Bailout Spending In Perspective

Submitted by: Pooptart19 7 years ago

Think WWII cost a lot? Just take a look at how much the US government is sinking us further into unimaginable debt.
There are 93 comments:
Male 606
"i`m moving to mars, and i`m building a glass castle"

Can I come live with you? I promise I`ll take really good care of the flowers. ;-;

0
Reply
Male 5,314
i`m moving to mars, and i`m building a glass castle
0
Reply
Male 586
@ rebetikas.
lol WWIII will make us produce again, but will there be an America left standing?
0
Reply
Male 586
iIt doesn`t matter what we do at this point because America consumes way more than we produce. Not only are we buying foreign products, we`re using borrowed money to pay for everything. and it doesn`t help that we`ve outsourced alot of our jobs either. simply put unless we start producing everything again and get a surplus, we`re screwed.
0
Reply
Female 2,064
Pfft, that little guy should`ve probably looked down before jumping in.
0
Reply
Male 212
obamas the greatest
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@ NowPleaseRea, Baalthazaq is correct. However, to elaborate, you can print more DOLLARS, but that does not create more MONEY. As I said below, if you had all the money, you could buy all the stuff regardless of how many dollars comprise all the money. If the government doubled the supply of dollars, prices would simply double as well since each dollar would now be worth half what it was. Again, all the money = all the stuff. Note: This will not CAUSE inflation; this IS inflation. Rising prices are the RESULT of inflation.

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!

0
Reply
Male 2,050
@ BrimstoneOne

Thanks for the link.

0
Reply
Male 4,547
Nowpleaserea:
If you`re really interested I`d advise looking up what is happening in Zimbabwe.

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.

0
Reply
Male 176
What I don`t understand is if the us federal gov. can just print money with no gold standard to back it up - meaning there is nothing being held in a vault somewhere to represent that buck. Then that means money printed only has socially agreed upon faith of the users to give it value. If paper money can be manufactured from nothing then why aren`t the feds just shipping truckloads of this unbacked magic money out as the stimulus package to all the various states?

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.

0
Reply
Male 448
America sucks :(
0
Reply
Male 4,290
pat125: you`re a fool. The US national debt has been in the trillions and rising for decades. Note the graphs on the right, which are sourced from the Treasury.

Also note the dip at the end of the 90`s, when the last Democrat was in power.

0
Reply
Male 845
wait. im confused. he said it started in sep, `08. then he mentioned the 4 trillion dollar debt from before that.

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.

0
Reply
Male 897
flame, LOLOLOOLLLL, nice call.

Well I am in Australia, so we are in a little less of a shiit pit

0
Reply
Male 1,220
Yeah, but I mean, eventually you reach terminal velocity and it`s just smooth slailin` from then on >_>
0
Reply
Male 756
There`s a reason Obama`s campaign motto was "change", because that`s all we`ll have left when he`s done.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Well I want to spend more so HA
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Without the bailout the economy would have crashed.
With the bailout, the economy may still crash.

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.

0
Reply
Male 213
Not sure if it matters how much more the U.S. borrows/spends, you were already in too much debt. The question now is whether it will be paid back or WWIII.
0
Reply
Male 328
You know complain all you want, complaining here won`t do anybody anything go out and do something about it. I`m not saying march on washington but stand up for what you believe in. If we can get them to listen then maybe we can save ourselves. And no I have not been listening to fox news, I`m just at the same position as the rest of you.
0
Reply
Male 10
YES WE CAN mortgage our children`s future! I HOPE this isn`t the CHANGE we are going to keep seeing.
0
Reply
Male 695
Yes we can! Yes we can!.....spend obama spend!.....dummies.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
Concetra
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
637 Posts Saturday, April 18, 2009 4:57:54 PM
i spoke with father about a similar issue. he said that if china demanded their money back the world economy will be crippled.

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!

