[excon]

will it be the fixes that President Bush put through with the original TARP that fixed the economy?

Hello again, tom:

I don't know, and I don't care. I don't have a political ax to grind. But, it looks to me like YOU do... Bush was a spender - a PROLIFIGATE spender. He didn't represent YOUR right wing persuasions. Why, on earth, are you supporting him, unless it IS political with you??

excon

PS> If you read my posts, you'll see that I really don't think the economy is fixed. You'll see that, although TARP saved the immediate collapse, I'm not sure that when the cure shows up in the numbers (down the road about a year from now), it isn't going to be WORSE than the fix.

excon

[tomder55]

None taken. I don't agree, but I'd like to be proven wrong by fact.

I generally agree with your point. However there are facts that point to Bush being part of the problem . Overall he failed to use his veto pen and in fact initiated some of the biggest spending increases in the last decade. The revenues being generated by his tax cuts were keeping the deficit in line sort of... it never rose to above $458 billion.

But last year during the autumn banking crisis he intiated polices that first Excon condemned ,but now supports since Obama grabbed the mantle .
Overall the new IOUs written since Sept. of last year are $1,000,000,000,000 and growing .
Today there will be a new Treasury statement released and this number may be(and probably will be ) revised upward .Not only that ,but given the revenue influx the government gets in April the numbers will be most likely more optomistic than reality . We will learn that by June 1st of this year spending has already exceeded the $1 Trillion mark and is rising .Both Presidents shared in this policy. In fact ,Obama kept much of the Bush Treasury team into his administration.

Excon is correct about the inflationary train wreck coming. Already we are having problems selling Treasuries . The interest rates will be raised to give greater incentive for the Chinese to invest in them. President Obama forecasts a $18 trillion plus debt by 2014 due to his experiment . The total US GDP for 2008 was $14 trillion . So sometime in his 2nd term we will have a bigger debt than our annual GDP . That is unsustainable by anyone's measure.

[excon]

That is unsustainable by anyone's measure.

Hello again, tom:

Agreed...

But, now the discussion has transcended the local stuff and moved on to the bigger stage, where it actually should be.. Because the problems we're having NOW can be attributed to Nixon, in addition to Ronny Ray Gun. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm blaming Republicans.. I'm not, but they DO seem to be the most culpable.. (Ok, yes I am.)

He closed the gold window, and untied the dollar from gold. From that time forward, the government could PRINT money, and IS. Before that, they couldn't.

The debt, that is unsustainable by anyone's measure, is sustainable if you hyperinflate. Inflation is GOOD for borrowers and BAD for lenders. That way, we pay back the debt with very cheap dollars. Bernanke thinks he can control inflation with interest rates. He's wrong. The government should NEVER have been given that power. It's the power to destroy our money, and that's what's been going on since Nixon did his deed.

excon

PS> You may wonder why I call him Ronny Ray Gun. It's because I was attending a seminar in San Francisco in 1968, when a group of demonstrators from San Francisco State were GASSED from helicopters, with NO consideration for the average citizen going about their business... I was one of those citizens..

Did being gassed by a Republican sway my political thoughts?? You betcha it did!!

[ETWolverine]

Elliot,
Wouldn't the same results happen regardless of who took office after the Bush mess?

No, the same results would not have happened.

1) The national debt would not have increased by 7% in 6 months, because no other president would have been stupid enough to borrow that much money to support that much useless cr@p in their overbloated stimulus bill.

2) Similarly, the budget deficit would not have increased by over 400% due to increased spending.

3) Unemployment would be LOWER, not higher, because any other president would have known not to increase taxes and regulatory expenses to businesses during a recession.

So the simple answer is NO, the result would not have been the same under ANY president, because any other president would be more interested in HEALING the economy rather than using the recession as an excuse to take over the economy.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

So the simple answer is NO

Unless you have psychic powers or you can see alternate realities *no one* say that with *any* certainty. I seriously doubt that unemployment would have been lower with an inevitable recession.

[cozyk]

Hello again, Saph:

The economy was about to go into the dumper. He stopped that. I guess you missed it. Now, it's just going to be bad instead of disasterous.

You're right, though, in that it remains to be seen if what Obama did (and what we do NOW) actually fixes it for the LONG term. Health care reform is part of the fix. If we don't do THAT, Obama's fixes won't fix squat.

excon

Right, This is kind of like when EMS gets to the scene of the accident.

FIRST Obama had to stop the profusion of blood that would cause imminent death.
After you stop the bleeding, the best way you know how, then you address the other wounds. Now we may still have a bad situation, but death is avoided.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I know you guys want immediate satisfaction, but it don't happen that way. I'm not going to argue your facts, because they represent a point in time that isn't germane.

They sure seemed germain enough when people were pointing at the unemployment figures in 2002 and 2003 when Bush was in power. Then they were VERY germain. Remember how people (yourself included, if I remember correctly, excon) were arguing that the Bush tax cuts were a failure because we weren't seeing decreased unemployment immediately?

When the government acts to effect the economy, it takes about 18 months for the actions to start showing up. As proof, I ask, if it happened sooner, how come the inflation rate hasn't skyrocketed since the Fed printed zillions and even more zillions of dollars? I'll tell you why, because it hasn't worked it's way through the economy yet. Give it a year from now, and it'll knock your socks off. Buy gold.

Inflation IS INCREASING. Food prices are up. Gas prices are up. Housing values are down (which is the same as saying that mortgage payments have increased in relation to home values). We are seeing inflation in every sector of the economy.

Here are the monthly inflation rates (CPI) for the last 12 months available:

• May 2008 0.84%
  June 2008 1.01%
  July 2008 0.53%
  August 2008 -0.40%
  September 2008 -0.14%
  October 2008 -1.01%
  November 2008 -1.92%
  December 2008 -1.03%
  January 2009 0.44%
  February 2009 0.50%
  March 2009 0.24%
  April 2009 0.25%

After 5 months of heavily DEFLATING PRICES, when Obama came into office we suddenly see massively INFLATING PRICES.

Yes, the inflation is here, it is bad, and it is getting worse.

You wanted proof of the immdiacy of the problem? That it's not just a snapshot in time? Here it is.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Unless you have psychic powers or you can see alternate realities *no one* say that with *any* certainty. I seriously doubt that unemployment would have been lower with an inevitable recession.

Anyone with any understanding of history can say that with a very high degree of certainty. Just as I was able to say a year ago that this massive disaster was going to happen under Obama because I know and understand history.

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred, you are trying to argue that the same thing would have happened under any president. But it wouldn't have, because no other president would have done what Obama is doing.

Even Obama is seeing what a massive mess he's made. Even HE has figured out that no other president would have been this massively screwed up vis-à-vis the economy. That's why he announced "paygo budgeting" as one of his major initiatives for the near future. AFTER creating the largest budget deficit in history, after creating a national debt larger than all other presidents in history combined, he's finally finding religion with regard to "paygo".

Obama screwed up, NK. He knows it. The leaders of other countries are laughing at him about it. (And you thought that Bush was an international embarrassment.) The polls are beginning to show it... the people may like Obama, but their support for his policies is falling massively. That's why he's trying some massive spin control with paygo.

So I stand by my answer. We predicted this mess. We told you that nobody would be as bad as this guy for the economy. We told you that no other president would have made these mistakes... not even Hillary. And now you are trying to spin it so as to say that we don't know what any other president would have done. Well, yes we do.

All we have to do is take the candidates at their word. Obama TOLD us he was going to do this stuff and he's keeping his campaign promisses. McCain, Romney, Hillary, and all the other candidates said that they would not, and I believe them... because they never did it or tried to push for it before while in office.

There's a reason that Obama was considered the most liberal Senator in Congress... it's called a voting record, and it says a lot about a candidate. NO OTHER CANDIDATE was as liberal as Obama. Ergo, no other candidate would have taken the incredibly stupid actions that Obama has taken because of ideology. And the results would therefore have been different from what we are seeing today.

Yes, we do know, and no you don't need to psychic powers to figure it out.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Ex You won't find me taking up Nixon's defense regarding his fiscal policies . What is the difference between wage and price controls that he initiated and the various attempts by the new President to do the same ? None .

