# Irony Alert: Obama says US debt unsubstainable

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, May 15, 2009.

1. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
To Tiassa:

I liked your post 20 as think there is a lot of truth well said in it. I don't want the Republican party to collapse, but return to what it once was before its principles were scrapped in the interest of quick profits and / or fundamentalist religious support.

Perhaps the best way to achieve that (given the Rush Limbaugh & Sarha Palin influence) is to have the Libertarian party become the actual alternative to the Democrats. I do not know much about them, but what I do know reminds me much of what the Republicans once were, before they lost their way.

3. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
Too much has changed since then. Electric light, computers, all its political stances adopted by the Democratic Party after WWII; life is different now.

5. ### Buffalo RoamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
16,931
Still, as Obama said;

US debt unsustainable

and His new budget has just added 1.8 trillion to the deficit, yes, and Obama and the Democrats aren't through yet, and those numbers are from the CBO, about as non partisan as you can get in Washington.

Even the Democrats want to use it's numbers when it agrees with them.

Now for next year's 2010 budget deficit, it is estimated to be $1.3 trillion, http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/44709102.html and we haven't even started to pay off this years 1.8 trillion dollar deficit, so that means the actual deficit by the end of 2010 will be 2.11 trillion dollars, and growing. Yes, really, 2.11 trillion dollars, devided by 240 million working tax payers, where does that leave the working man, and his family? how about the retirees? the poor? http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm In April, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major private-sector industries. Overall, private-sector employment fell by 611,000. Yes, today that's$186,717 per man, woman and child, and growing, so lets keep digging the hole, and pouring billions and trillions into Wall Street, instead of into main street, that is the Obama and the Democrats way.

Last edited: May 18, 2009

7. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Where were you these last eight year? Why were you supporting the party with your money and time who took us from a budget surplus to a trillion dollar plus deficit? Where were you when those same folks doubled the national debt? Where were you when those same folks took us to the largest economic disater since the Great Depression? After taking us into fiscal disaray and economic collapse, why should you be trusted now? What credibility do you have? NONE!

The same leaders you have supported, put in power, and led us to this miserable state; and you want to reward them with more money and continued loyalty. Now how stupid is that? And if that were not enough, you want to attack those who are doing everything humanly possible trying to rescue the economy and get fiscal stability restored to Washington. And attack the only party in Washington that has been able to restrain fiscal spending in Washington.

Why should any red blooded American take you seriously?

Last edited: May 18, 2009
8. ### PieAreSquaredWoo is resistant to reasonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,144
Oh I'm sure the senile ol' Sen. from Az would of done a much better job

9. ### Buffalo RoamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
16,931
And the leaders you have elected starting in 2006 haven't done a thing to slow the spending down one bit, so why should I (a red blooded American)take you seriously?

Were are you today, Obama as of today has just added 1.8 trillion dollars to the deficit, yes shovel ready projects, digging the hole deeper, this has nothing to do with Bush and his deficits, we are talking about Obama's present deficit, and those to come, were is the money for all of the new social spending coming from, and not one of those social programs passed by congress this year belong to Bush of the Republican, it is all Obama's and the Democrats.

Yes Bush spent into a deficit on social programs that are not Constitutional, and I didn't agree with that, I didn't agree with the Bail Out under Bush, and now Obama is spending at a even greater rate than anything during the Bush years, and putting the U.S. even further in debt and a rate that is exponential to anything from the Bush years.

This is 1932 again, and Obama and Democrats are trying to spend us out of a depression, it didn't work then, and even though we have spent trillions, and according to you and the left we need to spend even more, were are we headed?

Today we have spent far more than than FDR ever spent, and it is going to come around and bite us in about 10 to 18 month when inflation come from all the printed money in the economy.

Now just how are they going to control the inflation of a extra 1.8 trillion printed dollars poured on the economy? and in 10 to 18 months Obama and the democrats are on the path to add another 1.3 trillion to that deficit, now tell me how they are going to stop inflation?

Wage and price controls?

Remember Carter tried that, and Obama is already doing that.

Stop printing money? pull it out of the supply?

Then what happens?

A depression that will make the 1930tys look like a walk in the park.

Gee thanks joe, you have given me a lot of power and credit, were have I been for the last 8 years?

I have Screaming about all the Unconstitutional spending done by both the Republican and Democrats, yes joe read the Constitution, especially the IX and X Amendments, yes joe, the Constitution and the limits placed on the Federal Government by that Greatest Document of all time after the New Testament.

10. ### Buffalo RoamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
16,931
We were headed for the cesspool no matter who we elected, McCain for all the respect I have for him as a Military Man, and what He endured in Vietnam, would have just barely been better than Obama.

We are in a position today that was inevitable because of the last 77 years, and the fact that the IX and X Amendments to the Constitution have been ignored to the absolute detriment of our Country.

11. ### PieAreSquaredWoo is resistant to reasonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,144
the old poser from AZ who financial advisor's was Phil Graham.

