MOST RED INK EVER: $9 TRILLION Over Next Decade

[jreeves]

America Lost $10.2 Trillion Of Wealth In 2008

The Dems. controlled economic policies in this country in 2008. They controlled and pushed for the greatest increase in the national debt.

if i recall correctly, it was president bush, and paulson who PUSHED for the bailout for fanny and freddie, AIG, and the entire banking financial industry with TARP....president bush rushed the bailout, insisted that the whole country would FALL without it....he even came before all Americans saying we had no choice, that trillion dollar plus bailout HAD TO BE DONE, IT WAS A MUST according to him, for congress to pass it, an absolute must!!!

in fact, he scared the pajesus out of matt and me and we took some cash out of the banks, in case there was a run, due to bush's somber message and plea for congress to pass it!!!

So you admit TARP wouldn't have passed had it not been for Congress?

 

[Care4all]

To your second assertion... prove it.

The stock market erased $6.9 trillion in shareholder wealth in 2008.
Add together the loss of housing equity of $3.3 trillion and the stock market loss of $6.9 trillion, and you've got a historic loss of wealth of $10.2 trillion.

Americans lost $6.9 trillion in the stock market crash of 2008. Since the low point of 7000, the Dow has risen to over 9500. Stopping the recession has been well worth it for Americans

So Dems stopped the recession? Have you ever heard of economic cycles?

You would have to minus out, the sales generated from cash for clunkers and the sales generated from the first time home buyers credit, before you could note whether there would have been a turn around without the stimulus and this rebound is just cyclical....imo.

We could get that figure with some searching....to analyze them in depth.

And I am not saying the Dems did stop the recession, only time will tell, there could be a second bottoming out to come before a true rebound in my humble opinion....

but as far as the turn around that we have seen, with existing home sale rise and the auto sales blowout, the stimulus in these two areas does seem to be working and stimulating sales above the normal trend.

 

[jreeves]

The stock market erased $6.9 trillion in shareholder wealth in 2008.
Add together the loss of housing equity of $3.3 trillion and the stock market loss of $6.9 trillion, and you've got a historic loss of wealth of $10.2 trillion.

Americans lost $6.9 trillion in the stock market crash of 2008. Since the low point of 7000, the Dow has risen to over 9500. Stopping the recession has been well worth it for Americans

So Dems stopped the recession? Have you ever heard of economic cycles?

You would have to minus out, the sales generated from cash for clunkers and the sales generated from the first time home buyers credit, before you could note whether there would have been a turn around without the stimulus and this rebound is just cyclical....imo.

We could get that figure with some searching....to analyze them in depth.

And I am not saying the Dems did stop the recession, only time will tell, there could be a second bottoming out to come before a true rebound in my humble opinion....

but as far as the turn around that we have seen, with existing home sale rise and the auto sales blowout, the stimulus in these two areas does seem to be working and stimulating sales above the normal trend.

If we minus out Cash for clunkers we could add the wealth that was destroyed by vehicles being destroyed that had years of use left. Also we would have to take in effect the inflationary response to this program in the near future. Nothing wrong with the home buyers credit in my opinion though.

 

[007]

To your second assertion... prove it.

The stock market erased $6.9 trillion in shareholder wealth in 2008.
Add together the loss of housing equity of $3.3 trillion and the stock market loss of $6.9 trillion, and you've got a historic loss of wealth of $10.2 trillion.

Americans lost $6.9 trillion in the stock market crash of 2008. Since the low point of 7000, the Dow has risen to over 9500. Stopping the recession has been well worth it for Americans

Right, every time obama opened his mouth, the stock market went down. Since the initial crash it has stabilized. Something it would have done on it's own, probably even quicker than it has had the government not spent $787 BILLION DOLLARS it DIDN'T HAVE.

But you didn't even come close to proving that the spending obama has done to date has helped anything what so ever. Wanna try again?

 

[rightwinger]

To your second assertion... prove it.

The stock market erased $6.9 trillion in shareholder wealth in 2008.
Add together the loss of housing equity of $3.3 trillion and the stock market loss of $6.9 trillion, and you've got a historic loss of wealth of $10.2 trillion.

