Obama's Deficit Lies

[gdnp]

ROTFLOL! Don't forget to mention that back in September of 2008, Nouriel Roubini was VERY much against the bank bailout that you clearly favor

Which plan would that be? Because I favor nationalizing the banks. And gee, that is just what Roubini is advocating. Go figure.

(http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-m...shareholders_and_unsecured_creditors_of_banks ). In fact, he said the plan was inefficient, ran counter to the best models of how to deal with this sort of problem, and does not punish current shareholders or management. He used words like "rip-off", "pathetic" and "disgrace". He said "Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification."

Yes, Roubini said from the beginning that Paulson was not handling the TARP funds well, that the government was bailing out the bad decisions of the banks without getting equity in return. I agree. If the taxpayers are footing the bill, the stockholders should be wiped out and the future gains, if any, should go to the taxpayers. Any more straw men, BAC? There is a big difference between disagreeing with the way that the feds were recapitalizing the banks and disagreeing that the federal government is the only entity capable of recapitalizing the banks.

What was that you've been asking me about recapitalization, gndp?

You get so smug with your straw may arguments, but the utter vacuousness of your position remains. You know exactly what I am asking: I've said it 10 times now.

HOW DO YOU SUGGEST WE RECAPITALIZE THE BANKS, BAC?

You may not like my solution. You may not like Paulson's solution. You may not like Geithner's solution. You may not like Roubini's solution. But you can't beat something with nothing. And you have nothing.

Why do you keep pushing the strawman that I don't think the economic situation is bad NOW. Of course I do. What I don't think is that it was as bad as claimed back in 2008 when we started throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at a problem we I really didn't (and clearly still don't) understand.

Fixed that one for you.

That same uncertainty is what has now driven the markets below 6000 ... heading for 5000.

You might want to check your stock quotes. The Dow is below 7000 (6700 or so), and may be heading for 6000. Perhaps even 5000. I'll take the uncertainty introduced by the government over the certainty of AIG, Bear Sterns, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, GM, and Chrysler all failing. I think the traders will as well.

 

[gdnp]

Why do you keep pushing the strawman that I don't think the economic situation is bad NOW. Of course I do. What I don't think is that it was as bad as claimed back in 2008 when we started throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at a problem we really didn't (and clearly still don't) understand.

Well, maybe this thread you started February 9th had something to do with it:

Obama is lying again!
Heads up. Obama is LYING again, folks.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02092009...phe_154174.htm

Quote:
PRESIDENT Obama, writing in The Washington Post, said, "By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression."

This is an outright LIE. As pointed out in the above linked article, this downturn is no where near as bad as the ones in 1981-82 and 1973-75 by most ways of measuring it. They even provide a handy chart...<snip>

So which is it, BAC? 3 weeks ago you said that this downturn was "no where near as bad as the ones in 1981-82 and 1973-75."

So I'm confused.

Do you think things are bad, or not?

73-75 and 81-82 were not that severe recessions, and 3 weeks ago you said this one is "no where near as bad." Not that it wasn't as bad before they started throwing money at it and made it worse, but that as of February 9th 2009 it was no where near as bad. In fact, you were so adamant that things weren't so bad that you called Obama a LIAR for saying that this was the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

So who is the liar now, BAC?

 

[jaydeehess]

Sunday, March 9, 2008; Page B01

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

$16 billion a month not counted in the Bush budgets, to fight two wars,correct?
Obama included these in his budget did he not?
That's close to 0.2 trillion per year. Any other budgetary slights of hand that GWB used?

 

[BeAChooser]

Well, once again, this is what a professor of Economics at the Sloan School has to say:

The problem with taking Mr Doom and Gloom Roubini as the last and final word in economics is that he started predicting an "imminent" recession/meltdown more than 4 years ago and the causes he cited for it have been as varied as the trade deficit, the current account deficit, Katrina, oil prices and then the housing downturn. He was bound to get a recession and a cause that would seem to fit sooner of later ... and he still hasn't really gotten to the underlying cause because at heart he's as liberal as Obama. And now you want us to believe he's just as right about the solution to the recession? What if instead he's just as wrong as he was about the cause and timing of the recession as he was three or four years ago?