0
Reply
Male 2,050
i spoke with father about a similar issue. he said that if china demanded their money back the world economy will be crippled.
0
Reply
Male 100
Neo-socialism is all about tax cuts for poor, tax increase for the reach, aside from the concept of a MAXIMUM wage in contrast with a minimum wage. Currently, the neo-socialism movement and supporters generally support a 1,000% or 100x differential.
This means that if the minimum amount of money any working person could make were the current overall mean US family income of approximately $30,000 annually, the richest could make $3,000,000 annually. The remainder could very wisely go into growing businesses, investing in infrastructure used by those businesses, and more.
The very same corporate CEOs who feel they are due $100s of Millions in compensation for their job believe it`s their job to fight and lobby (again, defined as paying people to pay legislators for influence) against raising the minimum wage to $10.00/hr.
These same business men believe it`s their job and right to minimize the taxes paid to the gov`t by their firm yet complain when there are potholes.
0
Reply
Male 2,076
Even though BrimstoneOne is Canadian...He is 100% right. :-(
0
Reply
Male 2,229
The United States is so screwed that it won`t matter what`s cut or who`s tax death. The US debt so large and with payment plan to bring any the deficits down that in 5-10 years, maybe sooner, there won`t be a US. Here`s a another point of view on the US debt. Note it`s 30 mins long


I.O.U.S.A.: Byte-sized-30 min. Version

0
Reply
Male 2,076
"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!"

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.

0
Reply
Male 15,832
The government has only three sources of money: taxing, borrowing, and printing.

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.

0
Reply
Male 100
LAST POST PROMISE -
CrakrJak, there were no MILLIONS at tea parties on tax day you r-tard. Seriously, some right-wing nutjob "Pajama`s TV" estimates 600k, while left-wing news sources say 200k.
Even FOX NEWS says "THOUSANDS attend tea parties"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/...

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!

0
Reply
Male 2,076
Oh, and I think what people don`t know is that before these crises, the American government had a total aggregate debt of $53 trillion.

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 :-)

0
Reply
Male 2,076
@Opie. Yes the economy would have crashed without the bailout. The bad news though, is that it`s crashing anyways, despite our bailouts. In other words, our bailout is actually making things worse because there`s the danger of either triggering deflation or inflation.

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!

0
Reply
Female 876
Why didn`t we just let some of these companies collapse? That`s probably a dumb question, but whatever.

Also, that video reminded me of Loose Change.

0
Reply
Male 100
drating 1000 characters! WTF!!
... meanwhile there`s an outcry against federal "WELFARE" spending. Yeah, it accounts for approximately $120 MILLION of the $2 BILLION spent in 2007 on financial assistance programs.
And langdon - NE side. Shoot me a message if ya want on windows live messenger or email [email protected]
0
Reply
Male 100
http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ci&q=NYSE:GM">NYSE: GM 2008
GM is a massive corporation with net income of ~149 BILLION Dollars pays ~31 Billion in taxes (approximately 20% tax rate) and then gets 45 Billion in the form of a "bailout" (for a net -10% tax rate). This is a net revenue of approximately $165 BILLION (for just GM).
Meanwhile, for 2008, the average American FAMILY OF 4 has a mean average income ~$30,000, (about $4000 more than the the federal poverty level) and an average tax rate near ~45% when sales, income, transaction taxes are amortized, and a refund of approximately ~10% of their income, for a net tax rate of ~35%.
Work the math that leaves a standard, approximate net revenue of $27,500 for a family of four.
Meanwhile, most peop
0
Reply
Male 506
RotBottom, you`re from Tucson? We must just be damn smart down here.
0
Reply
Male 100
To expand on what Langdon said -
Due to the entire financial and political system of America & all American-influenced markets in the past 100 years, the person (or fictional person, i.e. a corporation) with the most money gets the most money in government spending. It sounds crazy but it`s truth.
There`s rarely any sort of exposure to the fact that government is constantly giving hand outs to massive corporations, specifically in the form of "tax relief" or "tax reduction". The reason large corporations are able to get these reliefs is because they have lobbyists. Lobbyists are paid money to pay money to legislators to improve all aspects of business for the massive corporation - tax benefits, reduced oversight and regulation, increased usage of public lands for private enterprise, and many more "benefits", most of them undocumented by statements and year-end financial reporting or even by the media - even FINANCIAL media who has a very real
0
Reply
Male 506
Cleminem, you (and the rest of I-A-B) should Czech out the FairTax.

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.