Americans lost $6.9 trillion in the stock market crash of 2008. Since the low point of 7000, the Dow has risen to over 9500. Stopping the recession has been well worth it for Americans

Right, every time obama opened his mouth, the stock market went down. Since the initial crash it has stabilized. Something it would have done on it's own, probably even quicker than it has had the government not spent $787 BILLION DOLLARS it DIDN'T HAVE.

But you didn't even come close to proving that the spending obama has done to date has helped anything what so ever. Wanna try again?

Every time Obama opened his mouth the market went down??? How do you account for the market recovering over 2500 points?

Yea....yea....I knew it was coming where the right would either credit Bush policy for the market recovery or claim "it would have happened on its own"

Herbert Hoover made the same claim

 

[jreeves]

The stock market erased $6.9 trillion in shareholder wealth in 2008.
Add together the loss of housing equity of $3.3 trillion and the stock market loss of $6.9 trillion, and you've got a historic loss of wealth of $10.2 trillion.

Americans lost $6.9 trillion in the stock market crash of 2008. Since the low point of 7000, the Dow has risen to over 9500. Stopping the recession has been well worth it for Americans

Right, every time obama opened his mouth, the stock market went down. Since the initial crash it has stabilized. Something it would have done on it's own, probably even quicker than it has had the government not spent $787 BILLION DOLLARS it DIDN'T HAVE.

But you didn't even come close to proving that the spending obama has done to date has helped anything what so ever. Wanna try again?

Every time Obama opened his mouth the market went down??? How do you account for the market recovering over 2500 points?

Yea....yea....I knew it was coming where the right would either credit Bush policy for the market recovery or claim "it would have happened on its own"

Herbert Hoover made the same claim

Since 2006, Dems have been in control. They were in control of the greatest growth of national debt in history and they set economic policy that was directly responsible for the meltdown of the housing market.

 

[rightwinger]

Don't succumb to deficit hysteria
Scared by the $1.6 trillion deficit? I wish it were even bigger

By Robert Reich

S S S RSS Print Email
Read more: Economy, Opinion, Robert Reich, Recession



Illustration by Zach Trenholm

Aug. 25, 2009 | Today, as expected, the White House announced that the deficit projections are worse than it had thought. And as expected, the same old group of deficit hysterics went ballistic. "A 10-year deficit of $9 trillion is $30,000 for each man, woman and child in the United States!" Kabaam. "Public debt will total a whopping $17.5 trillion by 2019 -- three-quarters of the nation's entire economy!" Kaboom. "The number would send Reagan's stack of thousand-dollar bills into satellite orbit!" Zowee.

Can we please relax?

First, ten-year projections are notoriously irrelevant. Remember Ross Perot? In 1992, he predicted that the federal budget deficit was on track to end to the world as we knew it. In fact, the rapid growth of the economy during the following years reduced the deficit to zero (neither Bill Clinton's famous deficit-cutting nor Republican insistence on a balanced budget was responsible; the deficit reached zero before any major fiscal changes kicked in).


Second, deficits and debts mean just about nothing anyway -- at least out of context. In 1945, the federal debt was 120 percent of the entire U.S. economy. Yeegads! Yet only a few years later, the debt as a proportion of GDP had been tamed -- and not primarily because of cuts in government spending. Yes, of course, wartime spending ended. But the big change was in the denominator of the equation. Economic growth kicked in big time and reduced the debt as a proportion of the economy to manageable levels.
The only item worth looking at is the part of the report that predicts the government will have nearly a $1.6 trillion deficit in the fiscal year that ends this Sept. 30 -- but not because that number is alarmingly large. It strikes me as alarmingly small. I'd prefer the government run a larger deficit. With unemployment and underemployment still rising, consumers still pulling away from the malls, business investment still in the basement, and exports still dead, the federal government has to spend more -- and the deficit has to be larger -- in order to get people back to work.

 

[007]

Every time Obama opened his mouth the market went down??? How do you account for the market recovering over 2500 points?

If you're going to purport the stock market was "recovering," then what do you think it was "recovering" from? That's right. I was "recovering" from the crash aided and abetted by obama. It was noted time and again that every time obama plastered his dog eared gourde on TV and spoke, the stock market INSTANTLY reacted, BY GOING DOWN!

