Chancellor Merkel Visits the Debt President

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Source

The occupant of the White House may have changed recently. But the amount of ill-advised ideology coming from Washington has remained constant. Obama's list of economic errors is long -- and continues to grow.

The president may have changed, but the excesses of American politics have remained. Barack Obama and George W. Bush, it has become clear, are more similar than they might seem at first glance.

Ex-President Bush was nothing if not zealous in his worldwide campaign against terror, transgressing human rights and breaking international law along the way. Now, Obama is displaying the same zeal in his own war against the financial crisis -- and his weapon of choice is the money-printing machine. The rules the new American president is breaking are those which govern the economy. Nobody is being killed. But the strategy comes at a price -- and that price might be America's position as a global power.

In his fight against terrorism, Bush had the ideologue Dick Cheney at his side. "We must take the battle to the enemy," he said -- and sent out the bomber squadrons toward Iraq on the basis of mere suspicion. The result of the offensive is well known.

Obama's Cheney

Obama's Cheney is named Larry Summers. He is Obama's senior-most economic advisor, and like the former vice president, he is a man of conviction. The financial crisis may be large, but Summers' self-confidence is even larger. More importantly, President Barack Obama follows him like a dog does its master.

The crisis, Summers intoned last week at a conference of Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen Society in Washington, was caused by too much confidence, too much credit and too many debts. It was hard not to nod along in agreement.

But then Summers added that the way to bring about an end to the crisis was -- more confidence, more credit and more debt. And the nodding stopped. Experts and non-experts alike were perplexed. Even in an interview following the presentation, Summers was unable to supply an adequate explanation for how a crisis caused by frivolous lending was going to be solved through yet more frivolity.

Summers has no misgivings, and doesn't recognize those held by others. The fact that German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently gave a speech in which she was critical of the US economic stimulus program did not impress Summers. In our conversation, he said he thought Merkel's position was a tactical one. "She only says that out of domestic concerns," he said and rolled his eyes in disapproval. The battle must be taken to the enemy.

Just as the US public initially rallied behind the war President Bush -- even to the point of re-electing him -- Americans have now thrown their support behind the debt president Obama. The mistakes of the Bush administration are now widely accepted. The mistakes of the Obama administration are still not recognized as such. They are seen as the truth.

The Obama Administration's Five Errors

Mistake number one: It's not as bad as it seems. The US amassed much more debt during World War II, it is often said. That, though, is not true. According to conservative forecasts, Obama's policies could end up being three times as expensive as US expenditures during World War II. If one calculates using today's prices, America spent $3 trillion for the war. Obama's budgetary calculations for the decade between 2010 and 2020 assume additional debt of $9 trillion.

Second: It is generally assumed that the money is part of an effort to resuscitate the crisis-plagued economy and is thus serving a good purpose. The truth of the matter is that the bulk of the borrowed money will be used to finance the normal US budget. American borrowing in 2009 comprises about half of Obama's budget. The country is living beyond its means -- and it still would have been even if it weren't for the economic crisis.

The third error: Many believe that when the crisis ends, borrowing will automatically fall. The truth is that it could climb afterwards. The graying of American society creates a new fiscal policy challenge for the country that so far hasn't been reflected in any budget plan. According to calculations by the International Monetary Fund, Washington would need to spend several times more than it is now just to service current pension entitlements and the free, state-funded medical care provided to senior citizens. In addition, Obama has promised to introduce healthcare coverage for America's close to 46 million uninsured. That would be like adding a country the size of Spain to the US.

Lost Trust

Fourth: The world believes that the US is borrowing money from capital markets. It is often said that the Chinese and the Japanese will buy government bonds. But the truth of the matter is that trust in the gravitas and reliability of the United States has suffered to such a great degree that fewer and fewer foreigners are purchasing its government bonds. That's why the Federal Reserve is now buying securities that it has printed itself. The Fed's balance sheet has more than doubled since 2007, making the US central bank one of the world's fastest-growing companies. The purpose of this company, though, is to create money out of thin air.

Fallacy No. 5: The additional money is harmless because the economy is starting to pull together again and there is no threat of inflation. The truth is that the quiet on the inflation front is deceptive. The hot money is accumulating in people's savings accounts and in the balance sheets of banks that aren't keen to lend money at the moment. The supply of money has increased by 45 percent in the last three years and there has not been a corresponding rise in hard assets or production. That imbalance will eventually make itself felt in the form of inflation.

