Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ?Unsustainable?

[JS80]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Let depression happen, or spend our way out. Both Bush and Obama's teams agreed that spending is the way to go.

You see, that's what you don't get. On one hand you're "angry about how we got here", yet you think spending our way out of it "is the way to go". The average American citizen is upside down and inside out of his own asshole in DEBT. The country, ditto. Yeah, spending is the solution :roll: . If you were so pissed about how we got here, you'd think you'd try to avoid some of the mistakes that got us here. That's why many economists, myself included, believe the recession is a necessary correction. EVERYBODY - companies, the government, and private citizens - need to stop spending money they don't have. I was very frustrated when Bush was touting yet another stimulus and asking people to go buy new cars, homes, and televisions. Screw that! PAY OFF YOUR DAMN CREDIT CARDS AND GET YOUR ASSES IN THE BLACK!!! Again, same goes for the gov't.

Originally posted by: retrospooty
I am alot more angry about how we got here than how we get out of it. I cant understand why you arent.

This statement doesn't even make sense. "Angry about how we get out of it." What? You really can't understand why people like me might be more interested in evaluating options than bitching and moaning about who we can blame this on? You really can't see how much more productive one is over the other? There's so much blame to go around that you can put it wherever you desire. At some point, you need to let it go and move forward. If you want to armchair quarterback and pull a Pelosi and put all of your energy into trying to hang this whole mess around one man's neck, that's your business, but it's a wasteful, ignorant stance to take.

The thing is, "spend our way out," or stimulus, theoretically can work. However, in an extremely leveraged environment, stimulus just exacerbates the situation (i.e. you are levering more on top of your leverage, which will inevitably blow up due to volatility). In this leveraged environment, the best thing to do for the future is to deleverage and change our behavior going forward.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Let depression happen, or spend our way out. Both Bush and Obama's teams agreed that spending is the way to go.

You see, that's what you don't get. On one hand you're "angry about how we got here", yet you think spending our way out of it "is the way to go". The average American citizen is upside down and inside out of his own asshole in DEBT. The country, ditto. Yeah, spending is the solution :roll: . If you were so pissed about how we got here, you'd think you'd try to avoid some of the mistakes that got us here. That's why many economists, myself included, believe the recession is a necessary correction. EVERYBODY - companies, the government, and private citizens - need to stop spending money they don't have. I was very frustrated when Bush was touting yet another stimulus and asking people to go buy new cars, homes, and televisions. Screw that! PAY OFF YOUR DAMN CREDIT CARDS AND GET YOUR ASSES IN THE BLACK!!! Again, same goes for the gov't.

Originally posted by: retrospooty
I am alot more angry about how we got here than how we get out of it. I cant understand why you arent.

This statement doesn't even make sense. "Angry about how we get out of it." What? You really can't understand why people like me might be more interested in evaluating options than bitching and moaning about who we can blame this on? You really can't see how much more productive one is over the other? There's so much blame to go around that you can put it wherever you desire. At some point, you need to let it go and move forward. If you want to armchair quarterback and pull a Pelosi and put all of your energy into trying to hang this whole mess around one man's neck, that's your business, but it's a wasteful, ignorant stance to take.

dood, you're taking things way too far, injecting scenarios that didnt happen. All I am saying is Both Bush and Obama's teams agreed that spending is the way to go. I obviously get that alot of people disagree. I personally would have went somewhere in the middle, and done smaller stim packs, and less bailout... But you know what? I am also able to get something that you dont seem to... That maybe, just maybe the current and previous presidents of the USA and their collective teams might, just might have a BIT more information than you and I are aware of... You think that might be possible? Or are you that sure that you know everything via the internet?

 

[Genx87]

The 1990s saw a huge expansion of our economy + confidence in the dollar + confidence in the entire nation. We ran very small deficits and budget surpluses.

Any coincidence the following decade has been stagflation\low confidence when the govt runs massive deficits???

I am trying to figure out how this massive spending is going to help us long term. Even Obama agree's with that that even if he is unwilling to make the decision to end the practive. But think about this. We are creating money hand over fist to pump into the economy. About 10 mins after the economy recovers that money shows up as inflation. The fed kicks in and raises rates to offset inflation which puts the brakes on the economy slowing growth. So what are we getting out of this excect a prolonged stagnant economy?

