I feel great about Barack Obama!

[Staccato]

It's an undeniable fact that even with a recovery and boom to the economy far better that anyone could possibly predict, that our children will be paying for what Obama is spending this year alone. That sounds like an oncomming train to me.

Possibly. What do you believe the alternative would have been?

 

[LUColt27]

Possibly. What do you believe the alternative would have been?

They could have let the bad debt work its way out of the system. It would mean very hard times right now, possibly on a par with the Great Depression (On the plus side, the Plains aren't in Dust Bowl shape), but the economy would eventually emerge stronger than before.

 

[Staccato]

...but the economy would eventually emerge stronger than before.

How do you know this?

 

[LUColt27]

How do you know this?

I don't. I could very easily be wrong about this. I just know that excessive government spending and takeover of businesses is generally a precursor to the government somehow getting a lot more power than it had before. I also know that eventually a government will run out of money and one of two things will likely happen. They will either undergo a depression and economic hardship, or try to print their way out of it. The first option is almost always better, because their money will eventually rise in worth again.

Printing money rarely helps. Ask somebody from Zimbabwe how that works, because they just came out with a new dollar 3 months ago. $1 is worth about $294 of the new dollar there. Not too bad, compared to other figures. The problem is that the new dollar is worth $1,000,000,000,000 of their old dollars. In essence, their old currency isn't worth being used as fertilizer, and there are actually signs in bathrooms there saying that old currency shouldn't be used as toilet paper. I don't know how successful that is, but I generally think their economic problems should be avoided at all costs.

My point is that government spending and printing of money should be a last resort. At the rate Obama is spending (I've heard the number of $2 trillion being thrown around, and it's probably considerably more), The total amount of money spent by this administration in just 4 years will nearly quintuple the amount of money currently in circulation. Basically, prices will skyrocket for any and everything. I'd like to avoid that by any means necessary. If it means voting in people who make Ebenezer Scrooge look generous, then it may have to come to that.

 

[chaz345]

Possibly. What do you believe the alternative would have been?

The alternative would have been ugly for sure, but it would have been ugly now, for us, as opposed to being ugly for our kids. The generation who finally stands up and says "no we're not going to do it this way any longer, no more passing debt down to those that follow us" will be looked upon in an even more heroic way than the WW2 generation currently is.

Buying our way out of trouble as Obama (and nearly every administration before him going back to shortly after the Great Depression) is doing actually solves nothing. It just postpones ultimately dealing with the problem. The problem being that spending every penny that one has and then spending based on future projections is not something that is sustainable on a long term basis. And that's true for an individual, a giant corporation, and the government. LIMITED, short term deficit spending by the government may be warrented on the front edge of an economic slowdown, but only if during good times, that debt incurred by that deficit spending is paid back. That's not how our government has operated though. When good times return, spending is increased even more.

 

[allhart]

This is are Generation and who is going to do the right thing for the next Generation. I am tired of this point finger game. Let me take my lumps. I would rather suffer than my kids! Legacy costs and the baby boomers are going to want to cash in here shortly......
101 math people! You don't have to be rocket scientist to figure out things aren't adding up to a good thing!

 

[Staccato]

I don't. I could very easily be wrong about this. I just know that excessive government spending and takeover of businesses is generally a precursor to the government somehow getting a lot more power than it had before. I also know that eventually a government will run out of money and one of two things will likely happen. They will either undergo a depression and economic hardship, or try to print their way out of it. The first option is almost always better, because their money will eventually rise in worth again.

And I think that is the problem: we don't know. We could have left things as they were and hoped the system would eventually correct itself but it may not, and our children may have had bigger problems than the paying back of national debt. The hope is, of course, that the government will manage to stimulate the economy back into life before it runs out of money. I'm in a state of concern, but not outright pessimism over the chances of that happening. People can cry doom all they want, but now we're in this boat we have to do the best we can.

Printing money rarely helps. Ask somebody from Zimbabwe how that works, because they just came out with a new dollar 3 months ago. $1 is worth about $294 of the new dollar there. Not too bad, compared to other figures. The problem is that the new dollar is worth $1,000,000,000,000 of their old dollars. In essence, their old currency isn't worth being used as fertilizer, and there are actually signs in bathrooms there saying that old currency shouldn't be used as toilet paper. I don't know how successful that is, but I generally think their economic problems should be avoided at all costs.