We already know that polices that go back even further (Johnson ) were the cause of the bad medicine that Nixon Ford and Carter tried.

The government should NEVER have been given that power. It's the power to destroy our money, and that's what's been going on since Nixon did his deed.

Why stop there ? The government created the Fed . To prevent the next depression . Well ,they failed to do that in the 1930s and they have failed to control the business cycle any time since. When there is gvt. Interference in the marktplace does it really matter how the currency is pegged ?

In the whole history of humans an agreed international gold standard only lasted for a whole 50 years between 1871-1914 .

You think the gvt. Couldn't manipulate that ? Under your theory ,if the public is allowed to demand payment in gold from the state, at a fixed exchange rate between the currency and gold, then the state cannot print up too much currency . If it does, people will trade in their dollars for gold. To keep from losing its gold reserves, the government will have to stop creating new money.

But ;The money was pegged to gold during Roosevelt's terms and he just refused Americans access to gold. In essence the gold stopped being "our gold " by 1933 .It became property of the government . The convertability contract was violated.

Nixon violated the contract again in 1971 when he changed it from a fixed rate of exchange to a floating rate. But he did that after the price of gold on the world market had already begun to fluctuate and a fixed price was unsustainable .Even before ;by 1968 only central banks could get gold at the then artificial discount rate of $35 /oz .

Gold fluctuates like any other commodity today so if we are pegging our currency on commodities maybe it should be coal ,something we have in abundance. WE do not have an abundance of gold and we would be basing our currency on a product mined primarily in places such as China, South Africa and Russia.

[NeedKarma]

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred,

You had 8 years, why weren't any measures taken to avoid it?

[speechlesstx]

You had 8 years, why weren't any measures taken to avoid it?

UM, didn't this start with the housing market? The Bush administration warned of Fannie and Freddie problems 17 times and Democrats not only blocked any reform measures, they whined and protested that they were just fine.

The Dems campaigned - falsely - in 2006 when they won control of Congress that they were going to be fiscally responsible (Paygo I believe it was and which Obama is now claiming as his own policy after spending us even further into oblivion). They didn't rein in anything, they immediately proceeded to investigation after investigation instead.

We've been down this road, you can't lay all of the blame on Bush and let the Dems off without a scratch.

[NeedKarma]

We've been down this road, you can't lay all of the blame on Bush and let the Dems off without a scratch.

I'm not but that's exactly what ET is doing but the other way around. Apparently he has all the answers, if only the government followed his advice.

[galveston]

I guess paygo is what I heard Obama say just last night, I think, that we can't spend a dollar unless we are collecting a dollar, or something like that.

So. Does he mean that he is going to cut spending to match income, or raise taxes to support the profligate policies that he has so far promoted?

The new flat tax approaches. Whatever you have, just send it to the IRS.

[Skell]

Anyone with any understanding of history can say that with a very high degree of certainty. Just as I was able to say a year ago that this massive disaster was going to happen under Obama because I know and understand history.

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred, you are trying to argue that the same thing would have happened under any president. But it wouldn't have, because no other president would have done what Obama is doing.

Elliot

We could all see the mess coming Elliot. Not just you conservatives. It is only you conservatives who are attributing it ALL to Obama (with the exception somewhat of Tom).

My knowledge is limited (so no doubt ill get one of your long winded rants at my lack of it), but in my 'limited' opinion, de-regulation, particularly of the banking sector has been a major problem.

Yes, we down under here are but a small small fish in a very big ocean. I am under no illusions about that. However, we are currently not in recession. Things are tough and we may yet fall into recession as we tend to be a little behind you guys in North but so far things are OK. We are without doubt in one of the best (if not, the best) positions of Western nations to cope with this global downturn. Why? Largely due to regulation of our banking sector. Our banks aren't going broke. They don't have the billions and billions in bad debt that your banks accumulated. Our economy whilst not at its strongest is not falling apart. Regulation has held it together and put us in a stronger position than many to fight off this downturn.

I really find it amusing that you can simply lay the blame entirely at the feet of Obama. Its amazing you can actually see through those glasses of yours Elliot. The tint is so red it must be near impossible at times.

