Barrack Obama: there is no debt crisis

[Annisman*]

The Republicans nominated another trash candidate. Romney joined a long line of trash like Dole and McCain.

Agreed, but at least Romney had a strong business background. What does Obama have ? No business background whatsoever, not to mention the economy was AWFUL under his first term. Now whether that was his fault or not, the point was he had literally nothing going for him in that dept. during the last election, most people said the economy was their biggest concern, and they re-elect him anyways. You get what you deserve sometimes.

 

[thraashman]

The real problem is that everyone in a high political office seems to be saying that. It's a leave it for the next guy stance. Eventually the ceiling will collapse if we keep putting it off and belive it's not an immediate crisis.

I don't deny he's being a bit too optimistic about it. But he simply didn't say there's no crisis, he said it's not an immediate crisis. Which is honestly true. Better we address it now than when it becomes immediate, but if we fail to address it now it still won't be a crisis for many years.

Agreed, but at least Romney had a strong business background. What does Obama have ? No business background whatsoever, not to mention the economy was AWFUL under his first term. Now whether that was his fault or not, the point was he had literally nothing going for him in that dept. during the last election, most people said the economy was their biggest concern, and they re-elect him anyways. You get what you deserve sometimes.

But a lot of Romney's ideas about how to run government were near identical to the ones that failed under Bush and caused this economic situation. And honestly, the economy under Obama's first term improved VASTLY. It wasn't perfect but if this were grades, he came in with the economic situation at an F, like 45% grade. At the end of his first term, he had like around 78%, a C+. And it's impossible to deny that the entirety of the GOP was doing its best to keep the situation bad to try to prevent Obama's second term. The public noticed who was keeping shit bad and they lost the Presidency and seats in both chambers.

 

[Incorruptible]

I don't deny he's being a bit too optimistic about it. But he simply didn't say there's no crisis, he said it's not an immediate crisis. Which is honestly true. Better we address it now than when it becomes immediate, but if we fail to address it now it still won't be a crisis for many years.


But a lot of Romney's ideas about how to run government were near identical to the ones that failed under Bush and caused this economic situation. And honestly, the economy under Obama's first term improved VASTLY. It wasn't perfect but if this were grades, he came in with the economic situation at an F, like 45% grade. At the end of his first term, he had like around 78%, a C+. And it's impossible to deny that the entirety of the GOP was doing its best to keep the situation bad to try to prevent Obama's second term. The public noticed who was keeping shit bad and they lost the Presidency and seats in both chambers.

Not sure if serious:\

bush = obama = romney All of them are the same and will do the same thing to the economy keep spending and increase regulations.

The economy didn't improve under obama that piece of shit cant fix the economy his policies will only make it worse.

We need real spending cuts and to cut down our debt not increase spending or as the piece of shit obama calls it "investing". If we dont fix this soon it will be too late and the US economy will eventually collapse. The people who vote for these idiots will get what they voted for and will lose their jobs.

 

[BoberFett]

Bush didn't have one of the worst recessions happening under his watch (it started at the end of his term).

The recession should have happened back in 2002 but the housing bubble and massive deficit spending put it off. Now we have even more deficit spending and the government bubble.

Of course Democrats will pretend that Bush's deficit spending was bad while Obama's is good, and Republicans vice versa, because they're all partisan hacks.

 

[fskimospy]

The recession should have happened back in 2002 but the housing bubble and massive deficit spending put it off. Now we have even more deficit spending and the government bubble.

Of course Democrats will pretend that Bush's deficit spending was bad while Obama's is good, and Republicans vice versa, because they're all partisan hacks.

By "democrats" I think you meant to say "economists".

 

[zsdersw]

Agreed, but at least Romney had a strong business background.

Oh, that old canard. There is absolutely zero, zilch, nada benefit to having "a strong business background" when you're POTUS... because being POTUS is in no way like running a business.

 

[BoberFett]

By "democrats" I think you meant to say "economists".

You have nothing useful to say, as usual.

 

[ivwshane]

You have nothing useful to say, as usual.

Useful or made up bullshit like your posts? Do you know what economic theory most economist agree with? Do you know how that theory works? Do you know how that relates to the current economic situation we are in?

If you did then you would see why your comment was stupid.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm a fucktard and everybody knows it, because I can't think for myself and appeal to authority.

Were we or were we not staring down the barrel of a recession in 2002?

 

[Munky]

What he meant is "I don't have a debt crisis" because he got his second term, and can afford to kick the can down the road for the next candidate to worry about.

 

[nehalem256]

The recession should have happened back in 2002 but the housing bubble and massive deficit spending put it off. Now we have even more deficit spending and the government bubble.