I doubt we'll run into hyperinflation just yet, and certainly nothing akin to Zimbabwe, where it's a lot more than just the printing of money that has caused such ridiculous prices on everyday goods (although I agree, it didn't exactly aid the situation).

I agree that you have valid concerns, but I think you may be overstating the case for the end being nigh

 

[jgarden]

And?

You may have a point if you knew for a fact that I didn't object to Bush's deficit spending. However there is a HUGE difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's. Bush's was on things that have an end point, although one that is not as well defined as anyone would like, and Obama's is on things that once they get started, will be nearly impossible to stop.

Not saying that I like Bush's deficit spending any more than Obama's, just saying that at least its on things that will eventually end.

**********************************************************

One commonly cited estimate of Iraq's cost, based on an August analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is $1 trillion, and that's probably on the low side. A report released last week by the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee put the war's 2002-08 tab at $1.3 trillion.

But all these figures don't quite get at Iraq's real cost. Indeed, we usually don't even frame the question the right way. We'd do better to recognize what we've lost, rather than focusing only on what we've paid.

We often think of cost simply in terms of dollars spent, but the real cost of a choice -- what economists call its "opportunity cost" -- consists of the forgone alternatives, of the things we could have had instead ..... This idea sounds simple, but if applied consistently, it requires us to rethink and, yes, raise the costs of the Iraq war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111600865.html

**********************************************************
"Chaz345" is correct that there is "a HUGE difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's," but not in the way he means.

Obama's spending targets America itself and includes many of the "opportunuty costs" (green energy, health, education, infrastructure, etc.) that America has had to forgo for the past 8 years - under the Bush Administration.

Next to WW2, Bush's so-called "end point" costs have made Iraq/Afghanistan Wars the 2nd most expensive conflict in American history - with little to show in return.

It should also be noted that the "end point" costs for the Afghanistan/Iraq Wars have exceeded the original Bush Administration estimates by 10X (1000&#37 - and are still climbing.

 

[Staccato]

The alternative would have been ugly for sure, but it would have been ugly now, for us, as opposed to being ugly for our kids. The generation who finally stands up and says "no we're not going to do it this way any longer, no more passing debt down to those that follow us" will be looked upon in an even more heroic way than the WW2 generation currently is.

It would have been exceptionally ugly for us now compared to ugly for our kids. At the risk of sounding selfish, being considered a martyr just for the sake of it doesn't really do much for me, and if we sank the economy because we gambled that the market could correct itself I'm sure questions of "why didn't you actually do something about it daddy?" wouldn't do much for me either.

Buying our way out of trouble as Obama (and nearly every administration before him going back to shortly after the Great Depression) is doing actually solves nothing. It just postpones ultimately dealing with the problem. The problem being that spending every penny that one has and then spending based on future projections is not something that is sustainable on a long term basis.

I don't think you can solve the cycle of boom and bust.

And that's true for an individual, a giant corporation, and the government.

For the individual, yes, if you have self-control. For a giant corporation, maybe, if they've planned well. For the government, no. Sometimes one needs to spend every penny and then some.

LIMITED, short term deficit spending by the government may be warrented on the front edge of an economic slowdown, but only if during good times, that debt incurred by that deficit spending is paid back.

I believe that a step in that direction was taken during the Clinton administration.

Please note that I'm not trying to turn this into a partisan blame game, I'm merely pointing out that it is possible to pay deficits back but is rarely done. Case in point: the 'good times' of 2000, when we managed to completely revere this paying back trend with massive spending. If we'd deposited rather than withdrawn, maybe spending, however limited you think it should be, would not now but such a contentious issue.

That's not how our government has operated though. When good times return, spending is increased even more.

Well, not always. But mostly, yes. It requires a strong president to not spend the spoils of economic prosperity in order to add a few points to his approval ratings.

 

[Staccato]

This is are Generation and who is going to do the right thing for the next Generation. I am tired of this point finger game. Let me take my lumps. I would rather suffer than my kids! Legacy costs and the baby boomers are going to want to cash in here shortly......

That's great. Put your money in a savings account and save it for your kids so they can put a down payment on a house, or buy a car, or pay for college when they grow up.

Because the economy doesn't care.

 

[chaz345]

Sometimes one needs to spend every penny and then some.

