Can the Govt really fix the economy?

spc wrote:And remind me again what BO's experience is going through a budget?

Lessee, same as Eisenhower's, Truman's, Kennedy's, LBJ's, Nixon's, Ford's, Bush I's, and McCain's. And that's just since FDR.

None had been a Governor, if that's what you're getting at.

And, while we're at it, ex-Governors Reagan and Dubya busted the crap outta the budget; ex-Governor Clinton was the only one to fix it in the last 30 yrs or so.

Oh good lord Stocking. You don't believe that tripe do you? Slick Willie "balanced" the budget using Enron accounting. As an example, he used "expected revenue" from the sale of the analog wavelengths that we have yet to give up for the DTV switch. The auction happend about a year ago. I "expect" to make a million dollars before I retire but I don't think the bank will let me "balance" my checkbook on those "revenue" today. We've never seen a balanced budget and we never will. Not as long as they keep three sets of books.

stockingfull wrote:

spc wrote:And remind me again what BO's experience is going through a budget?

Lessee, same as Eisenhower's, Truman's, Kennedy's, LBJ's, Nixon's, Ford's, Bush I's, and McCain's. And that's just since FDR.

None had been a Governor, if that's what you're getting at.

And, while we're at it, ex-Governors Reagan and Dubya busted the crap outta the budget; ex-Governor Clinton was the only one to fix it in the last 30 yrs or so.

Do you want me to ask the question again? Ah, never mind.

Did you really think you'd get a direct answer. The answer is none of the examples ever put us in this kind of debt and it's still not over but they have always fall back on it's the other guy and pay no attention who's doing it now. Look what bush did in 8 years 1 trillion look what we did in 1/100 of the time 4x 1 trillion. Is this something to be proud of? It's called irresponsibility of all involved both parties. But alas the proud won't admit they got caught and don't know how to humble themselves and submit to the will of WE THE PEOPLE or not violate the CONSTITUTION as they have done today. Something to be proud of Anti-American pro socialism.


Bill S.

If you guys can pull your heads out of your posteriors long enough, you'd be able to use the light thereby made available to see that the money being spent now is to repair conditions which were brought about by the Wall St casino environment during the last several years.

And that the first GIANT step taken in the direction you condemn was, how much was it? $350 BILLION by Dubya himself, characteristically with virtually no strings attached.

Otherwise, you have to dream up a scenario where this Administration dug that big a hole in less than two months, which I don't think even your feverish brains can credibly do.

Stocking, I was against GWB spending that money and I don't want BHO spending this money. Government borrowing money from China and spending it on silliness is not the answer. I know in your communist utopia it is. But you are wrong.

I don't see thru your rose coloured glasses. This I know You can't fix anything with no money if we were in a 1 Trillion dollar debt which means we're beyond broke where did the additional 4+ trillion come from and don't resort to we borrowed it nobody makes a loan knowing it's not going to be paid back. So explain the math -1 + -4 = -5 I understand quite well smoke and mirrors. Mom only raised 1 fool and thats my brother and did I mention he a democrat.

Bill S.

BillMarti wrote: Mom only raised 1 fool and thats my brother and did I mention he a democrat.

Bill S.

Hey Bill, does your brother agree with you?

jpete wrote:Stocking, I was against GWB spending that money and I don't want BHO spending this money. Government borrowing money from China and spending it on silliness is not the answer. I know in your communist utopia it is. But you are wrong.

Jeff, I understand that libertarians fervently believe that gov't spending is presumptively bad.

And you understand that the electorate didn't, and doesn't, agree with you.

Stockingful,

You already know the answer,

Bill S.

BillMarti wrote:Stockingful,

You already know the answer,

Bill S.

I bet I do.

stockingfull wrote:

jpete wrote:Stocking, I was against GWB spending that money and I don't want BHO spending this money. Government borrowing money from China and spending it on silliness is not the answer. I know in your communist utopia it is. But you are wrong.

Jeff, I understand that libertarians fervently believe that gov't spending is presumptively bad.

And you understand that the electorate didn't, and doesn't, agree with you.

It's a stretch to think that they ever wanted wild spending, except in their "sector".

Here's a great place to view Obama's falling approval and the desires of the people.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ex_history

Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters, however, are at least somewhat concerned that the budget will increase spending too much, with 49% very concerned. Only 21% do not share that concern.

From what I have read and to the best of my knowledge. Until the Derivatives market is addressed.

Derivatives—Financial Voodoo for the Few In the 1970s the wizards of Wall Street and their advisors introduced a set of financial instruments called derivatives. They were theoretically designed to lower risks for buyers and sellers, including those in recent times involved in Mortgage-Backed Securities (bonds). The primary use of derivatives is called hedging.

In some respects, derivatives were (and are) insurance-like contracts designed to protect, say, bond investors, from default by the bond issuers. The name, derivative, is used because the value of specific instrument is based on (derived from) something else.

The last few years, the complexity and prevalence of derivatives has escalated so that today there are futures, swaps, options, and other exotic hedges available to the wise and un-wise. All together, derivatives have accelerated and deepened the current economic crisis.

A very thin layer of people know how derivatives work, or don't work. For example, the two people who won a Nobel Prize (1997) for figuring out a new way to price derivatives co-founded Long-Term Capital Management, one of the early, highly-leveraged, hedge funds. It went bankrupt (1998).

In 2000, a well-orchestrated financial services industry persuaded Congress to allow a huge, unregulated market in derivatives, which are traded privately. Their estimated market value on October 13, 2008 was $531 trillion. And losses from derivatives, in association with Mortgage-Backed Securities, are what helped bankrupt giant Lehman Bros in September. Losses on derivatives also led to the government bailout of another giant, the insurer, AIG, in recent weeks, a bailout that is not yet finished.

Why did Congress take a hands-off approach? Note this paragraph from a front-page story titled: How Congress set the stage for a meltdown.

The bill barring most regulation of derivative trading was inserted into an 11,000-page budget measure (in Congress) that became law as the nation was focused on the disputed 2000 presidential election (Bush vs. Gore). The inserted bill was sponsored by Republican Senators Phil Gramm of Texas and Richard Lugar of Indiana, with support from Democrats, the Clinton administration, and then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. Few opposed it. USA Today Oct. 13, 2008.

Here is an October 22, 2008 observation on derivatives that has caused a bit of a stir: "When unconstrained by good regulations, derivatives can be financial weapons of mass destruction." This quote is from an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal by Darrell Duffle, professor of finance at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business.

4. Congress Protects its Babies From 2003-2005, during the middle of the George W. Bush administration, there were sporadic attempts by isolated individuals to curb the risky investments being made and encouraged by the two, government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Congress, along with the Federal Reserve Bank and the administration, looked the other way. Both huge agencies had the implicit backing of Congress; both were able to borrow money at below-market rates; and both had public shares trading on the stock market, so they had plenty of investors cheering them on. The agencies boomed, even in the face of accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004. And the executives of the agencies were paid tens of millions of dollars.

Then the housing bubble popped. And the house of cards with a foundation of simple mortgages started collapsing.

stockingfull wrote:

jpete wrote:Stocking, I was against GWB spending that money and I don't want BHO spending this money. Government borrowing money from China and spending it on silliness is not the answer. I know in your communist utopia it is. But you are wrong.

Jeff, I understand that libertarians fervently believe that gov't spending is presumptively bad.

And you understand that the electorate didn't, and doesn't, agree with you.

Doesn't make 'em right! There is a reason that newspapers are written at an 8th grade level.

jpete wrote:Doesn't make 'em right! There is a reason that newspapers are written at an 8th grade level.

So now we don't like Democracy Jeff?

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill