obamination

[steven nenzel]

Dam, every time this freakin clown is given a chance to be a leader he fails miserably. Did you hear his speech today. My god, this guy is jimmy carter on steriods. He is so clueless about how the economy works.

How can any rational person think this guy is good for this country. If you do still support him, don't bother posting I will not respond as you are truly beyond rational thought. Facts don't lie.

[Kowboy]

Steve:

I didn't vote for the guy or hear his speech today. Whenever I hear an Obama bashing I have to ask "What's the alternative?" Have you forgotten it was George Bush that left Obama holding the TARP bag, increased Medicare benifits with no way to pay for same? Republicans have no business talking about the debt or how to get us out of the mess we're in based on their previous mega-spending "leadership".

Ron Paul is the only guy making any sense in Washington these days but he won't pander to the supernaturalist and social issue wing of the Rupublican party, dooming his nomination chances.

Joe

[steven nenzel]

Joe, it has not been that long since you took that course in logic. In my e-mail did I say anything about the republicans? I'm judging the current president of the United States based on his performance. Whatever other presidents have done is irrelevant to the judgements I have of this president and his policies. Your response lacks logic.

Obama is responsible for his policies. His Keynesian policies have been a complete failure and have compounded the structural problems. He may have inherited a mess but he sure has made it worse. He also inherited a triple A credit rating.

[Jeff H.]

Well said Steven!

[CustomMarbleGraniteToo]

Need a LIKE button!

[Burkie]

Unfortunately I have to partially agree with the wrong person.

I speak on one President and the cause started in his Presidency. I dont understand the US system of Government so I cant say for sure who caused what. We have a parliament and there is a Majority vote and the Prime Minister is responsible for everything. It is not possible to have a stalemate. But this fiasco started in the Bush presidency. The debt increased approx a 100% during this presidency. It is not easy to rein in that level of increase at that rate of increase.

However when Bush lost in Nov 2008, I posted that Obama or anyone would be a madman to take over at this time. The real issues will come when they start to open the doors and the skeletons start to fall out. So whether it was Obama or McCain I would be hard pressed to place blame on them.

The problem is that thanks to Fox news and the T-Nuts the financial issues are mired by politics and facts will never be known. Suggestion to find out what is going on with the US and World economy watch Bloomberg at 10pm one night.

The downgrade by S&P was political and not intrinsics as they were not implicitly indicated as the reason. If you read their reasoning they have taken at jab at the current Washington set up where there is no intent on compromise or working together.In my belief they were incorrect on making the down grade at this time, however they were correct in their assessment. They opined that they did not believe that anything would work out among the parties in terms of resolving the debt issues. I also stated in another forum that despite the downgrade the interest rates will fall. I cited several reasons however it is best captioned by someone that made a post accordingly I have borrowed it.

a) Risks already priced in over the week, bonds got a little relief rally
b) Alternatives in limited supply (although obviously Greek paper is a bargain)
c) Hard to take credit ratings seriously – invariably late
d) Looser US regulatory requirements allow investors to ignore the up/downgrades of the S&Ps of the universe which previously led to mass meltups/downs. You can now hold crap (not saying that's the case here) as long as you please.
e) Who really thinks they won’t get paid by Uncle Sam (except for the guy living off grid who does not shave)?
f) US still greatest economy in the world (once dust settles)

He left out g) all of the above.

Remember that S&P missed World Com, Enron, The Financial meltdown so why it be unreasonable to assume that they missed this here as well.

Why Obama may not have a clue (I did not see the speech)? The fact remains that in my opinion none of the world leaders or the financial minds have a clue how to solve this issue. There has never been financial factors like this in any of the history or financial books to determine how to solve this. This is new ground and rumours are more reactive and people are tending to act on these rather than the true underlying financial facts.

The US or the world cannot control the events, the events are currently controlling the world

Unless Washington and the T-Nuts stops playing politics and start playing America, the US and the rest of the world will continue in this state of uncertainty and instability.