So a bunch of blue hairs re-elected him over and over.. just like Barry Goldwater

He was a crappy pilot. Who rode on daddy's coat-tails. Just like the other idiot.

yeah we need more of the same

Good thing George "Bud' Day carried his ass. He was the real McCoy

12. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Buffalo Roam, you have done nothing but defend those that brought us to this state for the last several years. Only now have begun to mildly refute those individuals and only under duress.

Two you also knew that Obama inherited a MESS on all fronts from George II...not the least of which was the financial crisis and huge deficits both current and future years. Contrary to the Republican positions, Obama bears no magic wand. It will take time to fix these problems. Three, it has been pointed out many times that FDR was no where near as agressive with fiscal policy as Obama has been and that is why the depression was extended. It was only when WWII caused huge deficts and debt, did the economy really move into an agressive growth mode. And that is what Obama is trying to do.

Four, as he has stated numerous times, on the long term we have to get the financial picture back in line and that is why he is going after healthcare reform. Healthcare costs are near twenty percent of GDP and growing at a double digit rate...that is just not sustainable. And who is the biggest purchaser of healthcare services, The United States government.

13. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
37,433
If you say so ... but ....

A difficult assertion to support, especially in consideration of the fact the Rehnquist court, often viewed as liberal was known to cite these amendments in their decisions.

Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority in New York v. United States (1992), cited the Tenth as the basis of both parts of the Court's decision.

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Printz v. United States (1997), based the decision to overturn the Brady Law on the Tenth Amendment.

Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority in the famous Roe v. Wade (1973), affirmed the Ninth Amendment among those establishing the right to privacy.

Justice Stevens, dissenting in Watters v. Wachovia (2007), included a curious commentary at the end, endorsed by Chief Justice Roberts, among others: While the dissent agreed that the Tenth Amendment did not apply as asserted by the petitioner, they also chose to make specific note of it in relation to relevant arguments about pre-emption.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are very much alive.
____________________

Notes:

O'Connor, J. Sandra. "Opinion of the Court". New York v. United States. Supreme Court of the United States. June 19, 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed May 18, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-543.ZO.html

Scalia, J. Antonin. "Opinion of the Court". Printz v. United States. Supreme Court of the United States. June 27, 1997. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed May 18, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

Blackmun, J. Harry. "Opinion of the Court". Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court of the United States. January 22, 1973. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed May 18, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

Stevens, J. John Paul. "Dissent". Watters v. Wachovia. Supreme Court of the United States. April 17, 2007. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed May 18, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1342.ZD.html

14. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
It certainly does.

GWB’s huge deficits (borrowing from China to double the debt) is why I could predict US and EU were headed for depression three years before GWB left office! However, the US might have been able to recover from only that debt and increased interest burden, if GWB had not also gutted the regulations of the financial community and had the SEC turn a blind eye to even well documented abuses like Madoff. (In that case 22 points were submitted to the Boston SEC office with math analysis showing had to be a Ponsi scheme.)

Perhaps the US could even have survived doubled debt, deregulation and non-enforcement of the law by the SEC, etc., but with GWB’s tax relief for the already rich, and the associated “trickled down” to high rate of return investments opportunities in China ( ~4 times US growth rate), the hole just became too deep. The modern Chinese factories that FDI helped build have closed too many older factories in the US, killing too many jobs for Joe American. – That damage is long lasting – those factories will still be there after Obama is gone too. Now informed speculation is that after going bankrupt in US, GM may move its offices to China too. See: http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/05/18/general-motors-china/ (It has already sent some of the better managers and some manufacturing equipment to its Chinese plants from the US.)

For the US collapse, give credit where it is due. It was predictable three years before GWB left office. How could it be due to Obama? He is just following the widely accepted Keynesian prescription as to how to try to save an economy destroyed by the prior Republican administration. When GWB took office 72% of the US economy (GDP) was consumer based, but now with ~9% unemployment and lower purchasing power of the Joes that have not yet lost their jobs, the consumers can not support the economy. The Obama choice is either (1) let the economy collapse immediately into depression or (2) try to replace the reduced spending with government spending as Keynesians suggest. Which do you prefer?

Back when GWB still had years to go as POTUS and when I (and >90% of Americans) had never heard of Obama, I was 100% sure (and posted that prediction here) that the US would have (to quote you):

“A depression that will make the 1930tys look like a walk in the park.”

Because GWB and the “reward the rich” Republicans had dug the hole so deep. Now I am only about 90% sure that despite doing everything Keynesian economics requires, and inspiring many as Kennedy did, that depression is unavoidable.

SUMMARY: GWB’s policies not only made two recessions, doubled the debt, transferred wealth from Joe American to Daddy Warbucks, lowered the purchasing power Joe’s of salary, but also Republican “trickle down” help build the modern factories that put many Joes into the unemployed lines as theirs closed. More still to close as those factories in China are still producing. For example, the world’s first mass produced electric hybrid car.* Warren Buffett’s trickle down savings let him become owner of 10% of the NEW factory in China that makes this car, while GM and Chrysler close their factories.

All above thanks to GWB and the “serve the rich” “trickle down” Republicans. – Give credit where it is due.
Poor Warren - he has not been doing so well since Obama came to power. Obama will increase his taxes & lower taxes on 95% of the Joes. Let's all cry for him. :bawl:

*-----------