Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents

[Geezah]

The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama's first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

That's a big increase. But compared with other presidents' first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.

Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.

The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam's tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.

Obama's first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton's eight years in office -- Clinton's spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.


Link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-shatters-spending-record-year-presidents/)

Good to see him spend our money and have nothing to show for it...

Just when is the stimulus supposed to kick in and create the jobs they harped on about but in Feb?

[budgie]

Awesome, isn't it?

[Dave242]

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.


Might be ture, but when Obama took power he had to bale out the Banks!! over the mess that GB left and kick start the economy??

Dave

[shocker1]

Might be ture, but when Obama took power he had to bale out the Banks!! over the mess that GB left and kick start the economy??

Dave
Banks which were investment banks which upon repeal of Glass Steagall were allowed to become commercial banks as well. Opening the way for trillions in worthless derivatives which became the governments problem because commercial banks are protected. Who was the main proponent haggling congress to repeal Glass Steagall? Larry Summers, and the cronies from Goldman Sachs who used this to gooble up Bear Sterns precipitating the fall when they decided to call in the derivatives they themselves created and sold. Get your facts straight, this admin as well as Bush Clinton ect pay homage to the Goldman Sachs cronies who received bail out funds but mysteriously were not part of the regulatory requirements of such funds. This partisan bull**** you guys engage in is part of the problem wake the **** up.

I could go on but you hacks don't care, it's all about my team is the saviour your team sux right? Remember the fantastic 90's? We are paying the bill now.


If you want to see the criminal history here you go, best report on this so far.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

[Manc]

Beer and crisps please...

[seraosha]

This partisan bull**** you guys engage in is part of the problem wake the **** up.


woot
12345678

[Hilbert]

Congratulations are in order Mr. Obama.

I've said it many times and I stand by it, the only change you get with Obama is a change of skin color, age, personal and party name; everything else is business as usual. And the Republicans are no better. Both parties can be thanked, and a very special thanks given to Congress, for outrageous spending and the economic problems we have. But, of course, we will continue to vote these partisan jokers in and the process will repeat itself; and I suppose the bulk of people will simply, as Shocker said, cling to and hide behind the banner of one party and blame the other for all our woes.

To be honest, the whole situation would be downright hilarious if it wasn't the future of our country at stake and being treated with less care than a child's toy.

[shocker1]

No rebuttals to my post? Ha

[FlintHillBilly]

Just when is the stimulus supposed to kick in and create the jobs they harped on about but in Feb?

According to them it already has......

[MichaelF]

NASA budget:

US$17.6 billion (FY 2009)

Out of US$3.5 trillion....

Way to plan ahead, guys.

[Jobu]

Wow, I wonder why nobody warned us that Obama + Reid + Pelosi = spending the likes of which we'd never imagined?

[bono]

Thats not quite right. Both parties drink from the same well, both parties are responsible for repeal of Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall saved us from 1930s type disaster for decades because its based on simple common sense. The banks that accept savings for channelling into investments cannot be allowed to indulge in speculation, like a so called investment bank (speculation bank) does. Savings are the lifeblood of the economy, these savings cannot be used for making speculative trades, like these banks were doing in the real estate bubble trying to make billions. If anyone believes that Glass-Steagall will come back, he or she might stock up on KoolAid at Sam's Club.






Banks which were investment banks which upon repeal of Glass Steagall were allowed to become commercial banks as well. Opening the way for trillions in worthless derivatives which became the governments problem because commercial banks are protected. Who was the main proponent haggling congress to repeal Glass Steagall? Larry Summers, and the cronies from Goldman Sachs who used this to gooble up Bear Sterns precipitating the fall when they decided to call in the derivatives they themselves created and sold. Get your facts straight, this admin as well as Bush Clinton ect pay homage to the Goldman Sachs cronies who received bail out funds but mysteriously were not part of the regulatory requirements of such funds. This partisan bull**** you guys engage in is part of the problem wake the **** up.

I could go on but you hacks don't care, it's all about my team is the saviour your team sux right? Remember the fantastic 90's? We are paying the bill now.


If you want to see the criminal history here you go, best report on this so far.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

[Soldat_Américain]

I like how everyone thinks that the bail outs that began under Bush's last months and then continued under Obama's first months and then the spending would just happen under a Democratic administration. Hello Republicans haven't been about small government since Hoover.

[Connaught Ranger]

Oh noes its another bash Obama thread must be all of 5 mins since the last one:roll:

[sepheronx]

The thing is, if Obama did not bail out these banks, wouldn't the US be in a lot bigger trouble?

Yeah, inflation hits, yes you run out of funds, but it comes back.

[Soldat_Américain]

He didn't bail out the banks, his predecessor did.

[shocker1]

Ignorance reins.....

