Obama, debt, and history

[cleller]

I saw this caption on someone's Facebook page recently, and figured it was probably something hokey:

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/400336_368889026461724_100000218896468_1744394_106 4333287_n.jpg

After a little internet research, I found its actually fairly accurate. Of course, there are estimates and fuzzy areas, but it does represent the type of massive debt we have incurred under Obama. Is it part of a sound economic plan that has forestalled a great economic disaster, or a huge tab we won't be able to pay back?

Maybe this is old news to some here, still something to ponder.

A decent effort at fact checking the claim, in my opinion. (Heck, they won a Pulitzer)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/10/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-will-add-more-debt-4/

[olevetonahill]

Why I asked in my thread can we afford another 4 years of this?

[Chuck Bao]

Seriously, do you really believe what you are posting? We were talking about a global economic collapse when President Obama took office. At that time, we were talking about 5-7 years for economic recovery. Some of the deficit spending bailouts were already committed by President Bush. Deducting that Obama is solely responsible for the deficit is very dis-ingenious.

[pphilfran]

Seriously, do you really believe what you are posting? We were talking about a global economic collapse when President Obama took office. At that time, we were talking about 5-7 years for economic recovery. Some of the deficit spending bailouts were already committed by President Bush. Deducting that Obama is solely responsible for the deficit is very dis-ingenious.

True...but it also shows that he had basically unlimited spending during his term...and still didn't achieve goals set by himself...

[cleller]

Obviously the graphic is sensational, intended to inflame and all that jazz.

I'm not saying Obama is responsible for all the economic ills, just wondering if this strange mathematical phenomena is correct. I did allow that it was possibly part of a sound plan to sidestep a giant collapse.

If you're talking about inheriting a 6 trillion deficit, then running it up to over 12 trillion, that's some outer-space figures. When does it become so much its malfeasant?

[olevetonahill]

To me , At this point, It dont matter whos ****in fault it is. Its a simple fact of can we sustain this level of Debt
Our Credit rating has already taken a hit,

[Chuck Bao]

To me , At this point, It dont matter whos ****in fault it is. Its a simple fact of can we sustain this level of Debt
Our Credit rating has already taken a hit,

And our credit rating is going to take a few more hits from the pipe regardless of who is in the White House. What's your point, again?

[pphilfran]

And our credit rating is going to take a few more hits from the pipe regardless of who is in the White House. What's your point, again?

If they started addressing the problems now there would be no hits to the credit rating...

[diverdog]

I saw this caption on someone's Facebook page recently, and figured it was probably something hokey:

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/400336_368889026461724_100000218896468_1744394_106 4333287_n.jpg

After a little internet research, I found its actually fairly accurate. Of course, there are estimates and fuzzy areas, but it does represent the type of massive debt we have incurred under Obama. Is it part of a sound economic plan that has forestalled a great economic disaster, or a huge tab we won't be able to pay back?

Maybe this is old news to some here, still something to ponder.

A decent effort at fact checking the claim, in my opinion. (Heck, they won a Pulitzer)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/10/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-will-add-more-debt-4/


If you truly believe that all that debt was incurred by Obama then you are clueless. He did not start at zero and the forward projected annual debts coming out of the Bush administration were over a trillion dollars. You might be able to make a decent argument that he is responsible for about $2.5 trillion of that debt. Of course that would include renewing the Bush tax cuts.

[diverdog]

To me , At this point, It dont matter whos ****in fault it is. Its a simple fact of can we sustain this level of Debt
Our Credit rating has already taken a hit,

1. Actually we can sustain this level of debt. I do not like it but the payment on the interest on the debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than when Reagan was in office.

2. The credit rating agencies are a POS. They have zero credibility.

[StoopTroup]

Romney Saves!


http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/3/Obama-v-Romney-liberals.jpg

[pphilfran]

1. Actually we can sustain this level of debt. I do not like it but the payment on the interest on the debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than when Reagan was in office.

2. The credit rating agencies are a POS. They have zero credibility.

It didn't help when our Leader in Charge blasted them for their roll in the recession...so now they will use the tighter standards that Leader in Charge wants used...and then Leader in Charge will cry like a baby and point and spit if credit gets downgraded...

Leader in Charge has never heard the old saying...."Don't burn no bridges!"

