--- In [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > Putting aside who is responsible for it, how do you feel about such incredible debt? > > > Of course it isn't good. Obama, however inherited the massive mess and is taking necessary steps to turn it around.>>
Exactly. When a giant supertanker is going in the wrong direction on its own accord, it takes energy to turn it around and get it into the right direction. OffWorld > > When FDR inherited 'his' mess he had to spend unprecedented amounts until things began to turn around. When, because of screams from the Big Money establishment politicos, he cut back, the progress retreated. As soon as this became obvious he resumed the programs and it was successful. > > It took around a decade or so, but the economy AND the debt were mitigated by the both the war and a great economic recovery. > > What Obama is doing is implementing some similar things in a different way but he's still spending a lot of money to save an economy. Doing nothing would, according to almost all prominent economists and directly affected world leaders, would be catastrophic. > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Am I the only one totally freaked out by this? > > > > > > > > I used to shake my head in disbelief when George Bush racked up $580 billion deficits. Now Obama has more than tripled it. > > > > > > > > > That's false. > > > > > > == > > > > > > Wednesday's New York Times analysis of the CBO budget > > > projections reveal that Obama's stimulus plan and > > > other domestic programs account for "only a sliver" of > > > the deficits, about 10 percent of the projected $1.2 > > > trillion deficit for 2009. > > > > > > = > > > > > > ~~ Study Shows Most Red Ink Came From President Bush ~~ > > > > > > ...Before leaving office, Bush had transformed what was projected in 2001 to be a $848 billion surplus for fiscal 2009 into a $1 trillion deficit, nearly a $2 trillion swing from deep black to bright red, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. > > > > > > But one of the ironies of the early Obama administration is that the Republicans and their many allies in the U.S. news media have succeeded in shifting much of the blame for the ocean of red ink onto Barack Obama, leading the new President to scale back programs and to scramble politically. A recent Gallup poll found 51 percent disapproving of Obama's handling of federal spending. > > > > > > That GOP success is a reflection of the Right's massive investment in media over the past several decades and the audacity of Republicans to tick off talking points regardless of reality. > > > > > > A steady propaganda barrage, especially when it's ineffectively countered, can create perceptions that influence the electorate and thus constrain political options. > > > > > > If Americans think Obama is responsible for the massive deficits, they will be less willing to support his recommendations for addressing a host of pressing problems, from the environment to health care to the economy. > > > > > > And to the degree they forget or don't know about Bush's role in the deficit problem, they are more likely to turn back to Republicans, the same people who enabled Bush with his extravagant tax cuts and open-ended wars to chart the nation into that red-ink ocean. > > > > > > So, it is useful to read Wednesday's New York Times analysis of the CBO budget projections, which revealed that Obama's stimulus plan and other domestic programs account for "only a sliver" of the deficits, about 10 percent of the projected $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009. > > > > > > == > > > NYT article here: http://snipurl.com/jx05h <http://snipurl.com/jx05h> > > > == > > > > > > The Times analysis by David Leonhardt blamed 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing from surplus to deficit on the business cycle, including the bursting stock-market bubbles and related recessions. > > > > > > The Times traced about 33 percent of the deficit swing to legislation signed by Bush, including his signature tax cuts and his Medicare prescription drug plan. > > > > > > Though Bush is now out of office, continuation of other of his key initiatives, such as the Wall Street bailout and the Iraq War, contributed significantly to the deficit under Obama, the Times found. > > > > > > "Mr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq War and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000," the Times reported. "Such policies together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama account for 20 percent of the swing." > > > > > > Obama's stimulus bill, signed in February, accounted for 7 percent of the deficit expansion, and his other early programs, including health care, education and energy, added 3 percent, the Times said. So, the tally would indicate that Bush's policies contributed to 53 percent of the 2009 deficit swing compared to 10 percent from Obama's plans. > > > > > > Yet the Republicans have scored some important political points by repositioning themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and tagging Obama as a spendthrift... > > > > > > Full article: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/061009.html <http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/061009.html> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It really can be the end of the American Empire, way of life, etc. > > > > > > > > Do you have an idea of the enormity of this amount of money? > > > > > > > > And there is no indication that he and his Democratic Congress won't repeat it next year and every year afterwards. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This changes everything. > > > > > > > > Although the current Canadian federal government (with 10% of the population of the U.S. in Canada) recently passed a budget with a stimulus package resulting in a deficit of $50 billion, socialist Canada has not only balanced its budget over the past 10 years but created surpluses to PAY DOWN its national debt in many of those years. Ironic, isn't it, that Canada can afford a myriad of ridiculous social programs, handle a country that is, geographically, second only to Russia in the world, and yet balance its budget most years? When I left Canada in '94 it had, per capita, a larger deficit than the States and I never imagined they would ever get their act together. Well, I was wrong; it was the idiot Republicans who more than the Democrats did all the deficit spending (except for now with Obama who is breaking ALL records!). And you would think it was the socialist Canadians who would be the deficit spenders and not the pro-capitalists. > > > > > > > > > >