Yea....yea....I knew it was coming where the right would either credit Bush policy for the market recovery or claim "it would have happened on its own"

What part about that is so hard to believe? It's a fact. It just isn't something you can attribute to your messiah, and yes, I know that's hard for you to comprehend.

 

[jreeves]

Don't succumb to deficit hysteria
Scared by the $1.6 trillion deficit? I wish it were even bigger

By Robert Reich

S S S RSS Print Email
Read more: Economy, Opinion, Robert Reich, Recession



Illustration by Zach Trenholm

Aug. 25, 2009 | Today, as expected, the White House announced that the deficit projections are worse than it had thought. And as expected, the same old group of deficit hysterics went ballistic. "A 10-year deficit of $9 trillion is $30,000 for each man, woman and child in the United States!" Kabaam. "Public debt will total a whopping $17.5 trillion by 2019 -- three-quarters of the nation's entire economy!" Kaboom. "The number would send Reagan's stack of thousand-dollar bills into satellite orbit!" Zowee.

Can we please relax?

First, ten-year projections are notoriously irrelevant. Remember Ross Perot? In 1992, he predicted that the federal budget deficit was on track to end to the world as we knew it. In fact, the rapid growth of the economy during the following years reduced the deficit to zero (neither Bill Clinton's famous deficit-cutting nor Republican insistence on a balanced budget was responsible; the deficit reached zero before any major fiscal changes kicked in).


Second, deficits and debts mean just about nothing anyway -- at least out of context. In 1945, the federal debt was 120 percent of the entire U.S. economy. Yeegads! Yet only a few years later, the debt as a proportion of GDP had been tamed -- and not primarily because of cuts in government spending. Yes, of course, wartime spending ended. But the big change was in the denominator of the equation. Economic growth kicked in big time and reduced the debt as a proportion of the economy to manageable levels.
The only item worth looking at is the part of the report that predicts the government will have nearly a $1.6 trillion deficit in the fiscal year that ends this Sept. 30 -- but not because that number is alarmingly large. It strikes me as alarmingly small. I'd prefer the government run a larger deficit. With unemployment and underemployment still rising, consumers still pulling away from the malls, business investment still in the basement, and exports still dead, the federal government has to spend more -- and the deficit has to be larger -- in order to get people back to work.

Of course we should wish for higher deficits.....
If you want the country to be impoverished...

Didn't this guy support Obama in the election?
Azerbaijan Business Center
Baku, Fineko/abc.az. Warren Buffett, legendary creator of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., expressed his anxiety over turning the USA into the “banana republic” and called upon the congress to restrict increase of deficit of the budget to gross domestic product (GDP) of the country.

W. Buffett called upon the US authorities to draw attention on side effects of monetary medicine, which on degree of influence do not cede the crisis.

“Uncontrolled emission of carbon dioxide leads to melting ice and uncontrolled emission of dollar undermines purchasing ability of currency. The fate of dollar is in hands of the congress,” W. Buffett said.

In his opinion, billionth money inflows held the largest economics in the world on the verge of disaster, but they could cause damage to it.

“We have been doing this for a reason I resoundingly applaud.

Last fall, our financial system stood on the brink of a collapse. The Bush and Obama administrations did the best, although the errors turned out to be inevitable in so difficult situation. The fountain of “federal money” played the considerable role in the saving.

“The United States economy is now appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself,” W. Buffett said.

“This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P (approx.$1.8 trillion) .. Our country’s “net debt” increases by1% per month, reaching 56% grade from G.D.P. inflation will result in impoverishment of the US citizens, the dollar will keep on losing purchasing ability,” W. Buffett said.

 

[Care4all]

Right, every time obama opened his mouth, the stock market went down. Since the initial crash it has stabilized. Something it would have done on it's own, probably even quicker than it has had the government not spent $787 BILLION DOLLARS it DIDN'T HAVE.

But you didn't even come close to proving that the spending obama has done to date has helped anything what so ever. Wanna try again?

Every time Obama opened his mouth the market went down??? How do you account for the market recovering over 2500 points?

Yea....yea....I knew it was coming where the right would either credit Bush policy for the market recovery or claim "it would have happened on its own"

Herbert Hoover made the same claim

Since 2006, Dems have been in control. They were in control of the greatest growth of national debt in history and they set economic policy that was directly responsible for the meltdown of the housing market.

sorry jr, but that's an outright lie...