Thats not quite right. Both parties drink from the same well, both parties are responsible for repeal of Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall saved us from 1930s type disaster for decades because its based on simple common sense. The banks that accept savings for channelling into investments cannot be allowed to indulge in speculation, like a so called investment bank (speculation bank) does. Savings are the lifeblood of the economy, these savings cannot be used for making speculative trades, like these banks were doing in the real estate bubble trying to make billions. If anyone believes that Glass-Steagall will come back, he or she might stock up on KoolAid at Sam's Club.
You said exactly what I said, but I'm not quite right? Did I say this act was coming back? Did I not implicate the last three admins and the congress of the 90' 2000's ect....????


I like how everyone thinks that the bail outs that began under Bush's last months and then continued under Obama's first months and then the spending would just happen under a Democratic administration. Hello Republicans haven't been about small government since Hoover.
More partisan hackery, all parties are different heads same snakes. READ POST


Oh noes its another bash Obama thread must be all of 5 mins since the last one:roll:
Oh yes bashing Obama how dare I. Yet I see little logical unbiased analysis in your short and meaningless post. What's new?

The thing is, if Obama did not bail out these banks, wouldn't the US be in a lot bigger trouble?

Yeah, inflation hits, yes you run out of funds, but it comes back.Tax payer exposure to derivatives market? 25trillion or so maybe. Watch provided link in previous post.


He didn't bail out the banks, his predecessor did.
Man up, wake the **** up from the left right school yard bull****.

[Geezah]

Oh noes its another bash Obama thread must be all of 5 mins since the last one:roll:

And the spending by the Obama administration affects you how????

You must be bored, this is not about colour so you can move along........

[budgie]

And the spending by the Obama administration affects you how????



Some of the the spending by the Obama admin has so far benefitted the world. Note I said 'so far'. The troubled financial institutions of Wall St are vital to the world economy and if they go down they drag everyone with them. First and foremost the US. Bailing them out was expensive but a necessary evil.

[bono]

Then why did they screw Bear Stern? all of them are same low down two bit speculators trying to make a buck at taxpayer's expense. The latest bubble is going to be the cap and trade carbon credits (CC) trading scam, these CC will be pumped up using media hype, later when the market busts, the same old "too big to fail" BS will be used to dump a few hundred billion taxpayer dollars at them so they can keep getting their billion dollar bonuses. It does'nt matter whether a republican or a democrat is in power at the time. I am amazed at the power of propaganda. "Too big to fail" woooohoooo. If CNN says something 50 times that obviously becomes the truth!

Below is the required reading before anyone can open their mouth about economic bubbles.

Inside The Great American Bubble Machine (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/inside_the_great_american_bubble_machine)






Some of the the spending by the Obama admin has so far benefitted the world. Note I said 'so far'. The troubled financial institutions of Wall St are vital to the world economy and if they go down they drag everyone with them. First and foremost the US. Bailing them out was expensive but a necessary evil.

[Havoc345]

You can thank Corporatism for this mess

[Alpheus]

The thing is, if Obama did not bail out these banks, wouldn't the US be in a lot bigger trouble?

Yeah, like how the stimulus kept unemployment under 8%. Oh, wait....

[Curtis E. Bear]

Better than the 15-20% unemployment that would have occurred.

[Chulo]

You can thank Corporatism for this mess
Yea, because human greed, inept governmental regulation and speculation had NOTHING to do with it. Down with Corporatism , up with the working class, take the money and spread it around!

[Soldat_Américain]

Man up, wake the **** up from the left right school yard bull****.

It started under the Honorable George W. Bush and continued under the Honorable Barack H. Obama. Bush knew he had to do something, and he rolled the dice and stemmed the tide of something that could have been worse even though it is still bad. However something I don't agree with is how we didn't let AIG fail, we'll never see that money again.

[Nano]

Better than the 15-20% unemployment that would have occurred.
Don't worry the official numbers are manipulated anyway. Truth be told even if they continue to manipulate them in the current manner consistently we'll hit 15-20% unemployment anyway. I'd say that in less than four years we'll hit 15-20% officially. They simply spread the pain around so their friends can continue on with the easy money.

[shocker1]

It started under the Honorable George W. Bush and continued under the Honorable Barack H. Obama. Bush knew he had to do something, and he rolled the dice and stemmed the tide of something that could have been worse even though it is still bad. However something I don't agree with is how we didn't let AIG fail, we'll never see that money again.
You are ignoring facts. Why?? It started in the first half of the last century. Boom bust cycles with entities like Goldman Sachs blowing bubbles and profiteering from the carnage. Yet you think one man pulls these levers? Damnit why do I even bother. Brain washed into thinking that things would have been really bad but it is just bad which is better. No, imagine no bubbles which are created then busted. Watch the Frontline report, it is a start.