[pphilfran]

Oh, we can sustain current debt levels...at current interest rates...

[cleller]

If you truly believe that all that debt was incurred by Obama then you are clueless. He did not start at zero and the forward projected annual debts coming out of the Bush administration were over a trillion dollars. You might be able to make a decent argument that he is responsible for about $2.5 trillion of that debt. Of course that would include renewing the Bush tax cuts.

From USA Today: 3-19-12

Since taking office on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal debt under Obama has increased by $4.93 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/gop-obamas-debt-now-exeeds-that-of-bush/1

[diverdog]

From USA Today: 3-19-12

Since taking office on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal debt under Obama has increased by $4.93 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/gop-obamas-debt-now-exeeds-that-of-bush/1

I do not care who would have taken office the deficit would have been over a trillion dollars. We were shedding 750,000 jobs when Bush left office, tax revenues were tanking, most of the so called bailout was tax cuts or infusions of cash into state governments and then there was the second round of bailouts under Obama that were started under Bush. On top of all that the engine that drives the US economy, the housing market, was in the toilet.

Obama's problem is that he won the election way to early. It would have been better to have McCain win so the Republicans would have had a chance to wallow in the **** they created.

[StoopTroup]

From USA Today: 3-19-12

Since taking office on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal debt under Obama has increased by $4.93 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/gop-obamas-debt-now-exeeds-that-of-bush/1

I noticed that article also had this in it...


During the Bush years, the national debt went up by $4.89 trillion.
The total federal debt now exceeds $15.5 trillion.


How do they say that old saying...."Once you get that forward momentum going....it's a hell of a lot harder than you think to get it stopped".

[Turd_Ferguson]

How do they say that old saying...."Once you get that forward momentum going....it's a hell of a lot harder than you think to get it stopped".Never heard that saying...

[StoopTroup]

Never heard that saying...

A rolling stone gathers no moss?

[Turd_Ferguson]

A rolling stone gathers no moss?Now that one, I've heard...

[StoopTroup]

How's this one....I think it's what some folks have been trying to say...




"Unfortunately we're not at a place where we can balance the budget in the short term unless there is tremendous economic growth," said Maya MacGuineas, the group's president. She added that the goal should be to keep the rate of debt accumulation below the economy's growth rate.

I know it comes from the Huffinton Post and it makes your eyes burn but I was reading the part about analyzing the plans and was shocked to see the difference they state Romney's plan will increase the debt as 250 billion over the years 2012-2021 is much more palatable than the others....but If Obama could get some taxes raised and the Economy kick started over the next 4.5 years....it might be that he stands a chance of stopping the debt from rising, which they state the Romney Plan won't unless the Economic Growth is even greater under his Presidency. Sounds like two conflicting Ideals and Romney want's to spend billions getting rid of Obamacare when he was the creator of Romneycare. Now...we all agree that most Politicians are telling you what you want to hear....so I guess it gets down to who do you trust more. They guy that didn't deliver "Hope and Change" or the guy that has eliminated Jobs and Companies for his own personal gain?

Now I know that many of you don't think President Obama can pull that off but the thing is....for the debt to stop rising or even reducing.... keeping the rate of debt accumulation below the economy's growth rate sounds like a pretty plausible solution for all of them IMO.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/republican-tax-plans_n_1297018.html

[sappstuf]

If you truly believe that all that debt was incurred by Obama then you are clueless. He did not start at zero and the forward projected annual debts coming out of the Bush administration were over a trillion dollars. You might be able to make a decent argument that he is responsible for about $2.5 trillion of that debt. Of course that would include renewing the Bush tax cuts.

No they weren't. These numbers are from the CBO budget projections from 2009 to 2019.

2009 1.1 trillion
2010 703 billion
2011 498 billion
2012 264 billion
2013 257 billion
2014 250 billion
2015 234 billion
2016 272 billion
2017 234 billion
2018 188 billion
2019 235 billion

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-outlook.pdf

2009 was supposed to be an exceptional and scary year with a deficit over a trillion dollars. Obama has taken something exceptional and scary and made it dull and routine.

[StoopTroup]

But he's also reducing it not raising it? 2009 to 2012 seems to be headed downward. If the Economy gets better...won't it start reducing even farther? I mean...those are projections based on if things stay the same?

