Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Can I come live with you? I promise I`ll take really good care of the flowers. ;-;
The way the government accomplishes this is for the Federal Reserve to buy Treasury bonds with money created from thin air (they don`t actually have to print currency). The reason they are doing this is that they have maxed out the amount of money they can get through taxation and borrowing, and that`s not enough to pay for all this spending.
We are so screwed!
Thanks for the link.
If you`re unfamiliar with inflation rate numbers, I suggest this link which lists the inflation rates of the world.
Scroll to the bottom for Zimbabwe`s, it`ll blow your mind.
Why do they sell t-bills to create the funds and incur debt when they can just keep printing money as they already do anyway? Unless they also sell t bills to back the currency they print but I`ve not heard thats the case.
Also note the dip at the end of the 90`s, when the last Democrat was in power.
the way i see it is that we tried the GOP way, and it worked very well... for the bush family and their closest friends. now lets try spending for the benifit of everyone.
come on. give obama a chance. whats the worse that could happen? plus we learned from the bush era that once the president makes a decision, its final. no matter what. ever.
Well I am in Australia, so we are in a little less of a shiit pit
There are plenty of good arguments as to how the money could be spent and who deserves the money and what this entails for the government, and what level of control they should now have over these companies.
This video however makes none of those arguments. It`s using "that`s alot of money" as the only argument, and it isn`t one unless they`re suggesting there was a cheaper solution.
They bailed out companies deemed "too big to fail", and by that it means we decided the number of job losses and the hit the economy takes, or the domino effect the company failing would have exceed the amount paid to sustain it.
Some of these companies are not "bad", they`re "greedy", and up until the sub-prime crisis were performing the best.
It`s not representative of the company`s true value or health.
Not necessarily the world economy, but the US economy would bottom up. And that also applies to Canada, Mexico, oil exporting counties, and Japan. If any these previously mentioned countries ask/demand their `investments` returned, the US economy tanks. Depending who asks when, would determine how fast the US would fail. And it is failing now, make no mistake about that!
I.O.U.S.A.: Byte-sized-30 min. Version
1) There`s no consensus on how many people there were. Left wing-media news are naturally going to report less numbers, though there reporting is about as trustworthy in this area as FoxNews, who isn`t trustworthy either because their attempts to be involved in the organization of the tea parties were rebuffed several times in several places.
2) If you`re neo-socialist you shouldn`t be in favor of tax cuts. You want more taxes. If you`re neo-socialist you`d be in favor of balancing the budget so that you don`t end up like Weimar Republic. Plus the tea parties were protesting spending on tax cuts. Learn before you speak.
There is a limit to how much you can get by taxing. If you raise rates too high, the economy slows down, and revenues drop.
There is also a limit to how much you can borrow. There`s only so much money available, and if the government sucks up all the available credit, interest rates will skyrocket, and the economy will slow even more.
That leaves printing. There is no limit to the amount of dollars we can print, but we aren`t really creating money. It`s like this: if you had all the money, you could buy all the stuff. No matter how many more dollars we print, the total amount of money in the economy is still worth the same. If you double the number of dollars, you can essentially steal half of everyone`s money, but no matter how much you print, you can never steal more than there is.
We are so screwed.
There were no millions, and any idiot making less than half a million a year who protests tax cuts for them and more money coming from the ridiculously rich is an idiot and should probably be taken to a quiet field and put down, for the betterment of all society. At the least, the average intelligence of Humankind will increase.NEO-SOCIALISM FTW!
Inevitably this crisis and spending is going to crank that number even more. But that number alone spells the doom of the US government. If we were to try and pay all our debt, every single US citizen would owe roughly $100,000 and every family household would have to owe $400,000. Look it up on the US GAO website :-)
Oh, and the blame doesn`t belong to one President or another (To Baalthazaaq et all) it belongs to those who come up with economic theories for handling the crises. Or, the Federal Reserve. Everything they`ve been doing recently is based on a specific THEORY of Bernanke. The bailouts are supposed to work, but we have no historical support or examples to back it up. So we`re down the crapper if they end up being wrong. Fun times!
Also, that video reminded me of Loose Change.
Also, I think you`re a little confused as to what "trickle-down" means. It has worked in the past, but what the government is doing right now is about as far from supply-side trickle-down economics as you can get.