Yep. Just like the DotCom Bubble made Clinton look like a good President.

By "democrats" I think you meant to say "economists".

Are you suggesting that the Bush deficits didn't stimulate the economy?

 

[Darwin333]

Not sure if serious:\

bush = obama = romney All of them are the same and will do the same thing to the economy keep spending and increase regulations.

The economy didn't improve under obama that piece of shit cant fix the economy his policies will only make it worse.

We need real spending cuts and to cut down our debt not increase spending or as the piece of shit obama calls it "investing". If we dont fix this soon it will be too late and the US economy will eventually collapse. The people who vote for these idiots will get what they voted for and will lose their jobs.

As much as I agree with the fact that we must cut spending what you are implying is probably just as bad.

Let me ask you, what do you think the economy would be like if we cut spending enough to run a surplus (and therefore able to pay down the debt) next fiscal year?

 

[ivwshane]

Were we or were we not staring down the barrel of a recession in 2002?

How cute.

In my original post that you quoted I stated that Bush was not faced with the same level of economic disaster Obama faced when he began his presidency, are you trying to claim they are even remotely similar? I suspect not which is why when you made the comment that dems are ok with Obamas deficit spending but not bushs was a stupid thing to say. Different situations call for different measures and you appear to want to ignore that and ignore what most economists think so that you can parrot right wing talking points.

So it appears and I'm no expert, you are projecting when you use my name to quote me as saying something I did not.

It must really piss you off to be challenged.

 

[Ryan]

I didn't know the words "problem" and "crisis" were the same thing in your universe :hmm:

 

[piasabird]

Well as our debt rises, if we do nothing about it our bond rating will probably be downgraded and we will pay more interest. Half of the population are deadbeats living off the govt dole. That is just a fact. It may be inconvenient, but it is probably true for the most part. Sure, some of these people may have paid into SS, so those individuals are just honest tax payers.

We have to accept reality. The key point is we need proper leadership. If we continue to cut the budget and maybe reduce benefits we might be able to avoid a lot of unnecessary pain. However, socialist governments like we are now often wait till there is a crisis to do anything. Just letting the debt pile up will increase the pain later. There is no guarantee that China will keep financing our debt.

We could start by not importing so many automobiles. That has the potential to employ more americans.

 

[OverVolt]

If there were a debt crisis, Uncle Sam would be paying high interest rates, like Greece. But he's not- he's paying record low rates.

Righties seldom reference reality in the formulation of their opinions. When that's pointed out, as I just did, they just lock up in Denial. It's layered into their most cherished beliefs- it's the glue that provides the certainty they seem to crave. They don't seek the truth, they merely create an emotionally satisfying facsimile in their own minds.

The interest rate is low because of how much money the Fed pumps into Treasuries, AKA debt monetization, money printing, pulling a zimbabwe, etc.

Its pretty easy for the interest rate to be low when we print the money to buy a portion of our own debt and force the big banks to buy the rest as a riskless asset if they want to operate as a bank.

Rates have been manipulated for a long time, so the question is, why do you point to them as if they are relevant? Really stretching to make a point there. Thats the actual truth. If you aren't aware of the mass debt monetization going on around the world then you are an idiot and no one should listen to you honestly because you have absolutely no idea what is going on in world affairs.

 

[ivwshane]

Well as our debt rises, if we do nothing about it our bond rating will probably be downgraded and we will pay more interest. Half of the population are deadbeats living off the govt dole. That is just a fact. It may be inconvenient, but it is probably true for the most part. Sure, some of these people may have paid into SS, so those individuals are just honest tax payers.

Some? A majority of the "half of the population" are "honest tax payers".

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/20/who-are-mitt-romneys-47-percent-breakdown/?page=all

 

[piasabird]

If we had a president that did not make such a big deal out of our debt and quit increasing the budget, then maybe we could just maintain the status quo. If we just keep the budget at current levels instead of raising budgets every year we might be able to grow our economy better. I still think we should not be paying women to have babies. That is not the Governments job.

 

[ivwshane]

The interest rate is low because of how much money the Fed pumps into Treasuries, AKA debt monetization, money printing, pulling a zimbabwe, etc.

Its pretty easy for the interest rate to be low when we print the money to buy a portion of our own debt and force the big banks to buy the rest as a riskless asset if they want to operate as a bank.

Rates have been manipulated for a long time, so the question is, why do you point to them as if they are relevant? Really stretching to make a point there. Thats the actual truth. If you aren't aware of the mass debt monetization going on around the world then you are an idiot and no one should listen to you honestly because you have absolutely no idea what is going on in world affairs.