[Soldat_Américain]

You are ignoring facts. Why?? It started in the first half of the last century. Boom bust cycles with entities like Goldman Sachs blowing bubbles and profiteering from the carnage. Yet you think one man pulls these levers? Damnit why do I even bother. Brain washed into thinking that things would have been really bad but it is just bad which is better. No, imagine no bubbles which are created then busted. Watch the Frontline report, it is a start.

Facts...since when do we bring facts into this?! Now you're making me actually do work when I post! :) Yeah the first time the housing bubble burst and when the savings and loan in Illinois went up. Bad financial regulation and deregulation led to this crap, but the blame for the financial sector does not rest with this President or his predecessor...but some could definitely fall to Clinton. And unless Obama get strong financial regulation passed the blame for the next time the economy goes belly up can be placed on him.

[Connaught Ranger]

And the spending by the Obama administration affects you how????

You must be bored, this is not about colour so you can move along........

Hey t w a t , its a PUBLIC Forum, any member has a right to comment even a plastic yank like you, seeing you spend a lot of time Brit bashing! p-)

[Geezah]

Hey t w a t , its a PUBLIC Forum,

That it is, but when you post pointless drivel it wastes bandwidth!



any member has a right to comment

Yes they do, does that mean you will start posting pointless jpegs to back up your pointless posts?



even a plastic yank like you,

Plastic yank or not, I have 26yrs invested in the the UK and 13yrs here, and with my connections on both sides of the Atlantic, I would say I have some say in what takes place here and there. Plus I still get to claim my pension from the UK.



seeing you spend a lot of time Brit bashing! p-)

Do I spend alot of time Brit bashing or do I attack the things that have had a direct affect on my life and the lives of my family and friends?

Before you jump to conclusions(which in your case requires no clue), why not stop for a minute and read the post you are most often responding to!

[Geezah]

While the stimulus spending for some is justified(as they put it) to bail out the banks, what about the other failed corporations that have had their hands out only to ask consistently for more money......i.e.GM?

And to those Libs that are defending this action and blame the beginning of the stimulus on President Bush, in the eyes of those Libs, President Bush must be your secret hero?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

And the spending by the Obama administration affects you how????I will remember this statement when you launch one of your Lord Haw Haw attacks against the UK.p-)

[Connaught Ranger]

That it is, but when you post pointless drivel it wastes bandwidth!



Yes they do, does that mean you will start posting pointless jpegs to back up your pointless posts?



Plastic yank or not, I have 26yrs invested in the the UK and 13yrs here, and with my connections on both sides of the Atlantic, I would say I have some say in what takes place here and there. Plus I still get to claim my pension from the UK.



Do I spend alot of time Brit bashing or do I attack the things that have had a direct affect on my life and the lives of my family and friends?

Before you jump to conclusions(which in your case requires no clue), why not stop for a minute and read the post you are most often responding to!



Could

you

stretch

your

replies

out

longer

to

waste

more

band

width?

:roll:

[Geezah]

I will remember this statement when you launch one of your Lord Haw Haw attacks against the UK.p-)

Please do, because unlike quite a vocal few here, I have been affected directly by the Government here and the UK?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Please do, because unlike quite a vocal few here, I have been affected directly by the Government here and the UK?But you chose your country so your point is as valid as anyone else from US concerning the UK not more so. From your regular postings your political, national and religious affiliations gravitate around the USA not the UK.

[Nano]

It will be only a matter of time before some new stimulus package is revealed or added on to the existing hand out of crack.

[Soldat_Américain]

But you chose your country so your point is as valid as anyone else from US concerning the UK not more so. From your regular postings your political, national and religious affiliations gravitate around the USA not the UK.

You can have him back.

[Geezah]

But you chose your country so your point is as valid as anyone else from US concerning the UK not more so.

So the first 26yrs of my life are now null and void.

Might come as a shock but first hand experience cannot be ignored!

Maybe your point would apply in 14yrs time!



From your regular postings your political, national and religious affiliations gravitate around the USA not the UK.

True, but every now and again I like to travel down memory lane............

[Mackie]

Everyone blames Bush and Obama. What about Clinton or Reagan?
Or the friends of shareholder value leaving Harvard every year?

[Mastermind]

Hahahha...Blame the governments...blame the libs...blame the conservatives....but, in the end...there is really only one group to blame...the people.
People always get the governments and economies they deserve.