In my opinion it will require the appointment of an independent panel of the business minds in America to make a proposal for the parties to vote on. Dont have proposals tied to other items like what appears to be occuring so that nothing goes through because of the one small attachment. But truly even if this was agreed, based on the current impasse, how long do you think will be the debate as to who to put on this panel?

Regards

[steven nenzel]

Duane, you are right in this regard, Obama does not have a clue.

Re-read my post. I'm not saying he was handed a good set of cards. I am saying is he made the situation many times worse. He has done nothing to put the US on the right path and in fact his policies have taken us in the wrong direction. Bush spent a lot and Obama spent 500% more. I don't think Bush was a good president either but that has nothing to do with Obama. I'm judging him on how he has played the cards handed to him. He has no idea what he is doing. He may be book smart (in all the things that don't matter) but completely street stupid with no clue how the real world works.

[Dan R.]

The housing crisis started under Clinton because Bush 41 declined to entitle undeserving people to own homes (by holding bankers hostage for not making sub prime loans). Then the politicians bailed out Wall street for betting both sides of the derivative markets. They even gave GS billions that they, in turn forwarded to foreign banks (BundesBank, Dresdner Bank and many others) who were clients of GS and were on the wrong side of the derivative gambles. The US govt couldn't subsidize foreign entities, so they washed it through GS. Goldman Sachs was never at risk for one penny during the crisis, why do you think Warren Buffet bought all that preferred stock with warrants for more?

The T-nuts (as my brown brother from Barbados says) are the best hope for the population to take back government from the professional politicians. The professional politicians (on both sides) have only their own agenda, to get reelected. It is the general population's obligation to vote them all out, The populace can effect terms limits by simply casting a vote. The entrenched parties have made the system a 2 party system with no room for real choice.

I intend to vote against every incumbent with more than 3 terms or that votes to raise taxes or not cut spending. I have had enough. Another term under the current regime will be devastating for small business. Why is jobs a priority all of a sudden? what is the administration plan for job creation? Longer unemployment? Isn't 99 weeks enough? How about giving incentive to work, instead not to work?? Is it really that hard to figure out? Jeez, a fabricator can figure it out!

[Kowboy]

I don't think Bush was a good president either but that has nothing to do with Obama.

Steve:

Let's say you're weighing two jobs as a shop manager. In the first shop everything is running smoothly and profitably. All you have to do is keep it on the rails and you're good. In the second, the shop is nearing bankruptcy from the incompetent management of the guy you are replacing.

If you take the first job are you some sort of genius for maintaining what you inherited? If you take the second should you be happy the ship hasn't hit the rocks in a few years or should the owner expect a return to profitability by then?

You're saying that the previous guy has nothing to do with you. Technically you're right but Obama took on the second shop job. To disregard the mess it was in upon his arrival shows a lack of context and fairness.

Joe

[dan k.]

Steven - I agree 100% with you on Obama. The Tea Party will force change on Washington. We are going to go through rough times, but we will eventually get the Bums out of Congress and the President is done. We do not need to Compromise in Congress if Compromise is not the solution.

Duane - I pretty much disagree with everything you wrote. Sorry. Things are simple, spend less than you take in. S&P was the only Agency that that had the Balls to downgrade us. We deserve it , our debt is almost equal to our GDP.

[steven nenzel]

Dan... you and I are on the same page.

Kowboy... I see little evidence the course on logic has remained with you. Once again, I'm judging him on his actions and policies taken. He took a bad situation and made it much worse. We are directionless with no light at the end of the tunnel. Why is this hard to understand? If he was competent he would have a plan for this country and be steering the ship towards it. He has nothing. It is pathetic beyond belief.

We are rudderless with the only hope that we hang on until the next election and vote this dumb ass out of office. I pray that Christie changes his mind and runs for president. That guy is a leader.

[Kowboy]

I pray that Christie changes his mind and runs for president. That guy is a leader.