[StoopTroup]

I'm reading that PDF file and it clearly states the projections are based "Under an assumption that all current laws and policies regarding Federal Spending and Taxation remain the same, CBO forcasts the following...."

[sappstuf]

I'm reading that PDF file and it clearly states the projections are based "Under an assumption that all current laws and policies regarding Federal Spending and Taxation remain the same, CBO forcasts the following...."

And?

Obama has already extended the Bush tax cuts and many people on both sides of the isle think it will be extended again. What exactly has changed?

Of course there is one thing that the CBO didn't account for back then... Obamacare. It will send spending through the roof. Probably $250 billion a year once it is fully up and running.

[Sooner5030]

I'm glad we have some separation of powers. That way the president can present a budget to congress.....congress can then pass multiple resolutions including appropriations bills.....the president can either sign those or veto them. The committees are the only ones that can author appropriations......the rest of congress can only vote yes or no.....the president can then either approve or veto the bill.

I am just saying there is a lot of culpability among the two branches and two parties.

I'd bet 90% of our population will not even bother to read the US Gubments annual audited financial statements provided by the GAO. Most don't even understand the budget process. ****...I took an entire class in grad school just on the federal budget and was still not crystal clear on how the sausage was made. Too many budget acts stacked on top of each other plus each congress has different rules.

We need to stop using the term budget. That is very misleading to the mob. We have to budget 10 years out but we only appropriate 1 year out (2 years for some large capital projects). If my 10 year budget planned for 100 billion for USDA in year 7 then next year we change year 6 spending to 90 billion for the USDA I get credit for a 10 billion cut. But when that year rolls around we'll appropriate 120 billion. Cuts need to only be used to describe when a line item is has less spending then the previous FY.

We also need to separate the capital budget versus the operating budget. Then you can actually understand trends and see how much is being capitalized vs expensed.

[SCOUT]

I'm glad we have some separation of powers. That way the president can present a budget to congress.....congress can then pass multiple resolutions including appropriations bills.....the president can either sign those or veto them. The committees are the only ones that can author appropriations......the rest of congress can only vote yes or no.....the president can then either approve or veto the bill.

I am just saying there is a lot of culpability among the two branches and two parties.

I'd bet 90% of our population will not even bother to read the US Gubments annual audited financial statements provided by the GAO. Most don't even understand the budget process. ****...I took an entire class in grad school just on the federal budget and was still not crystal clear on how the sausage was made. Too many budget acts stacked on top of each other plus each congress has different rules.

We need to stop using the term budget. That is very misleading to the mob. We have to budget 10 years out but we only appropriate 1 year out (2 years for some large capital projects). If my 10 year budget planned for 100 billion for USDA in year 7 then next year we change year 6 spending to 90 billion for the USDA I get credit for a 10 billion cut. But when that year rolls around we'll appropriate 120 billion. Cuts need to only be used to describe when a line item is has less spending then the previous FY.

We also need to separate the capital budget versus the operating budget. Then you can actually understand trends and see how much is being capitalized vs expensed.
Your 90% estimate is WAY too high. It is probably more like 99% and that is exclusive of those in government, IMO.

Your comments about the term budget are what caused me to reply, though. The concept of budget in the government is so bastardized that its very use is a lie to everyday Americans. If we had even remotely transparent spending, the masses would rise up within a few hours. Unfortunately, the free press died with the birth of Woodward and Bernstein.

[sappstuf]

I'm glad we have some separation of powers. That way the president can present a budget to congress.....congress can then pass multiple resolutions including appropriations bills.....the president can either sign those or veto them. The committees are the only ones that can author appropriations......the rest of congress can only vote yes or no.....the president can then either approve or veto the bill.

I am just saying there is a lot of culpability among the two branches and two parties.

I'd bet 90% of our population will not even bother to read the US Gubments annual audited financial statements provided by the GAO. Most don't even understand the budget process. ****...I took an entire class in grad school just on the federal budget and was still not crystal clear on how the sausage was made. Too many budget acts stacked on top of each other plus each congress has different rules.

We need to stop using the term budget. That is very misleading to the mob. We have to budget 10 years out but we only appropriate 1 year out (2 years for some large capital projects). If my 10 year budget planned for 100 billion for USDA in year 7 then next year we change year 6 spending to 90 billion for the USDA I get credit for a 10 billion cut. But when that year rolls around we'll appropriate 120 billion. Cuts need to only be used to describe when a line item is has less spending then the previous FY.

