Earmarks.
Add that to the pile of things he was going to “change.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending
JeffR
First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let’s be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt," Emanuel said. “That is the facts.”
Huh? Is he trying to say that the spendulus was actually inherited, and they had nothing to do with it? How does one inherit 4 trillion new debt? The deficit I understand of course.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let’s be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt," Emanuel said. “That is the facts.”
Huh? Is he trying to say that the spendulus was actually inherited, and they had nothing to do with it? How does one inherit 4 trillion new debt? The deficit I understand of course.[/quote]
They act like they had no power or influence before Obama was elected. Last I checked they were allowed to vote on spending bills. They could have forgone earmarks.
The depressing thing is people eat this shit up. It is their debt as much as it is anyones.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Try to keep up, 100meters.
Well it’s hard because you’re tossing alot of b.s. You seem to confusing the people of Iraq with the terrorists who attacked us, and who are still right where we left them. Meanwhile since the invasion the folks you say have been distracted have been blowing stuff up all over the world, factually un-distracted.
So now that Iran has won the war in Iraq, we now have to deal with them and afghanistan/pakistan where terrorists have been so distracted we now have to send thousands of troops there.
[/quote]
Speaking of facts, you don’t have a single factually correct statement in the above diatribe, not one.
Hey look the stimulus is working…
These poor bastards got hard labor jobs for six whole fucking months!
Get used to it fellas, we’ll all soon be trading our lucrative professional jobs for one on the temporary “Shovel Ready” project. Hey the boss man thinks he might just be able to keep some of them longer than six months…It’s like the great soviet dream all over again!
[quote]pat wrote:
100meters wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Try to keep up, 100meters.
Well it’s hard because you’re tossing alot of b.s. You seem to confusing the people of Iraq with the terrorists who attacked us, and who are still right where we left them. Meanwhile since the invasion the folks you say have been distracted have been blowing stuff up all over the world, factually un-distracted.
So now that Iran has won the war in Iraq, we now have to deal with them and afghanistan/pakistan where terrorists have been so distracted we now have to send thousands of troops there.
Speaking of facts, you don’t have a single factually correct statement in the above diatribe, not one.
[/quote]
1.Please explain how Iran was weakened by the war in Iraq. Everything/everyone says the opposite.
2.Please explain how we are not sending more troops to afghanistan.
Given you can’t do one and two…
3.Please explain your exposure to lead paint.
[quote]hedo wrote:
You will never see 4% growth as long as Obama is in office.[/quote]
You keep doing the same shit.
Obama will never win PA you said.
god, you’re just making a fool of yourself. (though I admit it’s fun to see you get it wrong over and over again)
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Bush didn’t decimate anything. Faggy Frank, Dodd, Jimmy Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act and the other usual suspects did this.
[/quote]
Debunked already.
Again CRA involved in what percentage of subprimes? Hint: the number is very, very, very low.
What you meant to say unregulated/deregulated financial institutions are to blame, led by inept “businessmen” who invested trillions in made up securities then leveraged themselves 50 to one on them which then fuels the flame for more private sector banks and thrifts to dole out more subprime loans, etc. In the meantime other institutions then started to insure these securities, and again because of zero regulation weren’t required to have money on hand to back up the insurance provided, and thus didn’t have any money on hand when this whole scheme went up in flames, much to Kudlow’s surprise.
Hence the never-ending bailouts. (dude, do you watch the news or what?)
Do your research next time before passing on wingnut talking points in here.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
tedro wrote:
JamFly wrote:
$4 trillion budget.
$1.75 trillion defecit.
Remember when we were howling about mere billions? We just as well start measuring in zillions now. It really won’t make any difference. These dollars have so little chance of ever being paid back that they are truly arbitrary.
Trillions, zillions, it’s all irrelevant at this point. We have hit the critical point where bankruptcy is a near certainty. The time to react in a way that will yield a positive result is quickly fading.
Ah, the joys of recovering from Republican decimation.
ah, more intellectual retardation from 100meters. what a shock.[/quote]
Yeah, its weird but i googled, and it turned out Republicans WERE running things the last 8 years. So yeah, they handed him a pile of shit.
Of course I get that you’re a kid and all, but you should at least have know who was running things the last 8 years, what their policies were and what the consequences of those policies are.