Steven:

I like Christie myself, but don't let me hear you criticize his Supreme Court nominations should he run and win:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/31739/fa ... pandering/

Joe

[wesjh]

This will kick up a sh*t storm, but what the heck. Are any of you aware that as governor, Sarah Palin took Alaska from a
AA rating to a AAA rating? She also cut spending while the state was running budget surpluses and added about $7 billion to the Permanent fund in 18 months. Someone out there knows how to budget and the role of the governor and their power varies greatly state to state. Reagan said that there are no easy answers but there are simple answers.
If the morons would get out of the way of the energy sector and let us become energy independent, we would see a return to economic activity that would blow the mind and america would stop sending most of our trade deficit overseas for oil and gas. Also, it is long past time to do away with the automatic budget increases of 8% annually (they call it baseline budgetting) that does not encourage any sort of thrift in government spending. And why wasn't the trains and windmill funding - blackholes of 100 year old technology- cut in the last debt ceiling agreement? There is also $100 billion in duplicate programs that could be cut - this from a gov't study - but no one will take the lead. One more thing - damn it Burkie, but as a canadian living in the states, those of us who oppose higher taxes are not T-nuts or T baggers, just regular folks who actually give a damn. For the record, all spending is to originate in the House, and democrats controlled that from 2006 through 2010. And Fox news is not the enemy, just a relief from BBC and CBC and the other dinasour networks. (plus they have the best looking anchor babes- check out Megyn Kelly - smart and hot!!- o.k. I've been in the oil patch a few days too long ) The dirty secrets that need to be exposed with perp walks are stuff like the Freddy and Fannie Mae execs fudging the books and taking millions in bonuses. If the private sector did that, people go to jail, yet these guys (Raines, Johnson and Gorlick) kept the money and some got other gov't postings!!!

[Tynan]

See...this is what happens when I leave for a little while...everything goes wonky !! "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate our lives and interests - Patrick Henry

Burkie, the housing collapse began under Jimmy Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) in 1977, it was later modified (and made even worse) by Bill Clinton in 1995 (http://money.gather.com/viewArticle.act ... 4977461051 )

The public-private institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given enormous leverage to back mortgages with taxpayer money, leading to perverse incentives for banks to overlook risks in lending. If you don’t believe me, read Thomas Woods’ Meltdown or Thomas Sowell‘s The Housing Boom and Bust, it will blow your minds.

It had nothing to do with George Bush, in fact, Bush, McCain and several other Republican’s tried to warn the American people of what was coming and called numerous times for hearings and an investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, but got nowhere with a Democrat controlled House & Senate.

In fact, in 2007, Barrack Obama vocally defended the idea of lending and selling to under qualified minorities that could not afford to buy a house…a plan he now chooses to distance himself from and calls it predatory lending, Obama was involved up to his eyeballs

So, I love ya Burkie, but it had nothing to do with George Bush, no matter how many times the Democrats try to lay it on him.

As for the “T-Nuts” as you call us (As I am a Tea Party Conservative) All I can say is this…if our founding fathers where alive today, with their ideas about individual freedom, states rights, limited government, property rights, gun rights, etc…which party do you think they would belong to?? I seriously doubt they would be hanging out with Obama and his ilk.

With all that said...It's completely irrelevant who 's responsible for this mess, it needs to be fixed...yet, here we sit, pointing fingers and laying blame, fighting amongst ourselves...accomplishing nothing, which is exactly what the politicians want because as long as we're distracted and arguing we aren't focused on them....how do imagine that's going to work out for this country?

[steven nenzel]

Dam, Tynan, how are you doing? Please give us an update.

[Burkie]

Good to have you back Tynan keep hang in there brother. Missed your debate.

Re:T-Nuts cant take credit for that saw it from a US individual and I always connect them with Radon Al so thought it fitting. These folks appear to have blinker logic and appear to thrive on rhetoric. Sorry Dan R or you are now labelled by me.