And by the way, Roubini is a professor at the STERN School of Business, not the SLOAN School.

 

[BeAChooser]

Essentially, Roubini has been stating that we need to nationalize the banks, clean them of their toxic assets, and then privatize them as quickly as possible. We also need a massive fiscal stimulus to get the economy moving, money spent NOW, not in 2010, and spent by the government, not given as tax cuts that will mostly be saved.

It might surprise you, gdnp, but I agree that if we aren't going to let the banks fail, and we want a REAL economic stimulus, what he suggests is far better than what Obama is doing (i.e., throwing money down a drain). Might I suggest a massive effort to convert 70% of our power generation over to nuclear (like the French) rather than the pie in the sky alternative nonsense being promoted by Obama and Gore? And when Roubini talks about cleaning banks of their toxic assets, he's not talking about providing free houses to people who should never have been given loans in the first place ... like Obama is pushing. Not sure were he stands on nationalizing health care but if he's consistent ...

 

[BeAChooser]

I just read that a road near my house will be resurfaced with stimulus money.

Does the road really need resurfacing? And why wasn't the surface already being maintained? Because they were busy spending revenues on dubious social programs? And out of curiousity, what percentage of the resurfacing cost will end up in the hands of illegal immigrants ... and what portion of what they earn will flow out of the country to Mexico?

I'm very dubious about this theory.

I'm glad to hear that.

The stimulus bill gets some of that money into private hands

But the uncertainty caused by Obama's high tax, socialist spending is also causing private money that was invested in the economy to retreat into safer instruments ... perhaps for a long time. So there may be little or no net gain ... or even a loss after all is said and done. The market is down below 7000 for a reason ... but no one in Obama's team is listening.

we can only hope that what they pay for is worth having. Is it funding "bridges to nowhere?" If so, it would be better used to pay off debt.

Harry Reid's 8 billion dollar train between LA and Los Vegas seems highly questionable to me. It isn't going to really create any wealth. Just provide transportation so the working class citizens can lose money even quicker at the tables.

 

[BeAChooser]

Citigroup theoretically controls well over a trillion dollars in assets. What's their market capitalization, BAC? I'll tell you. It's down to around 10 billion dollars.

And you think that means their trillion dollars in assets has gone poof?

So here's the answer, BAC. The twenty largest banks account for 90% of the US banking industry. 90%. In aggregate they are insolvent: their liabilities exceed their assets.

It's all just numbers on paper. But the houses haven't disappeared. The cars haven't disappeared. The manufacturing plants haven't disappeared. Land hasn't disappeared. Natural resources haven't disappeared. And the people haven't disappeared. And most of the jobs haven't disappeared. Whatever it is that you think banks control hasn't disappeared, gdnp. It's all just numbers without a context. So let the bankruptcy courts sort things out. Then we won't have to wait years and years and years getting out of the stagflation/depression that Obama's socialist largess is creating. It cannot be repeated enough ... governments do a very poor job of managing economies. They have screwed up time and time again ... destroying whole countries in the process. And we are about to do that to ourselves, I'm afraid.

Or the government could pour money into them in exchange for equity. They've been trying that.

There's a good example of what I mean about governments doing poorly at managing economies. So far, the word is that the government has been royally cheated in these "exchanges".

That's the source of the losses, BAC. Mortgages people can no longer afford.

No, gdnp ... mortgages people could NEVER really afford. They made bad decisions ... trying to get something for nothing ... and they should pay a price. Freedom is not a guarantee that you won't pay a price for bad decisions. Now Obama wants to reward people for bad decisions and punish people who made good decisions. What do you think the end result of that will be? What do you think the end result of stealing $10-20 TRILLION from producers and giving it to non-producers will be? It doesn't take an economy professor to know.

 

[BeAChooser]

You may not like my solution. You may not like Paulson's solution. You may not like Geithner's solution. You may not like Roubini's solution.

Any of those solutions working yet?