[shocker1]

Facts...since when do we bring facts into this?! Now you're making me actually do work when I post! :) Yeah the first time the housing bubble burst and when the savings and loan in Illinois went up. Bad financial regulation and deregulation led to this crap, but the blame for the financial sector does not rest with this President or his predecessor...but some could definitely fall to Clinton. And unless Obama get strong financial regulation passed the blame for the next time the economy goes belly up can be placed on him.
Ok bro, you're getting better but a President can only do so much. International bankers using the Fed are draining the wealth from our nation. Via the decline of the dollar and complicated schemes using tax funds. It is much bigger than one man/woman. It's not a matter of more or less regulation as it is the definition of the regulations, who writes them and the backdoors they supply through them. We are in deep **** and I doubt Obama or anyone else is capable or even willing to crack down on the crooks.

Did you watch the frontline report? If so you should be waking up about now.p-)

[budgie]

While the stimulus spending for some is justified(as they put it) to bail out the banks, what about the other failed corporations that have had their hands out only to ask consistently for more money......i.e.GM?

And to those Libs that are defending this action and blame the beginning of the stimulus on President Bush, in the eyes of those Libs, President Bush must be your secret hero?

What has America ever done but bail out big corporations and prop up the firms of their lobbyists with government spending? People like wo complain about 'socialized medicine' when the President tries something so practical, albeit altruistic, as trying to get health cover for every single America, but they ignore the corporate socialism that has been going on for decades. The bailouts and stimulus and even the watered down 'Obamacare' are all continuations of this. So are many farm subsidies: a handy for of socialism without which, many GOP supporters would go out of business.

Dude this is nothing new to America. 'Socialism' has been part of the system since at least the last depression. Just that each side likes to complain when the other is getting its share of the pie.

[Chulo]

What has America ever done but bail out big corporations and prop up the firms of their lobbyists with government spending? People like wo complain about 'socialized medicine' when the President tries something so practical, albeit altruistic, as trying to get health cover for every single America, but they ignore the corporate socialism that has been going on for decades. The bailouts and stimulus and even the watered down 'Obamacare' are all continuations of this. So are many farm subsidies: a handy for of socialism without which, many GOP supporters would go out of business.

Dude this is nothing new to America. 'Socialism' has been part of the system since at least the last depression. Just that each side likes to complain when the other is getting its share of the pie.
What exactly is corporate socialism?

[RICHICOQUI]

What exactly is corporate socialism?Fascism?! It somewhat like that

[bono]

Welfare for billionaires (http://stanleybing.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/09/19/welfare-for-wall-street/).


What exactly is corporate socialism?

[eATS]

http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html

[Chulo]

Fascism?! It somewhat like that



Welfare for billionaires (http://stanleybing.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/09/19/welfare-for-wall-street/).
I asked my question to budgie's statement that:

... but they ignore the corporate socialism that has been going on for decades. The bailouts and stimulus and even the watered down 'Obamacare' are all continuations of this. So are many farm subsidies: a handy for of socialism without which, many GOP supporters would go out of business.

I was just wondering what the "decades of corporate socialism" were.
Corporate socialism is an oxymoron, and when used is in refrence to the takeover of an industry/company by a government because it was "too big to fail" or in interest of national interest. Such a move is not compatable when corporatism is an analogy for capitalism.
Read your own article again bono


"Corporate socialism" -- the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct -- is displacing capitalist canons. This condition prevents an adaptable capitalism, served by equal justice under law, from delivering higher standards of living and enlarging its absorptive capacity for broader community and environmental values. Civic and political movements must call for a decent separation of corporation and state.

[Mastermind]

^^Corporate socialism has been going on forever in USA. Most damaging, however, are the massive free tax laws that favored corporations receive for campaign assists...take for example, the Tyson chicken deal the Clinton's bestowed on Tyson. That crap goes on all the time.

When Bill Gates suddenly genuflected against the Dems, they suddenly quit shielding his corporation from all the anti-trust suits. The sheit hit the fan as paybacks...not becsue he was doing wrong.

Look at the massive "corporate welfare" our senators gave corporations and entire industries with the overseas employment tax relief. The excuse was, if you build plants overseas and help make jobs for millions of underpriveleged people we will give you tax breaks...ie, free taxes on the dough you earn and free imports (that was pre-NAFTA)...the idea was it would stop illegal immigration. That was crap from the time it was conceived...it was nothing at all but a way for the government to look the other way on offshore manufacturing and re-importing the goods at the destruction of American home based labor...it was the way the corporations used the government to bust the unions chops.

I had a friend who developed a new way to process bulk milk...it was revolutionary and could save billions in milk handling, transportation and processing. But, until he paid a U.S. Senator $150,000.00 he was denied FDA approval. He was guided to the Senator by the officials in the FDA.....the day after he handed over the cash to the Senator, the FDA approved his process. That was not in 1965...that was in 1998! That's how tight the government and the corporations are...to hell with what is good for the USA or the people...it is ntohing at all but what you see every day in media headlines...AIG, GM, Chrysler, B of A...you name it...if it works in America...it's part of the system. If it is let to fail....it has pissed someone off.