0
Reply
Male 1,666
This is impressive, but I`m sure that until the American consumer stops being so damn worried and starts spending, at least wisely, America will not recieve the huge profit that it is used to from within the country, not from exports and so on. Maybe this as has already happened, but as langdonhill has said, there is an 18 month lag. I recently spoke to my mother, who is a loan officer, tax specialist, and realtor, and she has said that the big realtors have finally started buying properties very quietly. This means that in about a year, we should start heading up, hopefully at least in the housing area.
0
Reply
Male 383
what i think the problem is is that the people aren`t getting the money.... we shouldn`t follow the trickle down policy, because it wont and never will work.... if you want to stimulate the economy, give more to the people, where they will pay off their debts and save money, which is what you want. when people pay off bills, companies get their money, and they pay their employees, and the employees spend the money. it keeps the proverbial wheel which is the economy turning. anyone agree or disagree?
0
Reply
Male 506
(continuing) like GM which the market has determined to be a failure. If the market is telling you that it doesn`t want an industry anymore by allowing it to fail, then let it fail! Keynesian economics proposes spending intelligently, not merely shoveling money into a hole that`s constantly growing bigger. Actually invest in new industry, invest economically wisely , not merely following the demands of your constituents and special interest groups, and then you should be on your way. Unfortunately, the problem with Keynesian economics is that in order for it to work, you have to save during the good times so that you have an economic buffer for the bad. In our political system, that will never happen. As long as politicians are still spending politically and not economically, we`re pretty much doomed. Hope that answered your question(s), Opie! :)
0
Reply
Male 506
Opie, what a lot of people don`t realize is that the economy is crashing, and will continue to crash. In all honesty, it`s too early to know if the bailout has done anything at all. This is because our economy has an operational lag of at least 18 months, which means that any spending takes about 18 months to work its way through the economy and make its effect known. There are several alternatives to the bailout. One is a hardline free-market, Milton Friedman solution. Do nothing, and monetarist economic theory says that eventually, prices will drop so low due to lack of demand that they will find whatever point on the demand curve at which people will start buying again. I`m generally a fan of free-market solutions, because it takes politics out of the mix, and politicians are just bad at economics. Another solution would be to follow true Keynesian economic policy. Spend our way out of the recession, but spend wisely. Right now we`re throwing money at corporations like GM (continued
0
Reply
Female 15,763
So... then without the bailout the economy would`ve crashed, right? I mean, doing nothing isn`t exactly a good strategy in this situation... so with that in mind, what would`ve been a better alternative to the bailout?

Honest question, I suck at economy. :\

0
Reply
Male 425
Our goverment think they have the answer! They have gutted nearly all public services in my town... The hospital is only here still because they just can`t get some of those bed ridden people out. America may have the largest dept in these tough times, but atleast your country still seems to be moving.
0
Reply
Male 311
"Finally, this video does anything *but* put things into perspective. Think about it this way:
Last year, Walmart`s revenues alone account for almost 400 Billion. That`s Walmart, not America.

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. "

qft

0
Reply
Male 195
I`m sorry, those TEA parties are freaking idiotic, and the right looks bloody stupid for supporting it.

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.

0
Reply
Male 2,313
I`d like to point out that, although we disagree here, Baalthazaq only gives solid facts and without him the debatable links would lose quite a bit of appeal.
0
Reply
Male 600
God, Baalthazaq, do you EVER shut the hell up?
0
Reply
Male 626
Wow. You really think Obama is going to "save the f*cking world"?

EL OH FREAKIN` EL

0
Reply
Male 2,313
Baalthazaq, if Obama could save the f*cking world, I would offer to triple my tax payments to fund it. The problem is he is spending this massive, if not unusually massive, amount of money on things that are not going to help. Sure, lots of the things budgeted into the bailout would be nice, but they`re not the kinds of things we need to take care of right now, as we watch the economy crash.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Finally, this video does anything *but* put things into perspective. Think about it this way:
Last year, Walmart`s revenues alone account for almost 400 Billion. That`s Walmart, not America.

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.

0
Reply
Male 2,313
How much of the bailout is going toward welfare? I worked in a grocery store until recently and often people would use their food stamps to buy pizza, soda, candy and chips then cash their unemployment checks to buy alcohol and cigarettes. Good use of my taxes.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Seriously, the problem here was always Bush, these banks made their bad decisions during the Bush years, the country`s economy was failing during the Bush years, the stock market started it`s dip in the Bush years, we had the massive deficit in the Bush years.

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.

0
Reply
Male 438
oh god!!! WERE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHH!!!
0
Reply
Male 17,512
This is why millions of people attended the Tax Day Tea Parties and why there will be more Tax Protests in the future.

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.

0
Reply
Male 211
According to the presentation, inflation was figured in. The issue I have with this presentation is the national debt is night like a credit-card debt. In a world economy, this probably just brings us closer to our peers in other nations.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Last week, the New York Times reported that Obama will reject "four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller."

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.

0
Reply
Male 70
I wish that I could even begin to comprehend what all those numbers mean. Sure, they`re big, but you lost track of what they are when they that mahoosive.
0
Reply
Male 180
Not to mention that bailouts are not technically spents, by investments -which will mostly end up being profitable once the crisis is over.