We also need to separate the capital budget versus the operating budget. Then you can actually understand trends and see how much is being capitalized vs expensed.

Good point. This is the way things are supposed to work... However, it hasn't been working that way. The Democrats that control the Senate have not passed a budget resolution in over a 1000 days, breaking federal law in the process. The last one they passed was April 29th... Of 2009 for those keeping score.

The Democrats tried to say the Budget Control Act passed last years was a budget, but the Senate Parliamentarian ruled against this a couple of weeks ago.

[sappstuf]

Double post... Again.

[hawaii 5-0]

Double that figure is McCain had won.

Remember McCain promised there would be more wars.

Woulda come near that in Palin's salon expenses alone. That gal is high maintanence.


5-0

[Turd_Ferguson]

Double that figure is McCain had won.

Remember McCain promised there would be more wars.

Woulda come near that in Palin's salon expenses alone. That gal is high maintanence.


5-0Deflect and spin...deflect and spin...wash, rinse, repeat.

[sappstuf]

Double that figure is McCain had won.

Remember McCain promised there would be more wars.

Woulda come near that in Palin's salon expenses alone. That gal is high maintanence.


5-0

He did? I would like to see a quote on that. If you mean that he would committed to a surge in Afghanistan, Obama already did that.

[hawaii 5-0]

He did? I would like to see a quote on that. If you mean that he would committed to a surge in Afghanistan, Obama already did that.


It was a main reason I voted for Obama in the first place.

On You Tube, back in 2008, someone put together a bunch of McCain townhall clips where he promised there would be 'more wars'. It wasn't said just once but several times.

Just You Tube 'McCain more wars'


Wars are pretty expensive ya know.

Try to spin a cheap war.


Actually, we got off pretty easy in Libya. No ground troops killed. Oh, but that was Obama.

5-0

[sappstuf]

It was a main reason I voted for Obama in the first place.

On You Tube, back in 2008, someone put together a bunch of McCain townhall clips where he promised there would be 'more wars'. It wasn't said just once but several times.

Just You Tube 'McCain more wars'


Wars are pretty expensive ya know.

Try to spin a cheap war.


Actually, we got off pretty easy in Libya. No ground troops killed. Oh, but that was Obama.

5-0

Wow.. I watched two videos.. In both he said, "there are going to be other wars".... He didn't promise anything just stated it as fact. And it is a fact of course that has proven true. I guess McCain should have promised you unicorn horns and pixie dust to win your vote as Obama did. I would embed the video, but it isn't worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns

However, such an obvious statement from McCain does deserve the Captain Louis Renault award..

T1DEG6BWgp0

[diverdog]

No they weren't. These numbers are from the CBO budget projections from 2009 to 2019.

2009 1.1 trillion
2010 703 billion
2011 498 billion
2012 264 billion
2013 257 billion
2014 250 billion
2015 234 billion
2016 272 billion
2017 234 billion
2018 188 billion
2019 235 billion

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-outlook.pdf

2009 was supposed to be an exceptional and scary year with a deficit over a trillion dollars. Obama has taken something exceptional and scary and made it dull and routine.

Guess what? The CBO said they were dead wrong in this forecast. Looking at their assumptions I can see why. Their 10 year treasury rate forecast had me spitting milk out of my nose. The 2011 real GDP numbers....well that is some funny chit right there.

BTW in 2001 they predicted a negative $2.5 trillion dollar debt by 2011. I guess their trusty eight ball was wrong then as well.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/draghi/CBO Debt estimate.jpg

[sappstuf]

Guess what? The CBO said they were dead wrong in this forecast. Looking at their assumptions I can see why. Their 10 year treasury rate forecast had me spitting milk out of my nose. The 2011 real GDP numbers....well that is some funny chit right there.

BTW in 2001 they predicted a negative $2.5 trillion dollar debt by 2011. I guess their trusty eight ball was wrong then as well.

Well if they were dead wrong, then they could not have predicted as you claimed...

All this points to the fact that Obama's problem isn't the Bush recession.. Heck, that was over a couple of month into Obama's presidency. Obama's problem is the Obama recovery from the recession.

He said that he should be held responsible if he hadn't fixed the economy in 3 years... It is one of his few positions that I completely agree with.