This issue surpasses politics and the truth is this is uncharted territories with all of the world leaders and not knowing how to dealing with excessive debt in the world economy. In England they call the Prime Minister a Condom, protects a dick and screws everything else. Down here they just had a Carnival and there was song about our Prime Minister called Aint saying nothing. Translation "He is not saying anything".

Thus what the markets are saying that there is no leadership in the world. They are crying out for someone in the world to lead. They are looking for it to come from the US. The problem is that they dont see it and the divide between the 2 parties with one apparently being influenced by the Tea Party. Even the Obama lustre in the rest of the world appears to be wearing off.

The sub prime concept is a political issue. The "gambling" on this subprime is what caused the economic meltdown.I have always warned about waiting for the other shoe to drop. This unfortunately maybe it.

Re: the rating downgrade. I see people saying they are happy it was done. First of all I find it very hard to rationalise that someone could be happy to see something that could inflict this amount of financial pain could be supported by citizens of any country. Secondly to put things in perspective I will accept the downgrade if someone could justify to me how the S&P could reaffirm France's Triple A rating. This country is laden with Greek and Italian debt. Also we are speaking about France! Their favourite past time is striking. They recently ahd riots because they wanted to change the retirement age to 62 from 60 I believe. Also you may need to look at their political classification and their tax rates. It is everything that the Teabaggers are not. However I have seen reports of them celebrating the downgrade. Hence when I saw the term T-Nuts I thought it fitting at that time.

Also need to check the level of debt when Bush started office until he left. Then look at his rate of increase per year over the period. Then look at Obama until now and more importantly look at his rate of increase compared to Bush's.

This is not the time to play politics or swallow rhetoric but look at facts and not blindly accept the spin from either side.

I am NOT an Obama fan could not care one way or the other. I am NOT a fan of Bush just to be clear again.

I am posting only because Tynan is back. I will debate with you as long as you like.

However I am about business and economics not politics. Unfortunately we elect lawyers (everywhere in the world) to run countries and then wonder why politics supercedes prudent business decision making.

Anyhow now that I have guaranteed that I need a bodyguard at the next SFA event to protect me from Jean, Dan R Jeff and Steven, we will chat in the next post.

Good to hear from you my friend and glad that you still have the spirit.

Regards

[steven nenzel]

Tynan, I live by the strong belief that what we are living is the illusion. Reality is what we are not. Although everything seems so real and our emotions bind us to this illusion, our life is a less than a nano second in time. We are here to experience what we are not. Your kids chose this journey too and they are here to experience what they need or want to. You can not truly know what you are unless you know what you are not. This gives me comfort when I think about the possibility of my kids growing up without their dad.

I truly wish you the best on the rest of your journey.

[steven nenzel]

Duane, once again, looking at the "facts" Obama's policies have been an absolute failure. He is to be judged on his actions. It does not matter what he inherited. It does matter what he has done with what he inherited. On this he can be judged and he will go down as one of the worst presidents in US history.

I judge Bush on his policies and actions just like I judge Obama. This "too wrongs make a right" thinking is childish.

His blame everyone else approach is also a sign of poor leadership. Is it not obvious to you that he has no clue about how the real world works? Come on man, let go of your attachment to him and look at it rationally.

[Burkie]

Steven I have no attachment to Obama.

I have an attachment to facts and rhetoric. Do you know how many times the debt ceiling was raised in prior presidencies? Yet the appearance is that this is the first time that it was raised?

Do you know what was the debt when Bush came in office and what it was like when he left? Do you know what was the perecentage increase?

Do you know what the increase in debt relates to?

I saw a FB status post of Randy's that stated something to the effect that when Bush left office there was a debt that took from 1776 to reach and Obama did X in 2 years. Really? This is rhetoric and 1/4 truths at best. Bush apparently doubled the debt in his short period in ofice. Why was there no uproar to the extent as it is now? Would it not have been better to put the horse back in the stable then? Do you know what has been attributed to a large percentage of this debt increase during this period?

