Interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal about running the numbers on our new budget and spending plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html
Taxing 100% of everybody over $75,000 wouldn't cover it
- Thread starter tsmooth
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
eknuds01
Well-known member
The amazing thing is just how de-sensitized we've come to these large numbers.
What's another 100 billion? Or Trillion for that matter?
Amazing.
What's another 100 billion? Or Trillion for that matter?
Amazing.
I for one am not de-sensitized, it scares the heck out of me. Bad thing is we have another few years of back to back to back spending sprees by the government.
I don't see anything that will prevent this... This is about Big Government, not stimulating the economy... every pet project is approved and they don't even give time to debate it... we and our children's children will regret these decisions
Kenscollick
Well-known member
Thankfully congress showed restraint and only spent $200,000 to study tatoo removal for LA gang members.
Yep! Damn shame Bush and his idiot Treasury Sec gave all those $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to the dip-$hit bankers (that were the major cause of our current economic meltdown) with no thought to even so much as monitoring how the money would be used. Taking care his super-rich pals to the very end...
I am so very thankful our Country is finally rid of that *#^$&(^%. It is still up in the air whether we will survive his reign...
Pcar928fan
Well-known member
Hey Len, did you somehow miss that Obama is deficit spending more than even Bush did or is it because he has a D after his name instead of an R that his spending habits are better? The deficit he has already agreed to is larger than any other ever, no matter how you slice it. Keep drinking that kool-aid!
Don't get me wrong, I am NO BUSH fan when it comes to the economy. He was as much a spender as any D president has ever been as well as a big government type. That is why I vote Libertarian anytime I can. Liberal on the freedom side, and conservative on the spending and government side! One or two generations from now we are looking at a $53 TRILLION tab that will come due in a VERY BIG WAY! Hell, I probably won't even be around then, but woe to the people who are!
Don't get me wrong, I am NO BUSH fan when it comes to the economy. He was as much a spender as any D president has ever been as well as a big government type. That is why I vote Libertarian anytime I can. Liberal on the freedom side, and conservative on the spending and government side! One or two generations from now we are looking at a $53 TRILLION tab that will come due in a VERY BIG WAY! Hell, I probably won't even be around then, but woe to the people who are!
OK -- you hate Democrats. I get that.
Now, if had been up to me, I quite likely would have let the banks and those wall street institutions simply fail -- just cease to exist. Of course, there would have been some side-effects...but I guess we would not have had the massive deficits...and a whole lot of investors (guess you're not one of THOSE) would have lost a lot of their money, if not their life savings (like those swindlers that continue to make the nightly news).
Actually, economists are pretty well united that BOTH Bush and Obama did / are doing the right thing to prop up our financial institutions, for the sake of our Country. Bush was (consistently) either stupid or neglectful (or more likely, both) in that there was a total absence of oversight -- just "please take our money" -- "give out them bonuses to all the folks who ran things into the ground" etc, etc, etc...
Am I angry? Oh, yeah, big time! Do I think Obama is doing the best things to reverse the slide and get things moving in the right direction again? Well, to quote that darling of the Republicans: "You Betcha!"
mcmd
Well-known member
Len,
This is factually incorrect. It was Congress who failed to address oversight when it drafted the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Regrettably, this is only one of the unintended consequences of legislation that is written quickly and without the proper committee processes applied....
...kind of like the recently passed, 1100-page $1 trillion dollar "stimulus package", which was not read by any lawmaker prior to voting on it.
What we've done is morally corrupt, passing the costs of our folly to future generations.
How interesting that ONE of the politically parties never had any concern whatsoever regarding last-minute insertions into huge bills OR for bi-partisanship -- until NOW!
It seems that all those turkeys want to do now is play politics. John Bohner needs to recall how things were when the Rs rode roughshod over the Ds during the Shrub years. Hopefully, that will NEVER happen again.
BTW, as Michael Kinsley pointed out last week, the strategy recognizes the high inflation that is coming, so at least we will be able to pay this off in, um, dollars of a different value...
Do I like the huge debt? No. But it ought to be fair play on all sides!
Just some more quotes to ponder as we are on the topic of the banking system.
The excerpts below are from "The Obama-Fannie-Freddie Connection" by OT Hill.
When President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson to serve as Treasury Secretary, Republicans raised a red flag that Paulson, who, along with his wife, has strong ties to the Democrat party, would not be an honest broker with Republicans.
That seems to have been borne out, with sources inside of Treasury reporting that Paulson briefed Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign advisers on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout plan before offering such a briefing to the McCain campaign.
In fact, the McCain campaign had sought a similar briefing several days ago as word spread that a bailout plan was to be unveiled and had been turned down by Paulson’s senior staff.
The next question is: Why was the Obama campaign so keen on getting advanced word about the bailout?
“They have a huge problem with the mortgage and housing market story, and everyone is missing it,” says a Republican political media consultant with ties to the Obama campaign due to the bipartisan nature of the firm he does work with.
“You look at Obama’s economic advisers, the guys he has counted on from day one and who have raised him a ton — and I mean a ton — of money: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of them are waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle.”
Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.
“How can Obama go out with a straight face and say it was Republicans who made this mess, when it is his key advisers who ran the agencies that made the big mess what it is?” says a Democrat House member who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “It’s his people who are responsible for what may well be the single largest government bailout in history. And every single one of them made millions off the collapse that are lining Obama’s campaign coffers. If the McCain campaign lets this one go, they deserve to lose.”