[Chulo]

^^Corporate socialism has been going on forever in USA. Most damaging, however, are the massive free tax laws that favored corporations receive for campaign assists...take for example, the Tyson chicken deal the Clinton's bestowed on Tyson. That crap goes on all the time.

When Bill Gates suddenly genuflected against the Dems, they suddenly quit shielding his corporation from all the anti-trust suits. The sheit hit the fan as paybacks...not becsue he was doing wrong.

Look at the massive "corporate welfare" our senators gave corporations and entire industries with the overseas employment tax relief. The excuse was, if you build plants overseas and help make jobs for millions of underpriveleged people we will give you tax breaks...ie, free taxes on the dough you earn and free imports (that was pre-NAFTA)...the idea was it would stop illegal immigration. That was crap from the time it was conceived...it was nothing at all but a way for the government to look the other way on offshore manufacturing and re-importing the goods at the destruction of American home based labor...it was the way the corporations used the government to bust the unions chops.

I had a friend who developed a new way to process bulk milk...it was revolutionary and could save billions in milk handling, transportation and processing. But, until he paid a U.S. Senator $150,000.00 he was denied FDA approval. He was guided to the Senator by the officials in the FDA.....the day after he handed over the cash to the Senator, the FDA approved his process. That was not in 1965...that was in 1998! That's how tight the government and the corporations are...to hell with what is good for the USA or the people...it is ntohing at all but what you see every day in media headlines...AIG, GM, Chrysler, B of A...you name it...if it works in America...it's part of the system. If it is let to fail....it has pissed someone off.
Yes, but what you describe is called fraud, corruption and mismanagement. Not really "Corporate socialism". Corporate socialism would be the federal Government's takeover of GM for example.

[Mastermind]

Yes, but what you describe is called fraud, corruption and mismanagement. Not really "Corporate socialism". Corporate socialism would be the federal Government's takeover of GM for example.
When it has become so pervasive it is actually the norm...it's pretty much part of the government...not one single US business of any critical size is immune to it.

When it is so huge the sitting elected officials pass such things into law routinely...it is Corporate Welfare on a grand scale. It is corruption only when it is illegal...it may be immoral, it may be unjust...but it is legal and it is the way government and business do business.

[Havoc345]

Yea, because human greed, inept governmental regulation and speculation had NOTHING to do with it. Down with Corporatism , up with the working class, take the money and spread it around!

Corporatism is everything you outlined above in the first sentence, I'm a Libertarian so I'm for the free market and against the stimulus and corporate welfare.

[SilentType]

Too much government allows power to be centered in the hands of the few. This creates the ideal climate for corruption and allows corporate welfare, because the corporations only need a few people in government to help them game the system for their benefit.

I mean really who pays attention to an earmark for some corporate farm or grant to some drug company? Nobody.

Who follows what latest communication bill amendment was added? Nobody.

Heck, we're all too busy trying to live our lives to police politicians over every little thing. Those little things though add up to billions. Then the politicians vote themselves more power so that those billions can add up to trillions. The politicians need more money to stay in power. For example, the last Presidential Election spent more than a Billion Dollars between the two candidates. Amazing. So they do what they have to do to get more money they grab more power and bring the money to them in exchange for shelling out our money they have authority over.

Now unfortunately we'll always have some level of corruption. No government on earth that is run by man can eliminate all corruption, but we can certainly reduce it. Have to decentralize power in the Federal Government. We simply can't police it ourselves even with 24 hour cable news.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-shatters-spending-record-year-presidents/)

Good to see him spend our money and have nothing to show for it...

Just when is the stimulus supposed to kick in and create the jobs they harped on about but in Feb?

Well to be fair his had to bail out the banks, car makers and insurnance companies. Spend billions in others to keep the economy propped up.

It's a non news really

[Curtis E. Bear]

Corporatism is everything you outlined above in the first sentence, I'm a Libertarian so I'm for the free market and against the stimulus and corporate welfare.

Lol @ Austrian economics. Austrian economists have successfully predicted 10 out of the last 2 recessions. Seriously though, in this day and age, pure Austrian economics is not a good idea.

[shocker1]

Well to be fair his had to bail out the banks, car makers and insurnance companies. Spend billions in others to keep the economy propped up.

It's a non news really
Really now. 65,000 people applied for 2000 jobs at VW in a city of 250,000. Do you work for Goldman Sachs? Gold at $1100 per ounce? Delayed inflation due to glutinous money supply off set with low interest rates=hyperinflation when the dam breaks. How are things for you in the US economy, oh yeah that's right you have no clue. US taxpayer liable for around $25,000,000,000,000 in worthless derivatives, FDIC several hundred billion in the red, other liabilities over $100,000,000,000,000. Oh yeah it's a Democrat in office so it's righteous. Yeah this is non news, move along.