Historically speaking we have had higher debts as a percentage of GDP. If the ratio has been higher and no negative consequences resulted then how can you call it a crisis?

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/a...t-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/

And I suspect that the reason the ratio is high now is because our GDP has dropped due to the recession. To fix the debt to GDP ratio you could cut spending but according to most economists that would slow growth and our ratio would be the same. So the real issue is growth and that's why it's the presidents too priority. Fix growth and the debt to GDP will naturally be lowered. Once the economy is strong, you cut spending and the debt to GDP is lowered even more (again, during a strong economy).

 

[OverVolt]

Its pretty well known it just passed 100%

http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_public_debt_gdp

What kind of shit data is that. And last I checked we didn't just come out of a world war, we blew it all on food stamps, welfare, bailing out banks, and wars in the middle east.

THE ROAD TO $16 TRILLION

Because on top of the roughly $11.4 trillion in US government debt, which can be bought and sold and is floating around in financial markets, there's also nearly $5 trillion in debt that the US government owes to itself. Those are largely obligations to the trust funds that are used to pay for programs such as Social Security. These aren't counted in debt-to-GDP charts published here, and are often excluded from such calculations. But if you did include this debt--and there's an argument to be made that we should, since the government is on the hook to pay these claims--the US debt-to-GDP ratio was just under 100% at the end of 2011.

It ALREADY is over $16 Trillion.

You picked by far the softest article I have ever read on the national debt and I have to assume it was on purpose.

 

[ivwshane]

Its pretty well known it just passed 100%

http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_public_debt_gdp

What kind of shit data is that. And last I checked we didn't just come out of a world war, we blew it all on food stamps, welfare, bailing out banks, and wars in the middle east.



It ALREADY is over $16 Trillion.

You picked by far the softest article I have ever read on the national debt and I have to assume it was on purpose.

Yeah, your post didn't argue the point you think it did.

The highest GDP ratio was 112% we aren't there unless you want to include the social security trust fund which was introduced in the 70's and is normally not counted as indicated by your quote and even still it wouldn't be at 112%.

 

[OverVolt]

Yeah, your post didn't argue the point you think it did.

The highest GDP ratio was 112% we aren't there unless you want to include the social security trust fund which was introduced in the 70's and is normally not counted as indicated by your quote and even still it wouldn't be at 112%.

According to YOUR article, everywhere else I usually see 112% Debt-to-GDP.

Its not that hard. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

US government debt: $16.691T
US GDP: $15.851T

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP

So I would just love to know how you justify taking out SS liabilities from the national debt because it is in fact $16.691T

Its not like we haven't already borrowed the money or anything.

Which makes the ratio ~107% from those sources

 

[Annisman*]

Can't believe we've gotten to the point where 50% of Americans paying taxes is supposed to be considered a good thing.

It should be a flat tax rate across the board. Everybody pays. Let's stop discouraging wealth and incouraging poverty.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yeah, poverty is awesome because of all the tax breaks.

 

[Jhhnn]

The interest rate is low because of how much money the Fed pumps into Treasuries, AKA debt monetization, money printing, pulling a zimbabwe, etc.

Its pretty easy for the interest rate to be low when we print the money to buy a portion of our own debt and force the big banks to buy the rest as a riskless asset if they want to operate as a bank.

Rates have been manipulated for a long time, so the question is, why do you point to them as if they are relevant? Really stretching to make a point there. Thats the actual truth. If you aren't aware of the mass debt monetization going on around the world then you are an idiot and no one should listen to you honestly because you have absolutely no idea what is going on in world affairs.

Of course debt monetization is taking place. During the Bush era looting spree, bankers created more debt than could possibly be repaid with the existing money supply. They took their cut off the top, naturally, which was huge, considering that they were working at leverage rates of 30:1 with money that never existed in the first place.

It was fractional reserve lending let run amok. The debt remains, however, and the only way it can possibly be serviced is with more money.

We could balance the budget immediately, provided we were willing to let the economy collapse from lack of liquidity. We lose over $500B/yr offshore due to offshoring, & our role as the world's reserve currency,while we lose a huge a % of national income to the uber-wealthy, who simply use it to create asset inflation & bloated savings. Well, that's what they're not pushing offshore as fast as possible, a la Mitt Romney.

What Righties want is the same trap we fell into in the early part of the Great Depression- deflation, which benefits only the Rich. I mean, there's no incentive to invest, to risk, when your money gains value stuffed into your mattress, is there? And it's great when every dollar you get from previous lending is more valuable than the ones before, isn't it?

The best time to be Rich is when everybody else is broke, busted, unemployed & begging- that's when you can really put the bone to 'em, which is precisely what Repub leaders intend to create.