I have a problem with the misuse of facts to fuel this fervour. There needs to be more interest in Govt economics not only in the US but all over the world. However we are taking information at face value from the Politicians. The best example os the new Tea Party favourite Bachmann. She is scary when it comes to "facts". Trust is not a factor that comes easy to me and less of a chance when there appears to be constant misstatements.



What I dont like is the misuse of facts to spawn rhetoric and decision are being based on false inuendos. I NEVER said that Obama was doing a good job and I DONT believe that he is. The point is that NONE of the world leaders are. Until the world finds a leader we will be in this perpetual cycle. It does not help that the rest of the world views the US in this state of rhetoric and that it does not appear that there will be a rational resolution to the US issues due to the intense partisan politics fueled primarily by the blind logic of the Tea Party. In principle I agree with the ideals of the Tea Party but I do not agree with the methodology. The fervour that they have created is built on rhetoric. This begs the questions where were they $7 Trillion ago when Bush started?

Here is an excerpt of a Senate Speech that I saw.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.


Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities."

This guy should be President. He appears to have put the debt issue and raising the debt limit clearly in focus and the long term effects of the level of US debt. Let me know what you think.

Regards

[Dan R.]

Chances are if he were int eh senate for any period of time, is responsilbe for the mess. I think you can not make a determination on an excer\pt from a speech.

Bush's short time in office? How much longer could he have served? You make it sound like he was there for a 2 week vacation.

[dan k.]

The Tea Party keeps things simple: Do not spend more than you take in. Period. That is all that the Tea Party represents. This would mean changing the ways of Washington. Anything else you heard on the BBC or read in the Huffington Post is not true. Shame on anyone who is silly enough to believe anything else.

Bush was a spending whore over 8 years. However, Obama wears the Crown for deficit spending whore. Big , big difference. Obama needs to borrow 5 billion per day vs Bush 1.5 billion to support his budget. Why? Because he is a nut and not a Patriot. How the hell can any rational person think it is ok to borrow that much money? Shame on anyone that still supports this man.

We do need a candidate with Tea Party values in the Presidency and several more in the Senate. They will turn things around. Things are different now, we are broke. Stop spending!

[Burkie]

Dan K,

Are those real numbers you quoted the 5 billion to 1.5 bilion? Also what makes up the spend have you reviewed what make up the increase in the the deficit?

The point I am making is that out in the political arena there appears to be half truths to fuel a fervour. I personally prefer a more straight talk than data mining to suit a position. Has nothing to do with supporting anyone.

That excerpt of the speech is what the Tea Party appears to represent. Less spending not raising the debt limit etc. wouldn't you agree?

Here is the rest of it.


"Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

.........It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America"

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006


He has since had to defend his stance on voting no on the debt ceiling.

Again where was the Tea Party when this approximately 100% increase in spending during a Presidential tenure started?

Thus I dont believe that it is just about the economy and I dont believe the rhetoric where "facts" are used to suit the purpose.

Regards

[dan k.]

Burkie - Just divide the increase in the national debt divided by number of days in office. Yes they are roughly accurate.

It does not matter what we are spending on. We need to lower it. If we are involved in a war (s) we have to make cuts elsewhere to offset it. We have to cut across the board in peaceful times. Let States decide where they want to spend. If you are unhappy in your state, you can just move. If Tax revenues are down, we have to spend even less. Obama has a 9.xx unemployment rate, less tax revenue, he need to spend less, not more. None of this nonsense of a baseline increase every year. Again , common sense. If we have to gut government spending so that some agencies don't operate at all, so be it.

Remember, the Tea Party is not a party (albeit Tea Party Caucus in the House) per se, it's a grass roots movement of People (including myself) that came about after the bailout of Wall Street. It gained momentum after TARP. It was purely timing. We had a recession, a deep deficit, and free spending liberal in Office and we said enough is enough. That's it. Don't over analyze it and listen to the rhetoric. No conspiracy theory or racist baloney. Purely timing and a perfect storm of economic disaster.