[TallGuy]

Too much government allows power to be centered in the hands of the few. This creates the ideal climate for corruption and allows corporate welfare, because the corporations only need a few people in government to help them game the system for their benefit.

Here it was the other way around. Too little government control resulted in a few private corporations owning most of the media, banks and service industries.
When the Government tried to issue a new bill to limit media ownership, the President vetoed it. This same President was often overseas promoting these private corporations and he even used their private jets a few times...

[Geezah]

Well to be fair his had to bail out the banks, car makers and insurnance companies. Spend billions in others to keep the economy propped up.

No he didn't.

Ford was not helped out and they showed a profit for last quarter. Let them failand the Phoenix will rise out of the ashes.



It's a non news really

Is it, when so much money has been spent yet we have nothing to show for it.

[shocker1]

No he didn't.

Ford was not helped out and they showed a profit for last quarter. Let them failand the Phoenix will rise out of the ashes.



Is it, when so much money has been spent yet we have nothing to show for it.
It's not his money hence non news.

[budgie]

I asked my question to budgie's statement that:

I was just wondering what the "decades of corporate socialism" were.
Corporate socialism is an oxymoron, and when used is in refrence to the takeover of an industry/company by a government because it was "too big to fail" or in interest of national interest. Such a move is not compatable when corporatism is an analogy for capitalism.
Read your own article again bono

I don't see the oxymoron unless one blieves that the words corporation and socialist are polar opposites. Socialism in society has existed - by any other name - for time immemorial. From hunter-gatherers sharing their meat among the tribe, to governments spreading taxes around, the chiefs have always delegated down to the community.

When the government bails out big corporations (which is not something that just started last year BTW), when they offer tax breaks and subsidies, then the government is trying to manage the economy. In my eyes that is no different from offering subsidised public healthcare to individuals, but that gets blacklisted as socialism.

The free market has never, anywhere in the world, ever been truly free. There has always been top-down interference from the authorities - from medieval lords to current day Fed chairmen. But just because the government today in the US is dabbling in an area of the economy Republicans want left untouched, now, suddenly, its socialism? Pffft.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

No he didn't.

Ford was not helped out and they showed a profit for last quarter. Let them failand the Phoenix will rise out of the ashes.



Is it, when so much money has been spent yet we have nothing to show for it.

Then you lot will be having a cry because he didn't do enough to save jobs and ****

[Havoc345]

Lol @ Austrian economics. Austrian economists have successfully predicted 10 out of the last 2 recessions. Seriously though, in this day and age, pure Austrian economics is not a good idea.

Sure but excessive regulation and corporatism is much better for the market, didn't Keynesian economics end the great depression ? :roll:

[Curtis E. Bear]

Sure but excessive regulation and corporatism is much better for the market, didn't Keynesian economics end the great depression ? :roll:

It sure didn't. Neither did Austrian economics. Whilst the idea of it is really attractive, it's just not suitable in today's world. By totally freeing up the markets, having little government intervention and no monetary policy, you run the risk of super high unemployment and price voltility as consumers are fickle. While that may be the ideal according to the market, people will be protesting about the high unemployment and/or the increasing of prices. It's a no-win situation as people have learnt to rely on both fiscal and monetary policy to prop up the economy everytime it falls just that litle bit.

[Umbro2914]

people will be protesting .

impossible. Not in America. We are too apathetic. :|

[Soldat_Américain]

Sure but excessive regulation and corporatism is much better for the market, didn't Keynesian economics end the great depression ? :roll:

Yes it did in a way...WWII was Keynesian Economics when you look at it. But the 1st New Deal didn't do enough, however the 2nd New Deal was making a lot of gains before Roosevelt decided to mobilize for war in 1939.

[Mastermind]

Keynes was the boy genius who came up with the idea that government should spend money they do not have in order to stave off economic disaster and/or to excite the general business environment.

There is a limit, however. And, it is an unknown limit. It is like a cliff hidden in a fog.

Some previous Presidents groped for it and fortunately stopped short before finding it. Johnson chickened out while funding the Vietnam war...switching his funding for the war to borrowing the then known-to-be-safe Social Security funds.

Kissinger warned Nixon not to go too far for fear of hitting the unknown limits.

However, Obama is a huge fan of Keynesian economic theory and has rushed head long into it with no fear what-so-ever of hitting the edge of the cliff and dashing right over. Keynes theory itself does not mention the limit.

The suspected limits are based on the ratio of debt to the ability of the tax burden to pay off the interest (not the principle) on the debt. Right now, the interest on the US debt exceeds what is being collected.

Obama promised not to raise taxes on the 200 grand per year and less earners (pretty much the entire middle class)...huge mistake. If taxes are not raised across the board, and in a huge way, the "Cliff Edge has probably been gone over....we just have not hit the bottom yet.