But you can't beat something with nothing. And you have nothing.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgages.htm

Solving the problem

Ok, if this is the problem, then banks need more capital. Then the people, computers, buildings, knowledge, and so forth that represent the real business can borrow money again and start lending it out. The core of any plan must be to recapitalize the banking system. How?

Issue stock, either in offerings, in big chunks as Goldman Sachs famously did with Warren Buffet last week, or by merging or selling the whole company. There are trillions of dollars of investment capital floating around the world, happy to buy banks so long as the price is good enough. Banks don’t want to issue stock, because it seems to “dilute” current stockholders, and might “send bad signals.” Lots of sensible proposals amount to twisting their arms to do so. In many previous “bailouts” the Government has added small (relative to $700 billion!) sweeteners to get deals like this to work.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 4 violation.

I'll take the uncertainty introduced by the government over the certainty of AIG, Bear Sterns, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, GM, and Chrysler all failing. I think the traders will as well.

You think that's what the DOW at 6700 is telling you?

"Rule 4:You will not post "copyright-protected" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media."
Please paste a small selection of an article and a link.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[BeAChooser]

3 weeks ago you said that this downturn was "no where near as bad as the ones in 1981-82 and 1973-75."

And it wasn't, for all the specific reasons I cited (and sourced) ... which you just ignored while regurgitating your gloom and doom, we have to steal from producers whine so government can bail out the banks whine.

Wait till Obama's socialist spending and leftist solutions lead to years and years of stagflation like we had back then ... with double digit interest rates and no economic growth on top of everything else.

Wait till you see the cost of adding another 10 trillion to the national debt and having yearly deficits that are more than any we saw during the 8 Bush years ... and still growing.

Wait till you see the consequences of stealing that and another 10 trillion from producers and giving it to non-producers, thus killing the incentive for people to achieve and make wealth.

Wait till you see that National Health Care doesn't work.

Wait till you see that throwing even more money at schools has accomplished nothing ... that students are even less educated than now.

Wait till you see the consequences of Obama's environmental policies in terms of the economy.

And wait till you see how Obama handles the illegal immigrant situation.

Then MAYBE you'll learn the meaning of "bad", gdnp.

Of course, it may be too late do anything about it then.

And don't try to say then that we didn't warn you.

 

[BeAChooser]

You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad

This is as much BS as the notion that $8.5 trillion in additional national debt over the next 10 years will make our country well. It's as much BS as the claim Obama is going to reduce the deficit to half of the deficit he said helped cause the economic crisis. And of course, none of you anti-warriors will EVER take the time to look at what the costs might have been had we done nothing about Iraq.

 

[joobz]

joobz, do you remember what you wrote back in September of 2008 ...

Do you remember when I asked you if you'd admit you lied about acussing Obama of lieing? Or does your memory have a reality filter?

Tell us joobz ... is Obama's plan to STEAL 10 to 20 TRILLION dollars from the wealth creators over the next 10 years and give it to the more non-productive elements of society the "inbetween" you had in mind for us?

You do understand that this question is nonsense, right?
Steal wealth from wealth generators?

Was it Obama who made the market fall nearly 50%? Did Obama steal the "missing" 50% of wealth? Why aren't the "wealth generators" able to make wealth?

And back in September you were big on responsibility ... blaming loan agents for "convincing people of being able to afford loans that no one in thier (sic) right mind would approve." What is different about Obama and his shyster cronies convincing America to buy TRILLIONS in welfare services by doubling (or worse) the National Debt? The market, which is probably our best indicator of what a "right mind" thinks, apparently doesn't approve. You said "This is predatory". Well Obama's plans are predatory too.

Your analogy is flawed by your basic understanding of the stimulus package. And by your continual claims of "stolen wealth". Please explain what happened to all the wealth that was in the stock market? That was in the home values?

Back in September, while campaigning for Obama, you also applauded Obama when he said "As President, I will make it impossible for Congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork-barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one is looking because when I am president, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy. When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it." I can't help but notice that the stimulus bill violated all those promises ... yet you didn't seem to mind.

