coming; the discussions are about the when, not the whether.
I blame Sasha for getting knocked up at a baseball game.
Whoops, wrong thread.
You keep saying this in lot and lots of thread, then we give you his plan that he has clearly laid out to cut spending over the long term.
Its becoming clear to me you aren't interested in giving him an honest chance(in a period long enough to do something)
If at the end of four year(and we'll the parts of his plan falling together sooner then that), spending isn't under control more so then it is today, then you may have a point. But until then, there just haven't been time to really see what Obama's gonna do under normal circumstances.
I thought deficits didn't matter.
I guess the don't when they're only 412 Billion, when that article was written in 2005.
Well, there's is the argument that Obama's plan could have long-term consequences. Of course, there's also the argument that had he done nothing or simply not enough the economy would have tubed and we'd really be in trouble. Depending on the economic theory and big-thinker we have different opinions, but at this point it's time to deal with the consequences as best we can, as reasonably as we can.
'Rat may ultimately be correct, especially if Niall Ferguson in his sparring with Paul Krugman turns out to be right. It's clear that 30-years of bad decisions and poor policy have helped lead us to this point and expecting to escape the consequences of such actions in an instant, or even over a single presidency, seems silly. Even if Obama gets 8-years to work, he may only see a glimmer of whether or not his policies actually worked.
Actually our real deficit in derivatives is over 500 trillion dollars. But yes the feds have monetized the trillion dollars already.
ABSOLUTELY. Although, 30 years is a bit short. It all started with the progressive movement and FDR.
Hmm... I don't recall any qualifiers being added that that assertion. Do you?
Indeed, we never had any fiscal problems prior to progressives and FDR, hmmm?
No, but I think a $1.8 Trillion deficit and its relationship to a shirinking GDP in itself is its own qualifier.
Key words: You think. Because that's not what was said, was it?
You mean in the 4 year old article from the Weekly Standard you posted? I must have missed when that neo-con magazine now speaks for all people who oppose what to them appears to be an unhealthy deficit.
Really if I was Obama knowing what he knows I can't say I'd have done different. In my micro-economic world, I have a comfortable ratio between my cash flow and my debts. I could take out a million dollar loan to expand everything, but that type of commitment with interest has a risk of imploding everything I've worked for, so I don't do it.
Any sane person should view a mounting deficit like the current one with some concern. Its not at all out of the ordinary to be concerned or at least somewhat alarmed at a staggering amount of money.
No. I mean the quote regarding whether deficits matter or not.