Honest question, I suck at economy. :\
The numbers are big, but you just don`t have a clue what it means. The government has collected over a Trillion dollars a year throughout Bush`s presidency, 1.6 Trillion in 2007. "
An aging population, the siphoning of manufacturing and tech jobs to third world nations, the crumbling infrastructure, the plunging economy, the total lack of government controls and a vicious partisanship that prevents any real change except through brute force of personality on Obama`s part.
Going "drat it, I`m not paying" solves none of these problems, let alone addresses the issue of how to do so while still doing something about the dbet.
EL OH FREAKIN` EL
The numbers are big, but you just don`t have a clue what it means. The government has collected over a Trillion dollars a year throughout Bush`s presidency, 1.6 Trillion in 2007.
Lets see what Obama gets to fix all of those problems. It isn`t going to be over 1.8 T. So if you`re going to b*tch, learn the math. Yeah, it`s not easy, but if you don`t know what you`re talking about shut the hell up or at least tell it like it is: Obama is asking for 12% more tax to save the f*cking world.
Boo. F*cking. Hoo.
The fix is going to cost, of course it is. This is the largest problem in US history as far as I can tell.
What a lot of you are doing now is equatable to whining that the firemen are getting your burning house all wet.
You are completely f*cked right here and now. You were completely f*cked before the bailout. This is your way out. A solution is not to watch it burn and see if it gets better on its own.
This isn`t left or right wing, rich or poor, This is about the future of our nation and our children`s and grandchildren`s future.
Obama`s changes include accounting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Bush relied on "emergency supplemental" war spending), assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation, accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements, and anticipating inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. The result of Obama`s openness is a budget that is $2.7 trillion "deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear." As The Wonk Room explained, "that debt was always there. It was just being hidden." "For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception -- a series of accounting tricks to hide the extent of our spending," Obama remarked yesterday.
Enjoy your facts.
If you really want to foresee what is the next crisis, look at the concessions being signed up for $Billions in most majors cities of America, and all the ridiculous speculation around it. There is your next big problem.
Just to point that it just makes a hell of a difference... $1 in 1950 is worth $8.91 in 2009.
But note, I said loose government control. I`d be fine with some monitoring of these companies, with fines and penalties, but no regulation, it harms growth.
In all there were many factors leading to this crisis. I enjoy noting the forcing financial institutions to hand out bad loans because of programs set up by liberal politicians. The media enjoys picking on the corporations, go figure.
The fact of the matter remains, if the Fed wouldn`t of been involved, we`d have bottomed out long ago, and be happily climbing today. And I know the Fed isn`t part of the government and their actions do not constitute government control. So, the Fed is the biggest entity to blame for our situation. But we`ll soon see if Obama`s spending makes government control top the list.
Example: In Washington the gov. Gregoire has purposed cutting millions from reproductive healthcare. The house has purposed a budget cut that is even worse: completely removing funding in the second year all together, so no low-income women can have access to affordable birth control.
Because Washington already pays for half of the pregnancies that occur in it ($4000-$8000 a pop), and we make it difficult for low-income women to have access to birth control, we will end up paying more money than saving money.
You do realise the lack of control has been cited as a major cause for this whole situation.
The government has pushed its citizens into a Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don`t situation. I guess its up to our wonderful elected officials to decide if we should be damned now, or if we should just damn our kids.
Looks like the old conservative mantra of little government control might actually be a good thing. Please take note of that fact politicians of 2010.
Bush started it all and dug as a pretty big hole by all of his bailouts and then Obama purchased a giant drill to dig our hole deeper. Our financial commitment to date has been so vast we cannot afford to let any sizable sector of the economy fail, which could bring about severe depression. Couple that with how much we`ve spent and we could be in that depression for quite some time.
What should have been done 5 years ago, is the Fed should have been dissolved, the housing market would have been hit, we would have been in a recession for 2 years and we`d be in recovery now. The recession was unavoidable, but now we`ve attached trillions of dollars worth of debt to it. Whereas if we had done nothing, it is very likely we would have a semi-strong economy right now.
And two great points, one is that irresponsible spending got us into this. Obama`s response is, "We didn`t spend enough, that`s why the economy is still bad." BS Mr. President, you are taking advantage of a situation.
And two, the final spending will completely dwarf the New Deal. The New Deal is responsible for broken, out-dated, and dangerous government programs today, i.e. Social Security. What will happen in 100 years after Obama`s programs become out-dated and broken. I don`t think the outlook is very good.
Its not all Obama`s fault either, Bush was just as guilty for throwing money at the problem. But Obama saw it didn`t work, and decided to ramp up spending. I guess you lied Mr. President when you said McCain was the next Bush.