I do agree that both parties use and distort facts for political favor, but not the Tea Party. Liberals distort facts so they can spend more, Conservatives distort so we can spend less. Which is worse?

[Ger Vanderbas]

Hey guys. Interesting debate.

I think the real problem is that everyone wants to take a very complex economy and say stop spending.

Any businessman knows you need to spend money to make money. Most people forget that we deficit spent ourselves out of the great depression.

So, someone taking things to the basics might say this is the correct thing then to do here. Perhaps what should be examined is not the deficit spending, but perhaps the particulars of where the money was spent. It is not as simple as "spend less then you take in"

We continuously elect the most popular person, and the person whose BS message is closest to our own utopian view of the world, instead of demanding someone who can deeply analyze the spending, and determine what spending has a return, and what spending has none. What sort of spending promotes foreign companies to BUY the things americans make, or the resources and services we provide? What sort of laws do we make that promote that? What sort of spending do we make that encourages development, What sort of laws and spending encourages dependence?

If for instance, I'm a company bleeding money. Is it correct for me to cut everything accross the board? Do I start buying cheaper products to sell, do I start buying cheaper equipment, do I cut the advertising OR do I examine where my dollar has the best return, and change the proportion of my spending weighted more directly on return?

Who in this government is doing this kind of analysis? Don't tell me there isn't data. It's not just the facts that are being stretched, the data is being distorted too....Why? Because, the "leaders" themselves put the needs of their facilitators before country and therefore vote and spend accordingly. If this were not true, then we wouldn't all have this distorted view of conservatism, liberalism, and this ridiculous notion that there is some greater good to character asassination.
Things will only improve when we stop electing Violinists when mechanics are needed.

[wesjh]

One of the things that allowed people to overlook the debt increase under Bush was the debt to GDP comparisons. I think that was akin to looking at cash flow compared to debt service costs. The economy was humming, so no one was worried.
Big mistake. As my since departed uncle used to say (he, a ukrainian immigrant who was conscripted into the german army in WWII- yeah, I know. . .that's a story in itself) " There is no security in borrowed money". The world's governments have fallen for the Keynesian fallacy. How? Governments do not create wealth, they simply tax the wealth created by others to fund their endeavors. That is why government needs to be kept small: they are parasitic in nature, no matter how benign. Sorry to contradict you Ger, but the notion that we deficit spent our way out of the Depression(known only as the Great Depression in the U.S.) has been dispproven. Unemployment was actually higher near the end of the 30's than at the beginning. It wa austerity that forced savings during WWII and pent up demand after the war that ended the Great Depression. Here's a good article that helps to explain the fallacies - http://countrythinker.com/home/economic ... continued/
The problem is that the world economies have been built on borrowed money. Unlike private sector borrowing that usually has a plan for repayment with an eye to make a profit, government spending is usually thrown away on welfare programs.
The one country that is thriving (for the most part) happens to be Canada. Prime Minister Harper (who came out of the Reform Party of Alberta) has charted a course of fiscal sanity that has kept the canadians somewhat insulated from the financial crash that everyone else is experiencing. That and canadians aren't afraid to extract resources - they see the market and the benefit. I am so thankful that I am now working on a Canadian drilling rig in ND. Winter is going to suck, but the big paychecks will help the balance sheet until things recover around here.
Daune, I think what has everyone in the "tea" party in an uproar is tha what took 6 or 8 years to double under Bush, Obama blew threw in no time. Bush's last budget deficit was around $450 billion, Obama's first deficit was $1.85Trillion. //blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
None of us would even consider going into deeper debt to rescue businesses that were mired in debt, how in the world can we think that of governments that cannot and will not control spending in any way shape or form? Hell, they don't even want to give up the 8% automatic increases!!