 

[Slew Foot]

The problem is that governmnets (Fed and states) are trying to live like its 2005. We had an UNSUPPORTABLE level of total spending then, largely due to easy credit on the consumer side. Now that easy consumer credit is gone, instead of trying to rebalance the economy at a level that is sustainable by the consumer, the government is making up for the lost consumer spending. This will eventually have to be repaid by the taxpaying consumer, taking away from future growth. Keeping in mind that the largest budget surplus in history was 250 billion at the height of the dotcom bubble, and we're running up 2 trillion in deficits this year alone. Rampant inflation is the only way the debt is being paid off, that is, if the government plans on paying it off at all.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Now can we deal in the present and concern ourselves with the terrible economic missteps being taken by TODAY'S president, or is your best solution - one so characteristic of your party's history - to live in the past and play an inconsequential blame game?

Absolutely... " terrible economic missteps" in your opinion. most top economists agree it had to be done given the situation we are currently in.

It's easy as hell for you to sit there, with no responsibility and say what should have been done. It's different when your the leader of the most powerful nation, and economy on Earth, and the entire country (and therefore much of the world) depends on your decisions. Can you even comprehend the weight of that?

I agree, the spending scares the hell out of me, but before you point the finger, think about what is at stake and the tough choices that have to be made.

What tough choices has Obama made? Pullout Iraq and get rid of spending over there? Increase tax? Reduce some of the bailouts? Reduce some social programs?

Even the single most significant spending of his budget, the bailout money, is focused on short term fixes/pains and not making the tough choices and invest in the US infrastructure or other things that will only show a return after his presidency.

Tough choices? I haven't see him make any.

Liststen to you... . When you have the worlds economy in your hands and the choices you have are basically to do nothing and let depression happen, or to spend trillions on stim packs - or pehaps do something somewhere in the middle, any way you go that is a tough choice. No logical thinking lib, con, dem or rep would argue that point. Only a partisaned hack could say its not a tough choice.

Nope, what you described is making a choice. An idiot or some guy with a dart can pick a choice. But making a tough choice is picking a choice that makes sense but may go against your political interest.

With the same stimulous package, China is buying metals and planning to build infrastructures but the US is putting money into ailing companies like big 3 and making sure the UAW which backs democrats is well taken care of when the whole country is deep in debt.

Yeap, tough choice indeed.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
dood, you're taking things way too far, injecting scenarios that didnt happen.

Such as?

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Both Bush and Obama's teams agreed that spending is the way to go.

Yet we've not seen any improvement, only worsening of the situation. At what point do you start to question the almighty Executive Branch?

Originally posted by: retrospooty
I personally would have went somewhere in the middle, and done smaller stim packs, and less bailout...

No. The problem is that if the bailout is too small, you waste money and can't expect much of a return. If it's too large and the bailout/stim fails, then you waste a TON of money. There was never any reason to believe that these methods would have worked in our scenario because, as JS80 said, we're way too deep in the hole.

Originally posted by: retrospooty
But you know what? I am also able to get something that you dont seem to... That maybe, just maybe the current and previous presidents of the USA and their collective teams might, just might have a BIT more information than you and I are aware of

LMAO. Yeah, that's how we ended up in Iraq. That's how we ended up with mandatory lending to people who couldn't afford/didn't qualify to borrow. That's how we ended up with billions of flushed stimulus money and bailout money. I'm an analytical man by nature and trade and we can't trust most of these people to pay their own damn taxes or arrive at 4 when given 2+2, so forgive me for lacking the blind faith that you have. If you're not interested in thinking for yourself, why are you even participating in this discussion?

Or are you that sure that you know everything via the internet?

When did I assert this? I'm not allowed to have an opinion without being accused of nonsense like this? Take a hike, scooter.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: retrospooty
dood, you're taking things way too far, injecting scenarios that didnt happen.

Such as?

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Both Bush and Obama's teams agreed that spending is the way to go.

Yet we've not seen any improvement, only worsening of the situation. At what point do you start to question the almighty Executive Branch?

Originally posted by: retrospooty
I personally would have went somewhere in the middle, and done smaller stim packs, and less bailout...

No. The problem is that if the bailout is too small, you waste money and can't expect much of a return. If it's too large and the bailout/stim fails, then you waste a TON of money. There was never any reason to believe that these methods would have worked in our scenario because, as JS80 said, we're way too deep in the hole.

Originally posted by: retrospooty
But you know what? I am also able to get something that you dont seem to... That maybe, just maybe the current and previous presidents of the USA and their collective teams might, just might have a BIT more information than you and I are aware of

LMAO. Yeah, that's how we ended up in Iraq. That's how we ended up with mandatory lending to people who couldn't afford/didn't qualify to borrow. That's how we ended up with billions of flushed stimulus money and bailout money. I'm an analytical man by nature and trade and we can't trust most of these people to pay their own damn taxes or arrive at 4 when given 2+2, so forgive me for lacking the blind faith that you have. If you're not interested in thinking for yourself, why are you even participating in this discussion?