 

[jreeves]

Every time Obama opened his mouth the market went down??? How do you account for the market recovering over 2500 points?

Yea....yea....I knew it was coming where the right would either credit Bush policy for the market recovery or claim "it would have happened on its own"

Herbert Hoover made the same claim

Since 2006, Dems have been in control. They were in control of the greatest growth of national debt in history and they set economic policy that was directly responsible for the meltdown of the housing market.

sorry jr, but that's an outright lie...

They weren't in control during the largest growth of national debt?

 

[elvis]

Every time Obama opened his mouth the market went down??? How do you account for the market recovering over 2500 points?

Yea....yea....I knew it was coming where the right would either credit Bush policy for the market recovery or claim "it would have happened on its own"

Herbert Hoover made the same claim

Since 2006, Dems have been in control. They were in control of the greatest growth of national debt in history and they set economic policy that was directly responsible for the meltdown of the housing market.

sorry jr, but that's an outright lie...

are you saying they were not in control because they couldn't break a filibuster?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

In addition, the failure of past administrations to follow PAYGO rules has had a direct effect on our fiscal situation. If we had abided by this approach during the previous Administration, the projected 10-year deficit would be $5 trillion smaller. In other words, more than half of the projected deficits over the next 10 years are directly attributable to the previous Administration’s failure to follow the pay-as-you-go principle.

Read more: Deficit projection grows by $2 trillion - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

But I guessing Bush's failure to pay for his projects is somehow Obama's fault.

ROFLMNAO... The BOY King has charged up more debt in 6 months than Bush managed in 8 YEARS! And this because THE LEFT VOTED IN DEMOCRATS SO THEY COULD IMPLEMENT: ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITY!

LOL...





LEFTISTS...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Don't succumb to deficit hysteria
Scared by the $1.6 trillion deficit? I wish it were even bigger

By Robert Reich

S S S RSS Print Email
Read more: Economy, Opinion, Robert Reich, Recession



Illustration by Zach Trenholm

Aug. 25, 2009 | Today, as expected, the White House announced that the deficit projections are worse than it had thought. And as expected, the same old group of deficit hysterics went ballistic. "A 10-year deficit of $9 trillion is $30,000 for each man, woman and child in the United States!" Kabaam. "Public debt will total a whopping $17.5 trillion by 2019 -- three-quarters of the nation's entire economy!" Kaboom. "The number would send Reagan's stack of thousand-dollar bills into satellite orbit!" Zowee.

Can we please relax?

First, ten-year projections are notoriously irrelevant. Remember Ross Perot? In 1992, he predicted that the federal budget deficit was on track to end to the world as we knew it. In fact, the rapid growth of the economy during the following years reduced the deficit to zero (neither Bill Clinton's famous deficit-cutting nor Republican insistence on a balanced budget was responsible; the deficit reached zero before any major fiscal changes kicked in).


Second, deficits and debts mean just about nothing anyway -- at least out of context. In 1945, the federal debt was 120 percent of the entire U.S. economy. Yeegads! Yet only a few years later, the debt as a proportion of GDP had been tamed -- and not primarily because of cuts in government spending. Yes, of course, wartime spending ended. But the big change was in the denominator of the equation. Economic growth kicked in big time and reduced the debt as a proportion of the economy to manageable levels.
The only item worth looking at is the part of the report that predicts the government will have nearly a $1.6 trillion deficit in the fiscal year that ends this Sept. 30 -- but not because that number is alarmingly large. It strikes me as alarmingly small. I'd prefer the government run a larger deficit. With unemployment and underemployment still rising, consumers still pulling away from the malls, business investment still in the basement, and exports still dead, the federal government has to spend more -- and the deficit has to be larger -- in order to get people back to work.

ROFLMNAO.... Oh GOD! Now that's precious... Did you just course a COMMUNIST as resource on a position of ECONOMICS?

LOL... Hysterical!

