Ok Robert, time to pay your "fair share"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...debt_N.htm

Quote:Leap in U.S. debt hits taxpayers with 12% more red ink

.

AHHHHHH .....

Obama inherited it and it is killing him to pass the burden on to we poor citizens.

I am sure he has had to up his Prescription of Ambien over this horrible horrible thing he must do.

He is so pure and stuff after all .....

.

(05-29-2009 09:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Ok Robert, time to pay your "fair share"

I would suspect that he's a consumer of taxes, not a payer.

(05-29-2009 09:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 09:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Ok Robert, time to pay your "fair share"

I would suspect that he's a consumer of taxes, not a payer.

Because Obama's never been a private citizen?

it'll be interesting to see if Obama can borrow the nearly $2 Trillion he needs by Oct.

if not, he'll have to do major cutbacks, monetize the debt('print money') and cause inflation or Raise Interest Rates and completely tank the economy

(06-02-2009 10:55 AM)GGniner Wrote:  it'll be interesting to see if Obama can borrow the nearly $2 Trillion he needs by Oct.

if not, he'll have to do major cutbacks, monetize the debt('print money') and cause inflation or Raise Interest Rates and completely tank the economy

Raising $2 trillion is not nearly as easy as it used to be.

ObamaAssHole and the loony lefters have kicked us into the abyss.

We cannot defend ourselves if we are broke. The first to go is the military.

(06-02-2009 11:57 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  We cannot defend ourselves if we are broke. The first to go is the military.

unfortunately, the Libs aren't the only political group that think it wise to cut the Military spending dramatically and withdrawal inward over nanny state programs in Priority...certain 'libertarians' are McGovernites

Nail Ferguson chimes in:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a635d12c-4c7c-...abdc0.html

Quote:Credit for averting a second Great Depression should principally go to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, whose knowledge of the early 1930s banking crisis is second to none, and whose double dose of near-zero short-term rates and quantitative easing – a doubling of the Fed’s balance sheet since September – has averted a pandemic of bank failures. No doubt, too, the $787bn stimulus package is also boosting US GDP this quarter.

But the stimulus package only accounts for a part of the massive deficit the US federal government is projected to run this year. Borrowing is forecast to be $1,840bn – equivalent to around half of all federal outlays and 13 per cent of GDP. A deficit this size has not been seen in the US since the second world war. A further $10,000bn will need to be borrowed in the decade ahead, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Even if the White House’s over-optimistic growth forecasts are correct, that will still take the gross federal debt above 100 per cent of GDP by 2017. And this ignores the vast off-balance-sheet liabilities of the Medicare and Social Security systems.

It is hardly surprising, then, that the bond market is quailing. For only on Planet Econ-101 (the standard macroeconomics course drummed into every US undergraduate) could such a tidal wave of debt issuance exert “no upward pressure on interest rates”.

Of course, Mr Krugman knew what I meant. “The only thing that might drive up interest rates,” he acknowledged during our debate, “is that people may grow dubious about the financial solvency of governments.” Might? May? The fact is that people – not least the Chinese government – are already distinctly dubious. They understand that US fiscal policy implies big purchases of government bonds by the Fed this year, since neither foreign nor private domestic purchases will suffice to fund the deficit. This policy is known as printing money and it is what many governments tried in the 1970s, with inflationary consequences you do not need to be a historian to recall

Ok, so what I gathered is there were deflationary forces so the gov't reached for a policy that welcomed inflationary forces.

I think folks on this board have been saying that for months. So much for Ivy-league professors.

Here's the rub. You can sum those force vectors, and conclude that only the net is important. However, in the real world, those forces have an effect on your system. If you're in a boat, calm waters are very peaceful, and will leave you in still, placid waters to enjoy the moment. But in a storm, wind and sea may oppose each other to a similar zero net sum, but your vessel may capsize or be crushed in the torrent.

These current policies are foolish. They demonstrate clearly the simple-mindedness of gov't officials. The complexities of a system like the US or global economy defy these approximations. We will pay for this nonsense.

what the Fed did last year and early this year wasn't really inflationary, if they print up money and then pump it into the Budget to pay for it, then it will be Inflationary. He was making sure there was enough available funds, instead of contracting money supply like the Fed did during the Depression. Obama may have to use the extra money to pay the budget, i.e. monetize the debt which would likely be inflationary.

They could 'print' 100's of Trillions of dollars up if they wanted to, it depends on what they do with it on if its inflationary or not. If they sat it at the bottom of the Grand Caynon it wouldn't have any effect on Inflation. Most of what Bernanke did, sat in reserve but was never pumped into the Economy