[diverdog]

Oh, we can sustain current debt levels...at current interest rates...

phil:

I would assume that if interest rates go up inflation will follow and it may not hurt us as bad as we think. And for the record I think inflation is how the fed is going to get us out of this mess or we do what has happened since the beginning of time and default on our debt and start over. Every nation has done it and every currency has ultimately gone to zero.

[pphilfran]

phil:

I would assume that if interest rates go up inflation will follow and it may not hurt us as bad as we think. And for the record I think inflation is how the fed is going to get us out of this mess or we do what has happened since the beginning of time and default on our debt and start over. Every nation has done it and every currency has ultimately gone to zero.

Good point...

It has so many implications it is hard to really get a good idea of what will happen...

You crash the dollar and our exports will be cheap...but imports will be expensive...fuel cost (imported crude) will hit us hard...hurting the economy...which lowers revenue...

But which will be the overriding factor...

Your guess is at least as good as mine...

[cleller]

If you want a nice, graphic way of watching the debt, this is catchy. $138,000 per taxpayer. Every one of us could buy a house for our portion of the debt.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[diverdog]

Good point...

It has so many implications it is hard to really get a good idea of what will happen...

You crash the dollar and our exports will be cheap...but imports will be expensive...fuel cost (imported crude) will hit us hard...hurting the economy...which lowers revenue...

But which will be the overriding factor...

Your guess is at least as good as mine...

And then there is the age old question: "Do deficits matter"?

One bright spot is that our natural gas is getting so cheap it may over ride the cheap labor markets and start bringing manufacturing back to the US. We need to develop some incentives to help the process along.

[cleller]

Obama's problem is that he won the election way to early. It would have been better to have McCain win so the Republicans would have had a chance to wallow in the **** they created.


I'm thinking of voting for Obama for the same reason.

I think Obama has done a fairly good job handling most of the situation. My complaints are that he's wasted tons of money on stimulus ideas that were not at all sound, and he has no desire to push people off the Govt teat, despite a dire crisis.

[diverdog]

I'm thinking of voting for Obama for the same reason.

I think Obama has done a fairly good job handling most of the situation. My complaints are that he's wasted tons of money on stimulus ideas that were not at all sound, and he has no desire to push people off the Govt teat, despite a dire crisis.

Cleller here is the actual stimulus plan:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

If you read it you will see that a good chunk of it went to things like tax cuts for the average American (higher child credits, amt credits, tax cuts). He also spent a chunk of money on medical care, education, support for the poor and money to help states. His biggest problem was making it a jobs bill because it wasn't. It was more economic relief in the form of either direct or indirect payments/tax credits to the American people. Not much of the money was really wasted.

As for the election I am not happy with either choice. I actually could live with Romney if he is elected POTUS but I do not think he is the answer. Obama has been a mediocre president. His biggest issue is on the leadership front.

[diverdog]

Well if they were dead wrong, then they could not have predicted as you claimed...

All this points to the fact that Obama's problem isn't the Bush recession.. Heck, that was over a couple of month into Obama's presidency. Obama's problem is the Obama recovery from the recession.

He said that he should be held responsible if he hadn't fixed the economy in 3 years... It is one of his few positions that I completely agree with.

I tend to read papers from the federal reserve and listen to my companies economist and I don't think I mentioned the CBO.

The CBO has a horrible history of forecasting through recessions. Their one year numbers are fairly accurate as one would expect. After one year they have problems and are statistically way off from random walk forecast (see link below). I think the CBO tries to do a good job but if their GDP numbers are off by a few basis points everything is out the window. Plus things like supplemental spending cannot be factored into the equation because it is an unknown.

When are you coming home?


http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411rand.htm

(http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411rand.htm)

[okie52]

And then there is the age old question: "Do deficits matter"?

One bright spot is that our natural gas is getting so cheap it may over ride the cheap labor markets and start bringing manufacturing back to the US. We need to develop some incentives to help the process along.

Obama deserves a lot of credit for our low ng prices.

[pphilfran]

I'm thinking of voting for Obama for the same reason.

I think Obama has done a fairly good job handling most of the situation. My complaints are that he's wasted tons of money on stimulus ideas that were not at all sound, and he has no desire to push people off the Govt teat, despite a dire crisis.

