Will Bain be the Bane of Mitt?

[Tim]

I think you might have your facts wrong on the debt and who is responsible...




And let's see where the debt came from





So where is this massive debt that President Obama has imposed on our children?


You can't just sit there and say we are in massive debt and it's Obama's fault without KNOWING where the debt actually came from, right?

 

[UncleBacon]

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/201008_blog_dehaven122.jpg

theirs a graph for you saying the exact opposite...it also include projections

 

[UncleBacon]

anyone can find graphs theirs 10 more just like that and more detailed I just grabbed the first one...please tell me what has he done that's good

 

[UncleBacon]

 

[UncleBacon]

Obama v Bush - Budget Deficits

Jim Treacher puts numbers and a graph to a conversation I'm familiar with:
A simple five-step process for understanding the deficit and people's reactions to it

1) Read a story on the Obama administration's pledge to reduce the deficit. Pay special attention to quotes like this:

"We wanted to draw a line in the sand and enforce some discipline in the spending process," White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said.​

2) Say: "Wow, they sure are spending a lot. Why didn't they reduce it by not increasing it so much in the first place? I'm no economist or anything, but I'm not so sure I like this whole deal."
3) Listen to Obama defender screech: "HOW COME YOU NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT BUSH'S SPENDING, WINGNUT???"
4) Show the Obama defender this graph, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office:
5) Repeat as needed, i.e., every single time it comes up.
​

 

[UncleBacon]

The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56

By Terence P. Jeffrey
April 18, 2012
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts





President Obama shakes hands with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at the State of the Union Address, Jan. 25, 2012. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com)- In the 39 months since Barack Obama took the oath of office as president of the United States, the federal government’s debt has increased by $5,027,761,476,484.56.
Although he has served less than a term, Obama is now the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office.
During the full eight years that George W. Bush served as president, the federal government's debt increased by $4,899,100,310,608.44. (Rising from $5,727,776,738,304.64 to $10,626,877,048,913.08.)
The $5,027,761,476,484.56 that the debt has increased during Obama's presidency equals $16,043.39 for every one of the 313,385,295 people the Census Bureau now estimates live in the United States.
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated, the federal government’s debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the U.S. Treasury. By the close of business on April 16, 2012—as many Americans were working to finalize their 2011 tax returns to meet an April 17 filing deadline—the debt had reached $15,654,638,525,397.64.
The $5,027,761,476,484.56 in additional debt that the U.S. government has taken on during the 39 months that Obama has been president is more debt than the federal government accumulated in the first 219 years of the Republic.
The total federal debt did not exceed $5,027,761,476,484.56 until March 14, 1996, when President Bill Clinton was in the last year of his first term in office. On that day, the national debt rose from $5,025,887,531,178.79 to 5,035,165,720,616.33.

 

[Tim]

Your charts do not say anything. Yes the debt is growing very quickly, but you need to know what's causing that debt and who's to blame. Until you show that it means nothing. That's what my one chart showed, where the debt comes from and why it's growing.

So what is causing the debt we have right now? What policies and who put the policies into place?

 

[Alien Allen]

The policies were the result of both parties

You are dreaming if you think otherwise

They both play the blame game

Except for the short time the democrats had a lock on things a couple years ago it took both parties to screw us

The only group who would put a stop to this crap were the tea party. and they were labeled extremists and then got co-opted by the republicans.

Our govt pisses away money faster than a drunk sailor on leave. all the while each side blames the other and then label anybody with a different idea a kook which the media runs with

 

[Accountable]

We as a country are very short sighted, we focus on the wrong thing, the debt. We need to focus on making a strong and vibrant middle class and the debt will take care of itself.

:24: :24:

 

[Tim]

:24: :24:

Way to add to the conversation asshole

 

[Accountable]

Way to add to the conversation asshole

It just floors me that a man of your intelligence actually believes that we can continue increasing the national debt without worrying about it, that it'll just "take care of itself". This isn't like times past because back then the gov't had kept a handle on the budget before the bad times hit, so it could handle some debt. SOME debt. This is way beyond that, imo. The only way this amount of debt will be "taken care of" is by cancelling huge chunks of it.



eta: But I agree with you 100% that we are too short-sighted.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

It just floors me that a man of your intelligence actually believes that we can continue increasing the national debt without worrying about it, that it'll just "take care of itself". This isn't like times past because back then the gov't had kept a handle on the budget before the bad times hit, so it could handle some debt. SOME debt. This is way beyond that, imo. The only way this amount of debt will be "taken care of" is by cancelling huge chunks of it.



Not a bad point. I refuse to answer to the ideology that repair of the middle class will right the imbalance. To me we're just throwing away money that is still backed by nothing.

Tim, that's a point you haven't addressed yet.....when the market clearly admitted that they intentionally floated too many bonds for assets that didn't exist, the solution was give them more money, and print more cash.

That seems to me like the sham was on a long time ago.

 

[Tim]

It just floors me that a man of your intelligence actually believes that we can continue increasing the national debt without worrying about it, that it'll just "take care of itself". This isn't like times past because back then the gov't had kept a handle on the budget before the bad times hit, so it could handle some debt. SOME debt. This is way beyond that, imo. The only way this amount of debt will be "taken care of" is by cancelling huge chunks of it.



eta: But I agree with you 100% that we are too short-sighted.