[Skell]

Here are the monthly inflation rates (CPI) for the last 12 months available:

• May 2008 0.84%
  June 2008 1.01%
  July 2008 0.53%
  August 2008 -0.40%
  September 2008 -0.14%
  October 2008 -1.01%
  November 2008 -1.92%
  December 2008 -1.03%
  January 2009 0.44%
  February 2009 0.50%
  March 2009 0.24%
  April 2009 0.25%

After 5 months of heavily DEFLATING PRICES, when Obama came into office we suddenly see massively INFLATING PRICES.

Yes, the inflation is here, it is bad, and it is getting worse.

You wanted proof of the immdiacy of the problem? That it's not just a snapshot in time? Here it is.

Elliot

What about the massive inflation in May, June and July last year. Who's to blame for that?

[Dare81]

We could all see the mess coming Elliot. Not just you conservatives. It is only you conservatives who are attributing it ALL to Obama (with the exception somewhat of Tom).

My knowledge is limited (so no doubt ill get one of your long winded rants at my lack of it), but in my 'limited' opinion, de-regulation, particularly of the banking sector has been a major problem.

Yes, we down under here are but a small small fish in a very big ocean. I am under no illusions about that. However, we are currently not in recession. Things are tough and we may yet fall into recession as we tend to be a little behind you guys in North but so far things are ok. We are without doubt in the one of the best (if not, the best) positions of Western nations to cope with this global downturn. Why?? Largely due to regulation of our banking sector. Our banks aren't going broke. They don't have the billions and billions in bad debt that your banks accumulated. Our economy whilst not at its strongest is not falling apart. Regulation has held it together and put us in a stronger position than many to fight off this downturn.

I really find it amusing that you can simply lay the blame entirely at the feet of Obama. Its amazing you can actually see through those glasses of yours Elliot. The tint is so red it must be near impossible at times.

Even though I agree that the fault doenot lie with obama as of now, but if the economy is still in a recession in 3 to 4 years then that's adifferent story. As for the Australian economy you can't compare it to the u.s, you can't compare apples and oranges.

[Skell]

Money is money Dare. Not apples and oranges.

And I agree. If the US is still in recession in 4 years time then Obama will have to take the blame. It's a big if and a long time. You should show some patience in the meantime.

[cozyk]

Money is money Dare. Not apples and oranges.

And I agree. if the US is still in recession in 4 years time then Obama will have to take the blame. Its a big if and a long time. You should show some patience in the meantime.

I think you are right and I think that "deregulation" is our downfall.

I see banking without regulation like this.
It's like the students will not behave if the teacher leaves the room. Or you certainly can't depend on it. SO... either teacher stays in the room or assigns someone else to oversee the classroom to assure that all he// doesn't break lose.

[galveston]

The problem I see with Obama is the DIRECTION he is taking on most everything.

When we get the PROOF that he is wrong, it may be a tad late.

He is either a spinmeister, or has a good one to call on. On jobs, admisnistrations are rated on how many jobs created and the unemployment rate. Obama is selling the "jobs saved" index. A figure that he can pull out of thin air.

[ETWolverine]

I'm not but that's exactly what ET is doing but the other way around. Apparently he has all the answers, if only the government followed his advice.

But they didn't. Neither did Bush during his final year.

Yes, the beginning of the bailout mess began with Bush. He set the precedent, and as a result, he ended his presidency with a huge budget deficit.

But that is where his responsibility ends.

OBAMA then took control and in less than 6 months he quadrupled the budget deficit, increased the national debt, is increasing inflation massively, has nationalized the 7% of the total economy (GDP) by taking over the auto-manufacture sector of the economy, and is poised to nationalize another 13% of the total economy (GDP) with nationalized healthcare. THIS IS OBAMA'S STUFF, not Bush's. (And I haven't even talked about taking over AIG and the largest banks in the country.)

I place responsibility for Bush's actions on Bush. But I place responsibility for Obama's actions with Obama. I don't try to claim that Obama is doing what "Bush's economy" forced him to do.

Elliot