I see. Your point must be that we can only use a national crisis to infringe upon constitutional liberties (see patriot act) and not delay campaign promises.




BTW, any time you wish to admit that you were wrong about Obama's statement regarding the economy....

 

[BeAChooser]

Was it Obama who made the market fall nearly 50%?

The DOW when Obama won the election was over 9300. Shouldn't that victory have made investors *hopeful*? Bush mostly did what Obama said he wanted in the last months of his adminstration. Shouldn't that have fixed the problem? The DOW was below 6750, as of today. That's a loss of almost 30% since last November. It was above 8000 when he took office in February. We've witnessed a drop of over 15% in ONE MONTH ... with many of those who follow the market and business community being openly derisive of Obama's plans and suggesting we may now see a DOW below 5000 soon. Where's all that *hope* you folks promised us, joobz? Could it be that the wealth producers in this country (the folks who actually do pay taxes ... unlike so many in Obama's administration) just don't buy all the smoke, mirrors, broken promises and lies coming from Obama's administration in just it's first month in office?

 

[Meadmaker]

It's all just numbers on paper. But the houses haven't disappeared. The cars haven't disappeared. The manufacturing plants haven't disappeared. Land hasn't disappeared. Natural resources haven't disappeared. And the people haven't disappeared. And most of the jobs haven't disappeared. Whatever it is that you think banks control hasn't disappeared, gdnp. It's all just numbers without a context.

I think we should just declare the dollar to be non-existent, and create a new currency. All debts that exist in dollars would cease to exist, and the free market could build a new economy. After all, we would still have the people, cars, factories, etc. Dollars are just numbers on paper.

 

[joobz]

BTW, any time you wish to admit that you were wrong about Obama's statement regarding the economy....

*crickets*

ETA:

... which you just ignored

It seems you are projecting.

 

[joobz]

The DOW when Obama won the election was over 9300.

Which was down from 13900 from the pervious year.
Obama was elected when the market already fell 33%

Where's all that *hope* you folks promised us, joobz?

I am hopeful.

Could it be that the wealth producers in this country (the folks who actually do pay taxes ... unlike so many in Obama's administration) just don't buy all the smoke, mirrors, broken promises and lies coming from Obama's administration in just it's first month in office?

Why aren't the wealth producers producing wealth?

 

[BeAChooser]

*crickets*

I've address your claims, whether you liked the answer or not.

I can't help but notice you don't want to discuss the projected doubling of the National Debt over the next 10 years.

I can't help but notice that you don't want to discuss how deficits under the Obama budget are projected NEVER to drop below half a trillion dollars and will be over 700 billion in 10 years and climbing.

I can't help but notice that you have nothing to say about the OMB's concern that just the stimulus spending bill alone is going to negatively impact GDP growth downstream.

I can't help but notice that you can't point to one time in history when a government doing what Obama is now doing has succeeded in bringing wealth and prosperity to a society. NOT ONCE.

So as you say ... *crickets*

 

[BeAChooser]

I am hopeful.

Well *hope* is about all you have at this point since history, logic, facts, consistency and common sense have clearly abandoned you. By the way ... I hear the DOW was down almost 40 more today. So yes indeed, where are all those wealth producers willingly putting their money? It certainly isn't in Obama's socialist economy. I guess he and his democrat pals better STEAL some more ... through taxes at the point of a gun.

 

[joobz]

I've address your claims, whether you liked the answer or not.

When and where? I haven't seen you admit that Obama was right. Is it so hard for you to say?

I can't help but notice you don't want to discuss the projected doubling of the National Debt over the next 10 years.

future debt is less worrying then current crisis.

Where's the wealth producers right now?

I can't help but notice that you don't want to discuss how deficits under the Obama budget are projected NEVER to drop below half a trillion dollars and will be over 700 billion in 10 years and climbing.

Don't care.
Where's are your wealth producers?

I can't help but notice that you have nothing to say about the OMB's concern that just the stimulus spending bill alone is going to negatively impact GDP growth downstream.