Mr 100meters clearly does not know that Congress controls spending.
Or he does not know that the Democrats have controlled the House and Senate since 2006.
One or the other, he must not know; or perhaps it is from his habit of believing two impossible things simultaneously and before breakfast.
Hard to be sure which.
[quote]100meters wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Bush didn’t decimate anything. Faggy Frank, Dodd, Jimmy Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act and the other usual suspects did this.
Debunked already.
Again CRA involved in what percentage of subprimes? Hint: the number is very, very, very low.
[/quote]
this has been explained to you so many times it is getting hard to keep track. The rest of what you say is completely discredited becuase of your obvious lack of understanding when it comes to supply and demand, the business cycle, and therefore economics.
Next time try and understand the difference between cause and effect before posting leftwingnut garbage.
[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
tedro wrote:
JamFly wrote:
$4 trillion budget.
$1.75 trillion defecit.
Remember when we were howling about mere billions? We just as well start measuring in zillions now. It really won’t make any difference. These dollars have so little chance of ever being paid back that they are truly arbitrary.
Trillions, zillions, it’s all irrelevant at this point. We have hit the critical point where bankruptcy is a near certainty. The time to react in a way that will yield a positive result is quickly fading.
Ah, the joys of recovering from Republican decimation.
ah, more intellectual retardation from 100meters. what a shock.
Yeah, its weird but i googled, and it turned out Republicans WERE running things the last 8 years. So yeah, they handed him a pile of shit.
Of course I get that you’re a kid and all, but you should at least have know who was running things the last 8 years, what their policies were and what the consequences of those policies are.
[/quote]
Again, showing unbelievable ignorance concerning politics. Way to go.
I’m 33 by the way. Far from a kid.
Interesting?
“Main issue is that the state of HI, according to statue 338 allows Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates and obtain them based on a statement of one relative only. There is plenty of evidence of Mr. Obama being born in Kenya and obtaining his Hawaiian birth certificate based on a statement of his grandparent only, who simply didn?t want to deal with immigration and not based on any records from any hospitals. Extensive searches in the State of Hawaii showed no birthing records for his mother Ann Dunham in any hospital in Hawaii.”
[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Bush didn’t decimate anything. Faggy Frank, Dodd, Jimmy Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act and the other usual suspects did this.
Debunked already.
Again CRA involved in what percentage of subprimes? Hint: the number is very, very, very low.
this has been explained to you so many times it is getting hard to keep track. The rest of what you say is completely discredited becuase of your obvious lack of understanding when it comes to supply and demand, the business cycle, and therefore economics.
Next time try and understand the difference between cause and effect before posting leftwingnut garbage.
[/quote]
The CRA didn’t “cause” the subprime meltdown, as “leftwingnuts” like Bernanke have had to tell trouble-making republican senators drinking the same kool-aid you drink. CRA wasn’t the root of the subprime meltdown, nor did it contribute in any significant way. Hence my response. So yes cause and effect are important, and clearly the CRA wasn’t the cause. Again, I cited the actual reasons.
The next bit of garbage would be Freddie and Fannie, again not causes, but in this case definitely contributors.
So yes, get back to your Wii.
Speaking of Fannie and Freddie…
In the last six weeks alone, the Obama administration has essentially transformed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into arms of the federal government. Regulators have ordered the companies to oversee a vast new mortgage modification program, to buy greater numbers of loans, to refinance millions of at-risk homeowners and to loosen internal policies so they can work with more questionable borrowers.
[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Bush didn’t decimate anything. Faggy Frank, Dodd, Jimmy Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act and the other usual suspects did this.
Debunked already.
Again CRA involved in what percentage of subprimes? Hint: the number is very, very, very low.
this has been explained to you so many times it is getting hard to keep track. The rest of what you say is completely discredited becuase of your obvious lack of understanding when it comes to supply and demand, the business cycle, and therefore economics.
Next time try and understand the difference between cause and effect before posting leftwingnut garbage.
The CRA didn’t “cause” the subprime meltdown, as “leftwingnuts” like Bernanke have had to tell trouble-making republican senators drinking the same kool-aid you drink. CRA wasn’t the root of the subprime meltdown, nor did it contribute in any significant way. Hence my response. So yes cause and effect are important, and clearly the CRA wasn’t the cause. Again, I cited the actual reasons.