Another theory says the edge is when the debt meets or exceeds the GDP...I think the 2008 GDP of the US was a little over 14 trillion. Last time I read about the debt and already committed programs to be paid by debt increases, it was right at 11.5 trillion (much more if you include the yet to be approved insane Government medical scam and far more when the thieving Cap and Trade is passed). As current recession dictates decrease of GDP, and massive Obama increases in Debt ceilings (which congress is expected to pass before the end of the year), we might expect the two lines to cross some time early next year if they have not already crossed.

The Chinese are terribly worried about this....it means, the only way out is massive inflation. The US will simply be forced to monetize the debt...which the Obama Admin has already begun in July,...a move that highly irritated the Chinese, since Obama had promised them the US would not do that only two weeks before it was done! That's another reason the Obama China visit this month was not something Obama cared to discuss in mixed company.

What the US is doing is very much like trying to prevent a serious hemorrhage by enthusiastically cutting more arteries. It is exactly in line with Keynesian logic.

Keynes was just another economist with another unproven theory.

And, you know what they say about theories...they are like A55-holes. Everybody has one.

[Jiggy]

WW3, here we come.

[brainplay]

But just because the government today in the US is dabbling in an area of the economy Republicans want left untouched, now, suddenly, its socialism? Pffft.

Dabbling is the understatement of the year. As you have already mentioned there has been some top down intervention. The difference is that this has always been treated as a bonus rather than a mandate. Its slowly been getting worse and its hard to have someone say no to "free" money. The Farm Bills are some of the worst Republican backed (albiet hugely bi-partisan) examples of this and is now verging on an entitlement.

However, today we're seeing this happen on a much greater scale, for larger sums, and higher stakes. Now its strictly in the liberal's hands and it will be setting precedents that are extremely hard to eliminate. But then even many liberals are coming to their senses and getting shaky feet as they are realizing the magnitude.

[Goggen]

WW3, here we come.

Countries will be more concerned with internal social upheaval than starting wars, most will probably be unable to start something even if they wanted to.

[Nano]

November 25, 2009
As Bank Failures Rise, F.D.I.C. Fund Falls Into Red

By ERIC DASH (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/eric_dash/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
The government-administered insurance fund that protects depositors fell into the red for the first time since the fallout from the savings-and-loan crisis of the early 1990s as the pace of bank failures accelerated.
The fund had a negative balance of $8.2 billion at the end of the third quarter, federal regulators said Tuesday (http://www2.fdic.gov/qbp/2009sep/qbp.pdf). Bank customers, however, should remain confident that their deposits would be protected since most of the amount reflects money that Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation has already set aside to cover the losses from future bank failures.
Officials of the F.D.I.C. said in October that the deposit insurance fund had been depleted, but the third-quarter report card on the banking industry issued on Tuesday was the first time that hard numbers had been released. Even amid early signs that the economy is recovering, the report suggested that the country’s 8,100 lenders remain in fragile condition.
In its state of the industry report, the F.D.I.C. reported that banks posted a $2.8 billion gain in the third quarter, after a $4.3 billion loss in the previous period. Meanwhile, the number of “problem banks” that run the biggest risk of collapse increased to 552, from 416 in the second quarter. The number of bad loans of nearly every stripe — credit cards, mortgages, small business and commercial real estate — continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace.
“The credit adversity we have been discussing for some time remains with us, and we expect it will be a couple of more quarters before we see a meaningful improvement in that trend,” said Sheila C. Bair (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/sheila_bair/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the F.D.I.C. chairwoman. “I am optimistic that if we address these problems head on, we will see clear signs of improvement in bank earnings and lending in 2010.
Even so, the number of bank failures will probably keep climbing. So far, the F.D.I.C. has seized and sold 124 banks in 2009, and analysts expect hundreds more to collapse in the months ahead. That has put significant pressure on the F.D.I.C. fund, which posted a negative balance for the first time since 1992 when regulators cleaned up the carnage from hundreds of failed thrifts and other commercial lenders.....The rest can be found at the link below

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/business/economy/25fdic.htmlThis article is a few days old, but given the issue we are talking about it be a good one to help put things into some perspective. It is obvious that the FDIC is going to start using a credit line down the road to cover their losses... I mean replenish their funds.

[budgie]

Dabbling is the understatement of the year. As you have already mentioned there has been some top down intervention. The difference is that this has always been treated as a bonus rather than a mandate. Its slowly been getting worse and its hard to have someone say no to "free" money. The Farm Bills are some of the worst Republican backed (albiet hugely bi-partisan) examples of this and is now verging on an entitlement.