Or are you that sure that you know everything via the internet?

When did I assert this? I'm not allowed to have an opinion without being accused of nonsense like this? Take a hike, scooter.

wow... your way too intense for my level tonight, but I will try to rise up to it.

I have no faith in our govt. I think they are all a bunch of criminals in nice suits. Reps and dems alike - divide and conquer is the game they have mastered at our expense. They have most people arguing dem vs rep, left vs right. They distract us with divisive arguments - while both sides of the govt rob us blind. Its a giant scam machine that keeps on taking until people get angry enough, then they give back ever so slightly to appease us enough to not revolt. its been going on for at least the past 60 years, who knows how much longer. We live in a total scam state perpetrated by the powers that be. I also beleive that we are flouridated into appeasement and being less likely to rise up against what is going on, but that is a whole other story. THAT is my honest take on our govt. Is that independent thought enough for you?

Now, that ugliness aside, THIS thread is about a comment Obama made regarding the debt, and my point here was that the scary level of spending he is doing is not just for shits and giggles, its because of the current economic mess we are in. Now, our diabolical govt (reps and dems alike), greedy as it is, doesn't like bad economy, because they net less for themselves and will do anything they can to make more money. it serves their interests to solve the economy, and when just speaking about the current economic situation, spending our way out does solve the problem the best, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many many economists.

regardless, there is nothing you or I or any other peeons can do about it. If McCain won it would be the exact same, because he is a part of the same machine Obama, Bush Clinton and all the others are a part of. That is the world we live i. it sucks, but there are good things in life too... And even with all that crap going on, what country is better? none tha tI am aware of. Humanity is corrupt everywhere there are humans.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The 1990s saw a huge expansion of our economy + confidence in the dollar + confidence in the entire nation. We ran very small deficits and budget surpluses.

Any coincidence the following decade has been stagflation\low confidence when the govt runs massive deficits???

I am trying to figure out how this massive spending is going to help us long term. Even Obama agree's with that that even if he is unwilling to make the decision to end the practive. But think about this. We are creating money hand over fist to pump into the economy. About 10 mins after the economy recovers that money shows up as inflation. The fed kicks in and raises rates to offset inflation which puts the brakes on the economy slowing growth. So what are we getting out of this excect a prolonged stagnant economy?

Pretty much just a coincidence, yes. The US government ran deficits throughout the 90's, the US has had many periods in its history where the government has run colossal deficits with a roaring economy. (1940's, 1980's, etc.) Obama most certainly does not agree with spending now not helping us in the long term. That's the whole point of what he's doing. His statement was just a common sense idea that while extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, you can't be doing this every day.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nah. I havent seen anything that suggests he PLANS on continuing the current level of spending. HOWEVER....

We havent had a federal budget decrease from one year to the next since 1932, and I dont see Obama doing it. We will continue to see escalated federal spending. Which means really only one thing-increased taxes at some point.

lol your first blurb then your second are right on pretty funny well you think there is a snowballs chance in hell he will really cut the spending?

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
The 1990s saw a huge expansion of our economy + confidence in the dollar + confidence in the entire nation. We ran very small deficits and budget surpluses.

Any coincidence the following decade has been stagflation\low confidence when the govt runs massive deficits???

I am trying to figure out how this massive spending is going to help us long term. Even Obama agree's with that that even if he is unwilling to make the decision to end the practive. But think about this. We are creating money hand over fist to pump into the economy. About 10 mins after the economy recovers that money shows up as inflation. The fed kicks in and raises rates to offset inflation which puts the brakes on the economy slowing growth. So what are we getting out of this excect a prolonged stagnant economy?

Pretty much just a coincidence, yes. The US government ran deficits throughout the 90's, the US has had many periods in its history where the government has run colossal deficits with a roaring economy. (1940's, 1980's, etc.) Obama most certainly does not agree with spending now not helping us in the long term. That's the whole point of what he's doing. His statement was just a common sense idea that while extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, you can't be doing this every day.

Problem is it's common knowledge the things he's investing in aren't going to show a return on investment for at least 10-20 years, and any potential return has already been shown to be nullified by the interest payments we'll be making on this debt. He's plain wrong. Digitizing health records is not a "game changer". See United Kingdom for proof. They've spent 8 times what they estimated it was going to cost and they're only about 40% complete.

 

[IGBT]

it's ok. cap and trade will purge you of all your money and pay for the obama's recklessness.