My problem is he didn't do what he said he was going to do on many issues...

He was going to bring the two sides together...yet his approach drives the two sides further apart...
He was going to fix immigration in his first year...now, if elected, he is going to fix immigration in his first year
He was going to make things more transparent...yet his first major accomplishment, Obamacare, was brought to life with little time for the public to learn about the issue...Nancy said it so succinctly...“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”

And then there is his take on energy...it is horrendous...he wants much higher energy costs...he has said so...Chu has said so...CO2 emission reductions over anything...

And then it is always the fault of someone else...

[pphilfran]

Cleller here is the actual stimulus plan:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

If you read it you will see that a good chunk of it went to things like tax cuts for the average American (higher child credits, amt credits, tax cuts). He also spent a chunk of money on medical care, education, support for the poor and money to help states. His biggest problem was making it a jobs bill because it wasn't. It was more economic relief in the form of either direct or indirect payments/tax credits to the American people. Not much of the money was really wasted.

As for the election I am not happy with either choice. I actually could live with Romney if he is elected POTUS but I do not think he is the answer. Obama has been a mediocre president. His biggest issue is on the leadership front.

You are correct...it was not a jobs bill...

[pphilfran]

I tend to read papers from the federal reserve and listen to my companies economist.

The CBO has a horrible history of forecasting through recessions. Their one year numbers are fairly accurate as one would expect. After one year they have problems and are statistically way off from random walk forecast (see link below). I think the CBO tries to do a good job but if their GDP numbers are off by a few basis points everything is out the window. Plus things like supplemental spending cannot be factored into the equation because it is an unknown.

When are you coming home?


http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411rand.htm

(http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411rand.htm)

Once you miss the first year due to a recession then each following year the budget will get hammered due to lower GDP going forward..

[cleller]

Diver

As far as the economy goes, Bernanke and Co have handled the short term goals pretty well, in my opinion. The artificially low rates, and bond buys have achieved their goal of propping up the stock market. Not all the Fed governors agree with the plan, though, so we'll just have to wait and see the long term effect it has.

I scrolled thru the stimulus projects. Not a whole lot there that looks like a "great idea". 55 billion for education. Another example of the government getting stuck doing what used to be a family's job. That is, before the government decided to takeover the cost and care of childrearing.

Solyndra will always be the breaking point. At the time time we gave them the cash, all the US investment firms were running away from solar companies, because there was no way for them to profit in the face of Chinese subsidized solar companies.

[sappstuf]

I tend to read papers from the federal reserve and listen to my companies economist and I don't think I mentioned the CBO.

The CBO has a horrible history of forecasting through recessions. Their one year numbers are fairly accurate as one would expect. After one year they have problems and are statistically way off from random walk forecast (see link below). I think the CBO tries to do a good job but if their GDP numbers are off by a few basis points everything is out the window. Plus things like supplemental spending cannot be factored into the equation because it is an unknown.

When are you coming home?


http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411rand.htm

(http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411rand.htm)

Hopefully right on schedule in July.. Afghanistan has had a rough afternoon.

[diverdog]

Diver

As far as the economy goes, Bernanke and Co have handled the short term goals pretty well, in my opinion. The artificially low rates, and bond buys have achieved their goal of propping up the stock market. Not all the Fed governors agree with the plan, though, so we'll just have to wait and see the long term effect it has.

I scrolled thru the stimulus projects. Not a whole lot there that looks like a "great idea". 55 billion for education. Another example of the government getting stuck doing what used to be a family's job. That is, before the government decided to takeover the cost and care of childrearing.

Solyndra will always be the breaking point. At the time time we gave them the cash, all the US investment firms were running away from solar companies, because there was no way for them to profit in the face of Chinese subsidized solar companies.

My biggest issue with the fed is that they are way to focused on fighting inflation. A little inflation might be good right now. They have also made money far to cheap and it is allowing Wall Street to gamble with our capital.

Solyndra is blown way out of proportion in my opinion. We waist billions on defense cost over runs and new weapon systems and not a word is said about it. We have cancelled programs that cost tens of billions of dollars. The US needs to invest in green technology because that is the next big market. The worlds population is growing far to fast for our resources to keep pace in the long term. China is putting huge amounts of money into green energy and they are kicking our butts. I am for all sources of energy and I think we need to be the world leader on not only on the production front but the development front as well. (If there were illegal goings on in Solyndra then people need to go to jail)

I would have rather spent the $800 billion on infrastructure. At least we would have something to show for all that money.