Yes but the operative word being SOMETIMES. Not, as has largely been the case, all the time. And the key ingredient of actually paying down the debt during good times is also largely missing, Clinton's spending of the Social Security "surplus" not withstanding.

 

[Staccato]

Yes but the operative word being SOMETIMES. Not, as has largely been the case, all the time. And the key ingredient of actually paying down the debt during good times is also largely missing, Clinton's spending of the Social Security "surplus" not withstanding.

You'll find little disagreement from me. I do not think spending all the time is either necessary or prudent.

But that notwithstanding, it does not change the fact that this is a time when, I believe, we need to spend. If we spent in the past when we shouldn't have that does not mean we should try and recoup it by not spending when we should. The truth is that we are trying to shut the stable door after the horse has not only bolted, but bought plane tickets and hitched a ride to Fiji.

The present will not forgive good intentions.

 

[LUColt27]

And I think that is the problem: we don't know. We could have left things as they were and hoped the system would eventually correct itself but it may not, and our children may have had bigger problems than the paying back of national debt. The hope is, of course, that the government will manage to stimulate the economy back into life before it runs out of money. I'm in a state of concern, but not outright pessimism over the chances of that happening. People can cry doom all they want, but now we're in this boat we have to do the best we can.



I doubt we'll run into hyperinflation just yet, and certainly nothing akin to Zimbabwe, where it's a lot more than just the printing of money that has caused such ridiculous prices on everyday goods (although I agree, it didn't exactly aid the situation).

I agree that you have valid concerns, but I think you may be overstating the case for the end being nigh

I certainly hope I am, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to really waste time worrying about it. I also don't think it's going to be as bad as Zimbabwe's, either, for the record. But in any case, government stimulation rarely, if ever, works. Most of the big government spending programs throughout history have delayed economic recovery after some sort of disaster, and almost all of them wound up costing more than the economic benefits, adjusting for inflation. I'm not optimistic about lots of money suddenly appearing out of nowhere to pay for debts that actually exist, and I do think it's going to bite us hard, the only question is, when?

 

[Staccato]

I certainly hope I am, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to really waste time worrying about it.

Best way to be in my mind. A lot of people seem to be tearing themselves up either defending or attacking the methods that we are going about with our economic recovery (if indeed it is that) instead of just letting things play out as they will.

Alea iacta est and all that.

I also don't think it's going to be as bad as Zimbabwe's, either, for the record.

I kinda guessed there was a little bit of hyperbole in the comparison

But in any case, government stimulation rarely, if ever, works. Most of the big government spending programs throughout history have delayed economic recovery after some sort of disaster

How would they measure whether a spending program delayed or didn't delay a recovery compared to that which would have happened without such a program?

and almost all of them wound up costing more than the economic benefits, adjusting for inflation.

The question is, would the economy have recovered to the point where we could once again enjoy economic benefits without the stimulus?

I'm not optimistic about lots of money suddenly appearing out of nowhere to pay for debts that actually exist, and I do think it's going to bite us hard, the only question is, when?

I'm less optimistic about the fact that the first batch of the money seemed to disappear into nowhere just as suddenly. That was my big gripe for quite a while. I guess it is as easy as they say to lapse into the 'those darn bankers *shake fist*' routine.

 

[Chipahualca]

We should try and learn to look behind first-line politicians alone, who often do only coordinate, sell, or just advertise the policies of the groups influencing him.

In order to look behind Obama, one needs to understand the several groups currently struggling for dominion of the white house:

...
If the general objectives of the heteroelite coalition that supports him are the same, the details differ between its various components. This explains the incredible battle around Obama’s team nomination and his always ambiguous speeches.
Four factions are fighting:
The Defense faction, led by Brent Scowcroft, Generals opposing Rumsfeld and, of course, Robert Gates who is now the real boss in Washington. They advocate ending the armies’ privatization, and pulling-out "honorably" from Iraq but pursuing the US effort in Afghanistan to avoid giving the impression of a rout, and finally reaching an agreement with Iran and Syria. According to them, Russia and China are still considered rivals that must be singled out and neutralized. They consider the financial crisis as a war where they are going to lose military programs and scale down the size of the armies but they must preserve a relative superiority. Losing power doesn’t matter if they remain the strongest.
The Treasury and the Department of Commerce are led by Geithner and Paul Volcker, the Rockefeller protégés. They come from the Pilgrim’s Society and have the support of the Group of Thirty, the Peterson Institute and the Trilateral Committee. They’re backed by Queen Elizabeth II and want to save both Wall Street and the City. For them, the crisis is a heavy blow since the finance oligarchy revenues are in free fall, but above all it’s a unique opportunity to concentrate capital and to trample the resistance to globalization underfoot. They must spend less for a while in order to avoid social revolutions, but they can grow richer by buying back industrial jewels for next to nothing. In the long term they plan to establish - not a worldwide tax on the right to breathe, it would be obvious - but a worldwide tax on CO2 and a spot market in CO2 emission rights - which is roughly the same while hiding behind an ecological gloss. Unlike the Pentagon, they push for an alliance with China, in particular because it owns 40% of the US Treasury bonds, but also to prevent the rise of a Far East economic block centered on China and draining raw materials from Africa.
The Department of State faction is led by Hillary Clinton, a fundamentalist Christian, and a member of a very secret cult called the Fellowship Foundation (a.k.a "The" Family). This is the Zionist refuge, the ultimate preserve for the endangered neo-con species. They push for unconditional support to Israël, with a touch of realism because they know the situation has changed. It won’t be possible to bomb Lebanon like in 2006, because the Hezbollah now owns efficient anti-aircraft weapons. Invading Gaza as in 2008 won’t be possible anymore because the Hamas has purchased Kornet anti-tank missiles. And if the United States has difficulties funding Tel-Aviv, it’s unlikely that Saudis will make it up for long. Therefore, they must gain time, by making some concessions if required, and find a strategic purpose to Israël.
Ms. Clinton’s main mission is to improve the image of the United States, no longer through public relations (i.e., in justifying Washington policies) but rather through advertising (i.e., in promoting the real or imaginary qualities of the US model). In this context, the Zionists will likely push for the Korbel-Albright-Rice project aiming at transforming the UN into a large impotent forum and creating a competing organization: the Community of Democracies backed by NATO, its armed wing. So far, they are busy sabotaging the Durban II conference which, instead of celebrating the "only democracy in the Middle East", denounces the apartheid regime of Tel-Aviv. Like James Steinberg, the Vice Secretary of State, they consider the financial crisis as a blitzkrieg. There’s going to be a lot of breakage, but it’s the right time to destroy rivals and grab some control levers. Their aim is not to get richer through mergers and acquisitions but to impose their men in the Ministries of Finance and at the head of the banking institutions all around the world.
Finally, the National Security Council is under the influence of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s teacher at Columbia. It should drop its usual coordination role to become a real center of command. It’s led by General Jones who has been a NATO Supreme Commander and who nurtured the Africa Command. For them, the financial crisis is a crisis of the imperial strategy. It’s the astronomical debt required to fund the Iraq war that triggered the economic collapse of the United States. Unlike 1929, war won’t be the solution, war is the problem. Three aims must be pursued simultaneously: force the money back into the US by destroying the competing foreign tax havens and destabilizing the economies of the developed countries (as tested in Greece); maintain the illusion of the US military power in pursuing the occupation of Afghanistan; and obliterate the emerging alliances between Syria, Iran and China and especially between Russia and China (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). The Council will favor all forms of clandestine actions to give the Pentagon enough time for its reorganization.
Obama is trying to satisfy everybody which explains the surrounding confusion.
...

from Meeting with Thierry Meyssan [Voltaire]

 

[allhart]

That's great. Put your money in a savings account and save it for your kids so they can put a down payment on a house, or buy a car, or pay for college when they grow up.

Because the economy doesn't care.

That reminds me of Guy I worked with. When the market was on the upside on housing. He was bragging how rich he become. He sold his house in the bay area and bought four houses in the valley. With all the rent yada yada etc
I wasn't able to get in the market at the time, because the market regarded more money by the week or month for a down payment. We borrowed $6000 from my brother in-law and payed him back with the tax money the first year. I asked the guy how many kids he had? He said three, I told him he better save those house for his kids, because they wouldn't have a chance to save enough money or would they be able afford to get one of their own, to buy that is! But they would still have to pay Death taxes 0f 55% on his houses He looked at me with devastation as the light bulb came on. It was great! Be careful of greed it kills it for, even your own!