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.

0
Reply
Male 180
Does all thoses figures take in account the impact of the inflation?

Just to point that it just makes a hell of a difference... $1 in 1950 is worth $8.91 in 2009.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/i...

0
Reply
Male 81
Imminent collapse!
0
Reply
Male 552
man, I wish I cared...
0
Reply
Male 322
actually "bluethen",
everything was adjusted for inflation, so they`re all on the same scale.
0
Reply
Male 614
The problem with this however, is that they`re comparing recent values with those of 50+ years ago, which are entirely different than today. You remember seeing those cowboy movies, where a gallon of milk would cost like 5 cents? Same thing here. But in larger numbers.
0
Reply
Male 740
big talk from a canadian
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Yes, the old stand-by, deregulated markets and loose control let the big-bad corporate officials run the companies and country into the dirt.

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.

0
Reply
Male 561
We live in a capitalist society that has a lot of socialist traits (including education, reproductive healthcare, unemployment, etc). The problem with cutting out things is that we will have to pay even more money in the end.

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.

0
Reply
Male 7,933
but on a bright note guys, the dow has gone up for the past 6 weeks Dow
0
Reply
Male 7,933
we live in a capitalist society. Let the market take care of the drating market. Gov`t stay out of it
0
Reply
Male 2,229
Or you can blow every thing up, which is more likely with USA`s fundamentalist-end of world crazies that your country harbors.
0
Reply
Male 955
an up/down economy is what drives capitalism, allowing companies to be greedy to max out their profits allows them to fall even further and get where they are now.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
here`s a solution, cut 70-90% of military spending, cut 60-70% on all health expenditures, cut all of social spend, cut 70-80% of security and intelligence services, cancel/stop ALL imports, taxes on everyone regardless of income goes to 40-50%, cancel all bailouts or if nationalize any corporate company that receives government money. Expect a detrimental hit on the standard of living and employment. And just maybe, MAYBE your country might survive to see the next decade after the next one.
0
Reply
Female 134
see, government control can lead to socialism, and we are starting to get more government control because of the crisis, and government is trying to control the crisis, and eventually may end up controlling the economy. just a thought.
0
Reply
Male 94
"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."

You do realise the lack of control has been cited as a major cause for this whole situation.

0
Reply
Male 296
The government owns practicaly no part of the economy,(market economy) they are just looking out for it in the best intrest of the people. And how does this video make the situation worse, it just gives a shot of reality back into people
0
Reply
Male 167
and this is why i support Texas independence.
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Since Bush and Obama have introduced spending, the matter is too complicated for me. If we stop spending we`ll have financial baggage along with a possible depression. If we keep spending to avoid a depression we`ll only continue to rack up debt. Not for ourselves, but for future generations. But Obama simply does not care, because no one will be paying for it under his watch. He`ll be out of office and without a whim, it`s somebody else`s problem to worry about now.

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.

0
Reply
Male 311
people need to stop thinking that the government controls the economy
0
Reply
Male 311
and its propaganda films like this that make the situation even worse
0
Reply
Male 788
Us? more like U.S Canada soon follows
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Dex, here`s my opinion what should be done.

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.

0
Reply
Male 10,440
Yea! Go Canada. Up here we`ve got a thing called surplus, at least we did.
0
Reply
Male 2,592
all this and i can`t even scrape up enough to get my pimpmobile fixed
0
Reply
Male 160
obama/bush and most politicians don`t understand economics and are creating a classical example of stagflation through heavy printing which weakens the dollar when there is high unemployment. Politicians don`t care about the fiscal impact of their decisions just the public view of them.
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Great video, puts my sentiments into a simple perspective.

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.

0
Reply
Male 419
everyone thinks obama is "the change we need", but is he really? i mean come on! he is spending more and more monoey and we are getting dug farther and farther into a hole of dept
0
Reply
Male 362
bad news IN THIS ECONOMY
0
Reply
Male 1,244
"Well, I`m saving my money from now on."
Your money won`t be worth anything, so what`s the point?
0
Reply
Male 1,244
Retards! That is why I want to move to Canada before it`s too late...
0
Reply
Male 483
Wow.
So what IS the right thing to do..?
0
Reply
Male 9,306
How`s Canada these days?
0
Reply
Male 436
Well, I`m saving my money from now on.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
Link: Bailout Spending In Perspective [Rate Link] - Think WWII cost a lot? Just take a look at how much the US government is sinking us further into unimaginable debt.
0
Reply