[diverdog]

Hopefully right on schedule in July.. Afghanistan has had a rough afternoon.

I saw that and that is why I asked. Keep your head down. We are all praying for your safe return.

Are you allowed to carry a weapon?

Do you get extra points towards the next rank for serving in a combat zone? How is your family?

[pphilfran]

Diver

As far as the economy goes, Bernanke and Co have handled the short term goals pretty well, in my opinion. The artificially low rates, and bond buys have achieved their goal of propping up the stock market. Not all the Fed governors agree with the plan, though, so we'll just have to wait and see the long term effect it has.

I scrolled thru the stimulus projects. Not a whole lot there that looks like a "great idea". 55 billion for education. Another example of the government getting stuck doing what used to be a family's job. That is, before the government decided to takeover the cost and care of childrearing.

Solyndra will always be the breaking point. At the time time we gave them the cash, all the US investment firms were running away from solar companies, because there was no way for them to profit in the face of Chinese subsidized solar companies.

He is trapped when it comes to energy...

The only companies that invest in the start ups are VC's....and he hates VC's because the get low tax rates...

So he can't give additional tax breaks to the all the industry start ups...so he and Chu have to turn into VC's. and area where they have no expertise...

And then since one company gets a sweetheart loan the other start ups in the same sector will have a harder time competing so some of them will move their capital to other areas...

Target the sectors you want to grow...and give incentives to the companies that are successful...

[pphilfran]

Solyndra was not blown out of proportion...

They have no business trying to play Venture Capital Expert with my frigging money...

[sappstuf]

I saw that and that is why I asked. Keep your head down. We are all praying for your safe return.

Are you allowed to carry a weapon?

Do you get extra points towards the next rank for serving in a combat zone? How is your family?

M4 and M9.

I will get credit.

Wife is pretty nervous right now, probably more than I am.

[pphilfran]

M4 and M9.

I will get credit.

Wife is pretty nervous right now, probably more than I am.

They allow you to carry weapons? :)

[sappstuf]

They allow you to carry weapons? :)

And I shot better scores than the Army people I am with...

[StoopTroup]

And?

Obama has already extended the Bush tax cuts and many people on both sides of the isle think it will be extended again. What exactly has changed?

Of course there is one thing that the CBO didn't account for back then... Obamacare. It will send spending through the roof. Probably $250 billion a year once it is fully up and running.

It still doesn't address that Romney who created a similar plan as Obamacare and evidently thinks that States rights in this issue will help all Americans when we know without a doubt that it will put off the inevitable....National Healthcare. He's politically saying he will spend billions repealing Obamacare and I think he'll have as big a fight getting it repealed as President Obama did getting it passed. Reality is a bitch.

Now that we have this idea that one isn't going to stop spending in America and that they both are going to continue to try and use our Strengths as a Super Power to outlast the many weaker economies around the Globe....we can get back to what we are really talking about.

Who is going to have a better chance of improving the Country's Economy? Is it the Current POTUS or a weak GOP Candidate who has killed off more Companies and jobs for personal gain than anyone who has had the gall to run for POTUS?

I have to tell you this too. I'd vote for Romney if he just didn't have so many quirks. He's gone on this Anti-Obama Campaign but rarely talks Foreign Policy. He's quick to point out mistakes others make but as far as I know...the only time he's ever admitted to a mistake is if he's told he's going to have to do damage control. He doesn't look like he can think on his feet IMO and I just don't think he's a Leader. He can't keep on track of his own Campaign Strategies and he just seems to play to whoever shows up at his rallies and wherever they are.

The other guy....he made History and ended a War and the Economy might not be bouncing back from near disaster but hair brained Campaign schemes aren't going to turn things around in this Country. We all are going to have to be part of bailing it out. We all have to suffer a bit. I have seen the Middle Class in this Country suffer a lot. The rich? Not so much. The folks who Outsourced jobs for their bottom-line and called Americans lazy? Not so much. Now they want us to elect this GOP Clown and allow him to give them a handout so they can bring their Ill-gotten gains Home like Patriots of a War? I don't see any suffering there. Just more false promises of jobs and more false patriotism.