It isn’t just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae.
Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.
“We ought to be able to — rightly — hang the Fannie and Freddie scandal around the neck of Obama, if they can get out in front,” says a House Republican. “Middle-class folks’ mortgages are probably safe, but the American taxpayer will also be paying for this scandal for years to come.”
The excerpts below are from "The Obama-Fannie-Freddie Connection" by OT Hill.
When President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson to serve as Treasury Secretary, Republicans raised a red flag that Paulson, who, along with his wife, has strong ties to the Democrat party, would not be an honest broker with Republicans.
That seems to have been borne out, with sources inside of Treasury reporting that Paulson briefed Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign advisers on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout plan before offering such a briefing to the McCain campaign.
In fact, the McCain campaign had sought a similar briefing several days ago as word spread that a bailout plan was to be unveiled and had been turned down by Paulson’s senior staff.
The next question is: Why was the Obama campaign so keen on getting advanced word about the bailout?
“They have a huge problem with the mortgage and housing market story, and everyone is missing it,” says a Republican political media consultant with ties to the Obama campaign due to the bipartisan nature of the firm he does work with.
“You look at Obama’s economic advisers, the guys he has counted on from day one and who have raised him a ton — and I mean a ton — of money: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of them are waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle.”
Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.
“How can Obama go out with a straight face and say it was Republicans who made this mess, when it is his key advisers who ran the agencies that made the big mess what it is?” says a Democrat House member who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “It’s his people who are responsible for what may well be the single largest government bailout in history. And every single one of them made millions off the collapse that are lining Obama’s campaign coffers. If the McCain campaign lets this one go, they deserve to lose.”
It isn’t just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae.
Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.
“We ought to be able to — rightly — hang the Fannie and Freddie scandal around the neck of Obama, if they can get out in front,” says a House Republican. “Middle-class folks’ mortgages are probably safe, but the American taxpayer will also be paying for this scandal for years to come.”
OK, Never mind. You clearly are not up to a serious discussion -- just hatred for Democrats / Obama / Clinton -- whatever.
OT Hill is a rash rag with ZERO credibility (where DO they get their lying crap -- Rush?). I am surprised that anyone would deem to quote from it, inasmuch I know of no one that takes such blather seriously. I have seldom been subjected to such a tortured twisting of facts.
Anyway, minds are made up I guess. I think I am done here. Please, no personal offense intended.
Important thing is the good guys won, and, especially, Shrub is GONE!!!!!
OT Hill is a rash rag with ZERO credibility (where DO they get their lying crap -- Rush?). I am surprised that anyone would deem to quote from it, inasmuch I know of no one that takes such blather seriously. I have seldom been subjected to such a tortured twisting of facts.
Anyway, minds are made up I guess. I think I am done here. Please, no personal offense intended.
Important thing is the good guys won, and, especially, Shrub is GONE!!!!!
kwr
Well-known member
I suppose there is no chance of the banks being nationalised so the rest of the world can get moving again - extraordinary solutions for extraordinary times.
The banking construct has demonstrably failed and needs to be realigned with a social agenda to stabilise the world's economy and then be allowed to pursue a sensible profit agenda i.e. prudent investment in real profit potential not the charging of fees to shift money as the dominant business model.
I have become insensible to the conservatives saying you don't understand - trouble is many understand the simplicity of the current situation and that is greed on many levels.
Throwing the problem to future generations with huge bailouts is symptomatic of the general greed is good mantra. The current generation will have to wear the problem and I think it will require a major philosophical realignment.
The conservative driven model has failed. I still do not understand why the architects of the failed banking model are still at the helm directing taxpayer funds for "recovery". False prophets delivering false profits and they are still there.
Banking is like electricity, water and insurance - far too important to allow profit to be the sole regulator of a success or failure.
Kevin
The banking construct has demonstrably failed and needs to be realigned with a social agenda to stabilise the world's economy and then be allowed to pursue a sensible profit agenda i.e. prudent investment in real profit potential not the charging of fees to shift money as the dominant business model.
I have become insensible to the conservatives saying you don't understand - trouble is many understand the simplicity of the current situation and that is greed on many levels.
Throwing the problem to future generations with huge bailouts is symptomatic of the general greed is good mantra. The current generation will have to wear the problem and I think it will require a major philosophical realignment.
The conservative driven model has failed. I still do not understand why the architects of the failed banking model are still at the helm directing taxpayer funds for "recovery". False prophets delivering false profits and they are still there.
Banking is like electricity, water and insurance - far too important to allow profit to be the sole regulator of a success or failure.
Kevin
Len, while I hope you're right, one thing I've learned after 55 years on this planet........... don't go out and put the "white hat" on him just yet !
mcmd
Well-known member
For the good of our country and the decorum of the board, my thanks.
Like the dot com bubble and housing bubble delusions before it, we will all pay the price for today's delusion/hysteria that a society can borrow and spend its way into prosperity.
Thanks for the spirited intercourse.
Len, Relax... Telling people that they are not up for a serious discussion and then saying no offense, doesn't work.
We get it, your opinion is wide open and our minds are made up.. you obviously have a fascination about Bush, whereas Barney Frank and Congress had no hand in this mess. But let's focus on what is happening, not your view of what happened.
The fact remains that Obama Robin Hood is spending irresponsibly, with no hope, even with stagflation, to cover the bill.
We fought wars to stop the spread of socialism and now it's happening within our own country.
Similar threads