The basis to the dwarfs argument is ECONOMIC GROWTH! Where a Government has implemented policy which PUNISHES PRODUCTION... It's a fair bet that production is going to suffer... Thus the projected deficits will be MUCH WORSE THAN THE PROJECTIONS... AS those projections are based upon previous historic growth rates.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

My God these International Socialist lunatics are out of control and lawless. They must be mentally Ill because that is the only way you could explain this utter reckless stupidity.. There is no end to the Madman Obama's madness. ~BH

 

[rightwinger]

In addition, the failure of past administrations to follow PAYGO rules has had a direct effect on our fiscal situation. If we had abided by this approach during the previous Administration, the projected 10-year deficit would be $5 trillion smaller. In other words, more than half of the projected deficits over the next 10 years are directly attributable to the previous Administration’s failure to follow the pay-as-you-go principle.

Read more: Deficit projection grows by $2 trillion - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

But I guessing Bush's failure to pay for his projects is somehow Obama's fault.

ROFLMNAO... The BOY King has charged up more debt in 6 months than Bush managed in 8 YEARS! And this because THE LEFT VOTED IN DEMOCRATS SO THEY COULD IMPLEMENT: ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITY!

LOL...





LEFTISTS...

How does Obama's $800 billion added to the national debt equate to Bush's $5 Trillion in debt?

- Obama's $800 billion was used to reverse a recession that cost Americans $10.2 TRILLION in lost personal wealth

- Bush's $5 TRILLION in debt went to pay for tax cuts for the rich and two wars

I'll take Obama's spending any day

 

[Polk]

But I guessing Bush's failure to pay for his projects is somehow Obama's fault.

ROFLMNAO... The BOY King has charged up more debt in 6 months than Bush managed in 8 YEARS! And this because THE LEFT VOTED IN DEMOCRATS SO THEY COULD IMPLEMENT: ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITY!

LOL...





LEFTISTS...

How does Obama's $800 billion added to the national debt equate to Bush's $5 Trillion in debt?

- Obama's $800 billion was used to reverse a recession that cost Americans $10.2 TRILLION in lost personal wealth

- Bush's $5 TRILLION in debt went to pay for tax cuts for the rich and two wars

I'll take Obama's spending any day

Also, Obama is responsible for projected debt ten years from now, but Bush isn't responsible for his spending or his tax cuts, which are a huge part of that long-run debt picture. I've figured why they harp on personal responsibility so much. It's easy to be responsibility when any dumb action you make it someone else's fault.

 

[namvet]

US debt clock

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[rightwinger]

ROFLMNAO... The BOY King has charged up more debt in 6 months than Bush managed in 8 YEARS! And this because THE LEFT VOTED IN DEMOCRATS SO THEY COULD IMPLEMENT: ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITY!

LOL...





LEFTISTS...

How does Obama's $800 billion added to the national debt equate to Bush's $5 Trillion in debt?

- Obama's $800 billion was used to reverse a recession that cost Americans $10.2 TRILLION in lost personal wealth

- Bush's $5 TRILLION in debt went to pay for tax cuts for the rich and two wars

I'll take Obama's spending any day

Also, Obama is responsible for projected debt ten years from now, but Bush isn't responsible for his spending or his tax cuts, which are a huge part of that long-run debt picture. I've figured why they harp on personal responsibility so much. It's easy to be responsibility when any dumb action you make it someone else's fault.

Projected debt means nothing unless it is compared with economic prosperity. You can maintain limited debt but if the result is limited prosperity, then you have lost in the long run.
US citizens lost $10.2 Trillion in personal wealth in one year! 2008
Using debt to regain GDP and wealth is a worthy investment in the long run

If I borrow $1 million to start a business and that business ultimately leads to $10 million in profits, I have made a good investment

 

[jreeves]

But I guessing Bush's failure to pay for his projects is somehow Obama's fault.

ROFLMNAO... The BOY King has charged up more debt in 6 months than Bush managed in 8 YEARS! And this because THE LEFT VOTED IN DEMOCRATS SO THEY COULD IMPLEMENT: ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITY!

LOL...





LEFTISTS...

How does Obama's $800 billion added to the national debt equate to Bush's $5 Trillion in debt?

- Obama's $800 billion was used to reverse a recession that cost Americans $10.2 TRILLION in lost personal wealth

- Bush's $5 TRILLION in debt went to pay for tax cuts for the rich and two wars

I'll take Obama's spending any day

So now 1.8 trillion becomes 800 billion that's some fuzzy math you are using?