However, today we're seeing this happen on a much greater scale, for larger sums, and higher stakes. Now its strictly in the liberal's hands and it will be setting precedents that are extremely hard to eliminate. But then even many liberals are coming to their senses and getting shaky feet as they are realizing the magnitude.

Okay the scale is greater and it's nice to see people scrutinizing govt. spending. But it's still not socialism, or any new creeping red terror. It's an extension of business as usual.

[deagle]

isnt most of the budget still devoted to the DOD and GWOT that was started last administration ?

well, gotta spend money to make money right ? lol

but its only the first year, so we'll see.

[hell]

Funny how the Senate tried to filibuster the defense spending bill, especially when their counterparts in the House voted for it overwhelmingly. So much for Republican Senators standing by the troops.

[Mastermind]

Funny how the Senate tried to filibuster the defense spending bill, especially when their counterparts in the House voted for it overwhelmingly. So much for Republican Senators standing by the troops.
Now, is that a funny way to turn the tables. The reason the bill was being resisted was because of the massive pork installed in it by the Democrats in the house! This bill also had an very ominous adder that had been resoudingly and often defeated in the past on it's own...that would be the so-called "Hate Crimes" legislation. Since such nonsensical legalization, which works only to broaden the divides between races and various special interest groups complaining of mal-treatment by the rest of the people in this nation, could not stand on it's own merit....connivers against reason managed to slide it into the Defense Bill...lucky for them I suppose...but, very unfortunate for the people it is dubiously claimed to protect. Now, by law, they are different and must duly receive the protections of the state, whcih has shown itself incapable of protecting anything except after the disaster has happened.

Now, it is law of the land...Republicans had based their overt resistance to this bill for this very reason. But, now, less educated, less involved persons would merely be satisfied with parroting the usual issue of Democrat talking points and say,

"Oh, look..the Republicans tried to abandon the troops by resisting this bill that is so in love with them."

May heaven ease our disgust for the simple minded and the people of shallow insight.

[Chulo]

Funny how the Senate tried to filibuster the defense spending bill, especially when their counterparts in the House voted for it overwhelmingly. So much for Republican Senators standing by the troops.
humm yea

Defense budget pork: 2,966 items costing $11.1 billion


http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00171


OMG! not supporting the troops! The Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the bill because they were looking for a way to pay for their next election

[hell]

Now, it is law of the land...Republicans had based their overt resistance to this bill for this very reason. But, now, less educated, less involved persons would merely be satisfied with parroting the usual issue of Democrat talking points and say...

No, a less educated and less involved person would assume someone is a Democrat without asking and run with that assumption. From what I can tell, this challenge wasn't about morals, it was about trying to delay the vote on the healtcare bill, another POS we don't need. If Dems had pulled this, everyone would be screaming they are endangering the troops. I suppose as long as it's members of the GOP that are doing it, they must be doing it for an entirely just cause :roll:



Defense budget pork: 2,966 items costing $11.1 billion


The Republicans didn't gripe when the Def. bill of 2008 had 447 earmarks totaling 7.6 billion: http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Defense_Authorization_earmarks.xls?docID=2261

or the Def. bill from 2006 which contained 2,822 items totaling 14.9 billion: http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006#defense

This is the same old garbage Obama said he would put an end to in his campaign, and it's another lie. They will keep making one appropriations bill after another that contains items that have nothing to do with that part of the budget, and Obama will continue to sign them. If they broke them into much smaller bills, they could easily get passage on a lot more bills, simply because you can get more votes on fewer line items without opposition for one particular item of contention.

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

Taken into account the situation America was in when he entered his presidency,
I wouldn't say it's his fault - granted he's made some major mistakes in my opinion.

[Geezah]

;4639270']Taken into account the situation America was in when he entered his presidency,

It was nowhere near the State it's in now.



I wouldn't say it's his fault - granted he's made some major mistakes in my opinion.

I would. The stimulus was pushed through to keep unemployment below 8%, and was supposed to create jobs. Well, we're over 10% in umeployment, the job market is looking bleak unless you work in the Government sector and now they want to push another stimulus package to create jobs.
The Dems are spending my money left right and center and we have fcuk all to show for it!

[SilentType]

I like how everyone thinks that the bail outs that began under Bush's last months and then continued under Obama's first months and then the spending would just happen under a Democratic administration. Hello Republicans haven't been about small government since Hoover.

Republican Congress balanced the budget for the first time in decades and decades in the 90's and did a lot to rollback the welfare state.

Entitlement programs need to be cut. Nobody is going to do that though. It's sad, because the American people were originally against Medicare and Medicaid in polls at the time and they are against this national health care bill as well. Now though people favor Medicare and Medicaid, because they are so dependent on it. Like crack addicts, before they're addicted they probably think crack is bad and yet once addicted they can't put the pipe down.

The U.S. needs to put the pipe down.