I was addressing those who believe the debt today is so large that it will never be paid off. Talking about increasing the debt/deficit is a completely different topic.
Of course we need to control the spending. But you missed my point completely

Not a bad point. I refuse to answer to the ideology that repair of the middle class will right the imbalance. To me we're just throwing away money that is still backed by nothing.

Tim, that's a point you haven't addressed yet.....when the market clearly admitted that they intentionally floated too many bonds for assets that didn't exist, the solution was give them more money, and print more cash.

That seems to me like the sham was on a long time ago.

Are you talking about the fact that Nixon nixed the gold standard in 1971 and converted our system to one of fiat money?
And your biggest fear is that the world will stop using the US dollar as the de facto currency for trading? And at that point the dollars in our pockets will be worth more as a source of heat than as a currency???

And as far as the derivatives market, that all needs to be done away with... but the problem is, today this country is way too dependent on our financial markets. We need to rebuild the nations "real wealth" while eliminating the wealth on paper.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I was addressing those who believe the debt today is so large that it will never be paid off. Talking about increasing the debt/deficit is a completely different topic.
Of course we need to control the spending. But you missed my point completely



Are you talking about the fact that Nixon nixed the gold standard in 1971 and converted our system to one of fiat money?
And your biggest fear is that the world will stop using the US dollar as the de facto currency for trading? And at that point the dollars in our pockets will be worth more as a source of heat than as a currency???

And as far as the derivatives market, that all needs to be done away with... but the problem is, today this country is way too dependent on our financial markets. We need to rebuild the nations "real wealth" while eliminating the wealth on paper.

The "gold game" has been going on for centuries, Nixon isn't solely responsible for eliminating the standard. Besides, understanding fractional reserve banking will show you how truly blessed it is to be a lender.

In a marketplace where the banking profits on interest alone can be as high as 90% the pipe dream of creating a culture whereby you establish a dollar for goods actually equals one dollar is idealistic at best.

You will never surpass the debt nor the banks ability to maintain ultimate leverage over the monetary system. They designed the system, that isn't propaganda.

 

[Joe the meek]

Out of a population of 350 million, you'd think we could find ONE person worthy of voting for, rather than just throwing any empty suit up and banging the drum to vote against the other guy.

It has nothing to do with the individual, but the men behind the money backing the candidate.

That said, who in their right mind would want to lead our country?

 

[Tim]

You will never surpass the debt nor the banks ability to maintain ultimate leverage over the monetary system. They designed the system, that isn't propaganda.

Some day we should have a long conversation about this...

In a nut shell...

The way it is today banks create money out of thin air. They leverage money at a rate of 10 to 1... meaning they only need $1,000,000 to loan out $10,000,000. So in essence they can take $1,000,000 in real cash and turn it into $10,000,000. So where did that $9,000,000 come from? Nowhere, it was pulled out of thin air.
I say we completely abolish that system. Banks will now work on a fee system. So if they want to loan out $1,000 they need $1,000 to loan out, and instead of interest rates, they get a flat fee.
The job of creating money should be the job of the federal government. And when the government infuses cash into the system, it should do so by spending it on infrastructure. The money is put directly into the hands of the middle class and not into the pockets of the banks.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Some day we should have a long conversation about this...

In a nut shell...

The way it is today banks create money out of thin air. They leverage money at a rate of 10 to 1... meaning they only need $1,000,000 to loan out $10,000,000. So in essence they can take $1,000,000 in real cash and turn it into $10,000,000. So where did that $9,000,000 come from? Nowhere, it was pulled out of thin air.
I say we completely abolish that system. Banks will now work on a fee system. So if they want to loan out $1,000 they need $1,000 to loan out, and instead of interest rates, they get a flat fee.
The job of creating money should be the job of the federal government. And when the government infuses cash into the system, it should do so by spending it on infrastructure. The money is put directly into the hands of the middle class and not into the pockets of the banks.

I totally understand how the system works. Remember, I represent a company that produces a traded commodity

 

[Minor Axis]

Out of a population of 350 million, you'd think we could find ONE person worthy of voting for, rather than just throwing any empty suit up and banging the drum to vote against the other guy.

I agree with you, but don't think we'd be supporting the same candidate. The problem is that this country is extremely sick. My definition of sick is deeply divided. We are a ship which instead of going left or right is going no where. In the mean time, our country is sliding towards infrastructure problems so serious, it makes me shudder. I sincerely believe that conservatives and liberals (separately) if allowed to work, could fix our budgetary problems, that is until they are thrown out of office by the mob of angry voters who don't like the idea of sacrifice. This is the Achilles heel of Democracy, vulnerable politicians who will be punished for doing the right thing.

And the problem as always is what kind of vision to we want for our country? Do we have social programs that help those in need or is it every man/woman for themselves and corporations running the outfit?

 

[Accountable]

Very well said. :clap

 

[Minor Axis]

Very well said. :clap

Thank you.