The next bit of garbage would be Freddie and Fannie, again not causes, but in this case definitely contributors.
So yes, get back to your Wii.
[/quote]
So completely wrong. Why don’t you explain to us how all of these subprime mortgages entered the market. What created the demand for and the supply of these mortgages? Why were they attractive investments?
You have shown you are not capable of more than scratching the surface. Why you continue to post on these subjects with the shallow responses is a bit of a mystery. If you were truly interested, one would think you would put in the time to think through it rather finding snippets from others you have not met and do not know.
I don’t own any gaming console. The little insults and the end of your responses is just silly. We’ve already established how old I am, that I don’t live with my parents, and that I am not interested in video games. What’s next? Maybe you can list them out in a single post and I can respond in kind.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Bush didn’t decimate anything. Faggy Frank, Dodd, Jimmy Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act and the other usual suspects did this.
Debunked already.
Again CRA involved in what percentage of subprimes? Hint: the number is very, very, very low.
this has been explained to you so many times it is getting hard to keep track. The rest of what you say is completely discredited becuase of your obvious lack of understanding when it comes to supply and demand, the business cycle, and therefore economics.
Next time try and understand the difference between cause and effect before posting leftwingnut garbage.
The CRA didn’t “cause” the subprime meltdown, as “leftwingnuts” like Bernanke have had to tell trouble-making republican senators drinking the same kool-aid you drink. CRA wasn’t the root of the subprime meltdown, nor did it contribute in any significant way. Hence my response. So yes cause and effect are important, and clearly the CRA wasn’t the cause. Again, I cited the actual reasons.
The next bit of garbage would be Freddie and Fannie, again not causes, but in this case definitely contributors.
So yes, get back to your Wii.
So completely wrong. Why don’t you explain to us how all of these subprime mortgages entered the market. What created the demand for and the supply of these mortgages? Why were they attractive investments?
You have shown you are not capable of more than scratching the surface. Why you continue to post on these subjects with the shallow responses is a bit of a mystery. If you were truly interested, one would think you would put in the time to think through it rather finding snippets from others you have not met and do not know.
I don’t own any gaming console. The little insults and the end of your responses is just silly. We’ve already established how old I am, that I don’t live with my parents, and that I am not interested in video games. What’s next? Maybe you can list them out in a single post and I can respond in kind.
[/quote]
Painful. Dickey vs. Bernanke and Fed CEO’s.
[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Bush didn’t decimate anything. Faggy Frank, Dodd, Jimmy Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act and the other usual suspects did this.
Debunked already.
Again CRA involved in what percentage of subprimes? Hint: the number is very, very, very low.
this has been explained to you so many times it is getting hard to keep track. The rest of what you say is completely discredited becuase of your obvious lack of understanding when it comes to supply and demand, the business cycle, and therefore economics.
Next time try and understand the difference between cause and effect before posting leftwingnut garbage.
The CRA didn’t “cause” the subprime meltdown, as “leftwingnuts” like Bernanke have had to tell trouble-making republican senators drinking the same kool-aid you drink. CRA wasn’t the root of the subprime meltdown, nor did it contribute in any significant way. Hence my response. So yes cause and effect are important, and clearly the CRA wasn’t the cause. Again, I cited the actual reasons.
The next bit of garbage would be Freddie and Fannie, again not causes, but in this case definitely contributors.
So yes, get back to your Wii.
So completely wrong. Why don’t you explain to us how all of these subprime mortgages entered the market. What created the demand for and the supply of these mortgages? Why were they attractive investments?
You have shown you are not capable of more than scratching the surface. Why you continue to post on these subjects with the shallow responses is a bit of a mystery. If you were truly interested, one would think you would put in the time to think through it rather finding snippets from others you have not met and do not know.
I don’t own any gaming console. The little insults and the end of your responses is just silly. We’ve already established how old I am, that I don’t live with my parents, and that I am not interested in video games. What’s next? Maybe you can list them out in a single post and I can respond in kind.
Painful. Dickey vs. Bernanke and Fed CEO’s. [/quote]
how so?