The dollar, which has already lost 40 percent of its value against the euro since 2000, would then devaluate and its reputation would be further diminished. The world's reserve currency could be pushed through the floor by the shockwaves. At that point, those waves would also wash over the rest of the world. Then people would have to look back and say that the means the US used to fight the economic crisis in fact paved the way for a currency crisis.

The German response to the excesses of the Bush era was refusal and obstinacy. Gerhard Schröder refused to go to war in Iraq with America and he organized a European resistance front the reached from Moscow to Paris.

Germany still hasn't provided its response to the Obama administration's fiscal policy excesses. Perhaps its time for Merkel to take her cue from Schröder.


I personally love it when a left-leaning source like SPIEGEL comes out and tells it like it is, blasting the USA, tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media, and finally goes so far to liken GWB to Obama when it comes to their respective wars.

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, until the country's deficits and national debt become issue #1, we are on the Titanic. We are Rome. We are done. And a bunch of nations that we defeated and saved after WWII will prosper as we sink into the sea.

The United States will spend $260 billion on national debt interest payments alone in 2009. Don't you think we could put that money to better use?


 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.

Anyway, do you care to even address the points made in the article or not?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.
Oh so that was just a hysterical partisan blurb posted by you pretending it to be factual. Got it.

BTW what do you think the percentage is of the American Public that read Der Spiegal?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.

Anyway, do you care to even address the points made in the article or not?
Wow. You're on an Obama hatefest(welcome back)

Of course you're still a wacky troll.
But I missed you.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.

Anyway, do you care to even address the points made in the article or not?
Wow. You're on an Obama hatefest(welcome back)

Of course you're still a wacky troll.
But I missed you.
This isn't the Nutjob that thought Palin would be a good President let alone a VP is it?

 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.

Anyway, do you care to even address the points made in the article or not?
Wow. You're on an Obama hatefest(welcome back)

Of course you're still a wacky troll.
But I missed you.
This isn't the Nutjob that thought Palin would be a good President let alone a VP is it?

Nice derailment. Can we change your title to Senior Derailer? Maybe it could be Elite Senior Derailer if you keep this up.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.
Oh so that was just a hysterical partisan blurb posted by you pretending it to be factual. Got it.

BTW what do you think the percentage is of the American Public that read Der Spiegal?

Does it make a god-damned difference? Whether Americans have read something or not does not diminish a publication's validity I am afraid.

Do you care to refute the points of the article written by another intelligent human being or not?

Or will you continue to make personal accusations in light of your blind support of Obama?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,579
8,641
136
Seems only right wing extremist terrorists criticize the President these days. Far as the mainstream is concerned, thou shalt not dissent.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I personally love it when a left-leaning source like SPIEGEL comes out and tells it like it is, blasting the USA, tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media, and finally goes so far to liken GWB to Obama when it comes to their respective wars.

I personally love it when some nutjob accuses the media of being state run when Faux News spent 8 years under the desk of GWB&Co with not a peep from said nut job. Also, they aren't Obama's wars considering he didn't start them.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, until the country's deficits and national debt become issue #1, we are on the Titanic. We are Rome. We are done. And a bunch of nations that we defeated and saved after WWII will prosper as we sink into the sea.

We've been deficit spending for years. The timing of our 'outrage' is very convenient.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The United States will spend $260 billion on national debt interest payments alone in 2009. Don't you think we could put that money to better use?

Duh. Thank you Captain Obvious.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

The United States will spend $260 billion on national debt interest payments alone in 2009. Don't you think we could put that money to better use?

Hell yeah, moar F-22's!

High-five big guy!
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.
Oh so that was just a hysterical partisan blurb posted by you pretending it to be factual. Got it.

BTW what do you think the percentage is of the American Public that read Der Spiegal?

Does it make a god-damned difference? Whether Americans have read something or not does not diminish a publication's validity I am afraid.

Do you care to refute the points of the article written by another intelligent human being or not?

Or will you continue to make personal accusations in light of your blind support of Obama?
I don't know if the article is correct or not but you commentary had a lot of partisan bullshit. You might as well let the troll FNE write all your commentary.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.
Oh so that was just a hysterical partisan blurb posted by you pretending it to be factual. Got it.

BTW what do you think the percentage is of the American Public that read Der Spiegal?

Does it make a god-damned difference? Whether Americans have read something or not does not diminish a publication's validity I am afraid.

Do you care to refute the points of the article written by another intelligent human being or not?