Not a concern.
My concern is where are your wealth producers?

So as you say ... *crickets*

Is it so hard for you to admit that Obama was right regarding our current economic crisis? I'm serious here. You seem to be stuck on stupid.


BTW: I'd like for you to consider where the wealth producers are?
Look at what "stimulated" the economy the past 100 years. At the center of each boom was a technological advance. (industrialization, automobiles, trains, flight, computers, internet, ...) Advances that came out of research. Many of which wouldn't have happened without government investment.

Since 2000, there was not a single investment increase into science. Not the NSF or the NIH. Simultaneously, there was a ban on good research (stem cell research).
This was a major blunder that shoots america future prospects in the foot.

We are already suffering the consequences of this major blunder. I'd like for you to look into potasium beryllium fluoroborate (KBBF). China has a corner on that market and they know it. They are using it to make major advances in physics and to make major technological advances. I'd like for you to consider what happens to the nation that no longer invests heavily into research.

Well *hope* is about all you have at this point since history, logic, facts, consistency and common sense have clearly abandoned you. By the way ... I hear the DOW was down almost 40 more today. So yes indeed, where are all those wealth producers willingly putting their money? It certainly isn't in Obama's socialist economy. I guess he and his democrat pals better STEAL some more ... through taxes at the point of a gun.

Where are your wealth producers? You keep appealing to them like they are some mythical saviors to free us from the tyrrany of Obama. Perhaps you should ask them for solutions to the problem and then post those solutions here.

 

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
3 weeks ago you said that this downturn was "no where near as bad as the ones in 1981-82 and 1973-75."

And it wasn't, for all the specific reasons I cited (and sourced) ... which you just ignored while regurgitating your gloom and doom, we have to steal from producers whine so government can bail out the banks whine.

You are running in circles again, BAC. First you claim that the financial crisis is not nearly as bad as 73-75 and 81-82, then you accused me of the straw man claim that you don't think the economic situation is bad now, and now you repeat that 3 weeks ago the economic situation isn't as bad as it was in 73-75 and 81-82. Which is it, BAC? Do you think the current economic crisis is

1) less bad than the recent recessions
2) just as severe as the recent recessions
3) more severe than the recent recessions?


To say that the current recession is not as severe as previous recessions by comparing the state of the economy now, while the recession has not bottomed out, to the state of the economy in the previous recessions when they were at their nadirs is disingenuous at best. You're like the guy who has fallen 2 floors off the roof of a 5 floor building and says "so far so good!" because he is in better shape than the guy who fell off the roof of the 2 story building and hit the ground.

The DOW when Obama won the election was over 9300. Shouldn't that victory have made investors *hopeful*?

The Dow peaked at 14900, didn't it? So it had already fallen 38% when he took over.

You sure like cherry picking your statistics, don't you, BAC? Tell me, if they had switched captains on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg, would you have felt *hopeful*?. Would you have blamed the new captain when the ship continued to sink, or perhaps the captain who caused the collision in the first place?

Next question: why are you so concerned about the stock market falling? Do you want the government to intervene to prop up stock prices? Perhaps all these companies are overvalued. Isn't this just the free market doing its job? How is this different than the oil bubble or the housing bubble collapsing?

 

[gdnp]

We are already suffering the consequences of this major blunder. I'd like for you to look into potasium beryllium fluoroborate (KBBF). China has a corner on that market and they know it. They are using it to make major advances in physics and to make major technological advances. I'd like for you to consider what happens to the nation that no longer invests heavily into research.


Where are your wealth producers? You keep appealing to them like they are some mythical saviors to free us from the tyrrany of Obama. Perhaps you should ask them for solutions to the problem and then post those solutions here.

Research? who needs research? The Choosers chose, and they determined they could make far more money repackaging debt and running hedge funds. Of course, once the wheels fell off the bus, they already had their millions. Screw the stockholders. Screw the debtholders. Let the taxpayers pick up the pieces. That's what the Choosers chose: to run the banks for their own profit, rather than the public good. While claiming they were creating wealth.

Those are your real thieves, BAC.