The Bush Tax Cuts aren't being dropped more than likely because it creates a battle in Congress during a Campaign Year. The War is between who will be POTUS this fall at this point so I see little gain for a standing President if you think that Romney is going to extend them too? If Romney isn't going to extend them....it seems to go against his own plans to Rebuild His America. I just haven't ever seen him build anything. He's a shark IMO and Sharks are good for the Ocean and even some businesses but not for President's.

I have him getting beat bad. Maybe Mitt will prove me wrong....but if I a Moderate feel that way about a Liberal Governor...I know I'm not alone as a Republican.

[StoopTroup]

My biggest issue with the fed is that they are way to focused on fighting inflation. A little inflation might be good right now. They have also made money far to cheap and it is allowing Wall Street to gamble with our capital.

Solyndra is blown way out of proportion in my opinion. We waist billions on defense cost over runs and new weapon systems and not a word is said about it. We have cancelled programs that cost tens of billions of dollars. The US needs to invest in green technology because that is the next big market. The worlds population is growing far to fast for our resources to keep pace in the long term. China is putting huge amounts of money into green energy and they are kicking our butts. I am for all sources of energy and I think we need to be the world leader on not only on the production front but the development front as well. (If there were illegal goings on in Solyndra then people need to go to jail)

I would have rather spent the $800 billion on infrastructure. At least we would have something to show for all that money.

There are some that think that if the US would double the NASA Budget and allow our Think Tanks some discretionary income for more R&D instead of think that it is a waste....we will again kick everyone's a$$es. The Space Race was an example of America creating an industry that was for nothing more than bragging rights that went on to create so many technological advances and attract the World's Brightest and Talented to not only work here but to live here and raise Families here.

We need to invest in infrastructure and I would have no problem seeing a bunch of folks (Not just Hispanics either) who want to get a free pass to American Citizenship Joining Gov't Work Programs similar to FDR's that requires them to work on those projects and agree to live by our Laws in this Country, Pay taxes and work to legally become citizens via a Legal Work Card. If you want something bad enough....you'll work for it.

If Americans don't want the jobs...we must do something to bring in a work force that will.

Solyndra didn't work out. Yeah it was a butt load of money but don't get hung up on one failed project....maybe don't get hung up on 100 failed projects...

We must start spending money again. I just think this idea of a small efficient Government by the GOP is just someone's small minded reality.

That's like us saying a small efficient Military is best. We are working on ways to reduce the cost of resupplying our Military in the field and the needless risking of personnel on supply lines but we still need a massive Military to protect this Country from aggression. We won't ever have a small military as long as we remain the World's Peacekeepers. Also...you can't be the World's peacekeepers by nuking people either.

[okie52]

There are some that think that if the US would double the NASA Budget and allow our Think Tanks some discretionary income for more R&D instead of think that it is a waste....we will again kick everyone's a$$es. The Space Race was an example of America creating an industry that was for nothing more than bragging rights that went on to create so many technological advances and attract the World's Brightest and Talented to not only work here but to live here and raise Families here.

We need to invest in infrastructure and I would have no problem seeing a bunch of folks (Not just Hispanics either) who want to get a free pass to American Citizenship Joining Gov't Work Programs similar to FDR's that requires them to work on those projects and agree to live by our Laws in this Country, Pay taxes and work to legally become citizens via a Legal Work Card. If you want something bad enough....you'll work for it.

If Americans don't want the jobs...we must do something to bring in a work force that will.

Solyndra didn't work out. Yeah it was a butt load of money but don't get hung up on one failed project....maybe don't get hung up on 100 failed projects...

We must start spending money again. I just think this idea of a small efficient Government by the GOP is just someone's small minded reality.

That's like us saying a small efficient Military is best. We are working on ways to reduce the cost of resupplying our Military in the field and the needless risking of personnel on supply lines but we still need a massive Military to protect this Country from aggression. We won't ever have a small military as long as we remain the World's Peacekeepers. Also...you can't be the World's peacekeepers by nuking people either.

The US being the worlds peacekeepers is a costly, antiquated notion.

[diverdog]

And I shot better scores than the Army people I am with...

That's not hard to do? LOL.

I carried an M9 for years. Had a great get out of jail free card when I had to carry it concealed.

Is that quote of yours from the secret service manual?