Or will you continue to make personal accusations in light of your blind support of Obama?
I don't know if the article is correct or not but you commentary had a lot of partisan bullshit. You might as well let the troll FNE write all your commentary.

You are just as big of a troll as you claim I am. You brought Palin into this thread!
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
I love how every thread that is critical of Obama gets derailed by the sheep squad.


Talk about the points the article is making, not about individual posters. If this is really how it is going to be for the next 4-8, it is rather sad.



This article is right on track. What Obama is doing has the potential to tank the dollar in a way we have never seen in our lifetime.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,721
4,825
136
Originally posted by: OCguy
I love how every thread that is critical of Obama gets derailed by the sheep squad.


Talk about the points the article is making, not about individual posters. If this is really how it is going to be for the next 4-8, it is rather sad.



This article is right on track. What Obama is doing has the potential to tank the dollar in a way we have never seen in our lifetime.

Oh, knock it off, OCguy; you throw in partisan jabs/diversions any time there's an opening.

You love it and you know it.

;)
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: OCguy
I love how every thread that is critical of Obama gets derailed by the sheep squad.


Talk about the points the article is making, not about individual posters. If this is really how it is going to be for the next 4-8, it is rather sad.



This article is right on track. What Obama is doing has the potential to tank the dollar in a way we have never seen in our lifetime.

I think you are the first person to actually address the article.

You see, the Obama sheep cannot admit when the opposition is correct...even when said opposition is a left-leaning journalist from a foreign publication.

The truth is that Obama will add more money to the nation's debt load than all previous Presidents, combined.

 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

I think you are the first person to actually address the article.

You see, the Obama sheep cannot admit when the opposition is correct...even when said opposition is a left-leaning journalist from a foreign publication.

The truth is that Obama will add more money to the nation's debt load than all previous Presidents, combined.


The good news is, Americans are waking up. .


There has been a 12 point jump in the last month as far as Obama being blamed for the economy. At this rate, if he gets a massive health care spending bill through, look for a strong showing in the mid-terms for the (R)s.

"Now only 30% trust Obama more (over themselves) when it comes to the economic issues facing the nation."
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Not familiar with spiegel's content, but I do recall a picture they did of the bush admin and coming from germany and being the only paper I have heard of from there, I am inclined to think it is meaningful that they criticize a democrat.

The points of course are valid. The US is a spend-happy crackhead and despite people with brains continually sounding the alarm, the government doesn't care. But it doesn't care because its people don't care. It's people don't care because they are often stupid; the government's finances in many ways a macro mirror of their own household budgets, also in ruins and tatters against all kind of prudence.

This government has NO desire whatsoever to stop deficit spending and actually reduce the debt to a meaningful degree. It's been decades now since the US meaningfully started eroding its debt. Instead of cranking up debt at wartime as needed, the US has done it simply buying sh*t to "live richer". It's not like the infrastructure is receiving all this money or industry, it's just kind of non-return crap.
The truth is that Obama will add more money to the nation's debt load than all previous Presidents, combined.
If he continues at a pace close to what he is now and makes it through two terms, this is true. As I've said before Bush was terrible with money but I never believed Obama's budgets could be worse. I thought there's no way, but here it is.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
tearing off the blindfolds that have been put on the eyes of Americans by its state-run media
What state run media?

Meaning, most major media outlets in this country are in the back-pocket of the Obama administration. They drool over his "supreme" abilities as a fly killer while they refuse to ask tough questions of his policies nor coutner with balance, opposing viewpoints as a good reporter should.

Anyway, do you care to even address the points made in the article or not?
Wow. You're on an Obama hatefest(welcome back)

Of course you're still a wacky troll.
But I missed you.
This isn't the Nutjob that thought Palin would be a good President let alone a VP is it?

Nice derailment. Can we change your title to Senior Derailer? Maybe it could be Elite Senior Derailer if you keep this up.

This isn't the Nutjob that thought Palin would be a good President let alone a VP is it?
yes, one and the same!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The truth is that Obama will add more money to the nation's debt load than all previous Presidents, combined.
If he continues at a pace close to what he is now and makes it through two terms, this is true. As I've said before Bush was terrible with money but I never believed Obama's budgets could be worse. I thought there's no way, but here it is.

Funny, Reagan did that for less reason, and he's a Republican saint. Raise the issue, and the righties would try to parrot 'percent of GDP' propaganda and defend the spending.