Obamanomics

[orion]

[quote]laxccm wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]laxccm wrote:
I don’t think you understand the nature of American debt.

The issue is not balancing the budget, but printing enough money to stimulate the economy without triggering inflation.

[/quote]

I don’t think you understand the nature of American debt either. The policy you state above has been used for many years now with zero, count it zero, affect on stopping us from going near the cliff edge by both parties. Name one time in history the numbers have been this bad (and I don’t mean raw numbers, I mean adjusted). I don’t believe it can be done.
[/quote]

The policy I am advising is not monetizing the deficit. We all know how that has worked out in history. When the Fed decides to put more money into the economy, they are not directly using that money to pay off the deficit. As I said before, they use the money to buy financial assets and stimulate the economy.

Also, I am not saying debt doesn’t matter, it is extremely important. However, balancing the budget should never be viewed as an end in and of itself, as it can impose austerity lead to depression.

Perhaps Warren Buffett says it more succinctly than I do…: “The United States is not going to have a debt crisis as long as we keep issuing our debts in our own currency. The only thing we have to worry about is the printing press and inflation.” Warren Buffett: Failure to Raise Debt Limit Would Be 'Most Asinine Act' Ever By Congress [/quote]

And that stimulates the economy how?

Whatever resources the Fed acquires is no longer being used by the market.

So, in order to “stimulate” the Fed would have to be able to know better than the market, i.e. it would have to have not only have more consequential knowledge than the market but it also should be able to act on it faster than the market.

So, why do you think that the US Fed will be the first entity to make central planning work?

And no, because you are fucked otherwise is not much of an argument.

[laxccm]

[quote]orion wrote:

Aside from the point that cheap money can stimulate the economy instead of distorting it, which I vehemently disagree with, “printing enough money to stimulate the economy without triggering inflation” is pretty much impossible at this point.

• It is very possible that economies are not operating at full capacity, and that by increasing the money supply you can stimulate growth without causing inflation. Either way, after the 08 crisis, the Fed NEEDED to increase the money supply. We have so far seen no inflation whatsoever having more than tripled our money supply since 08. Whether that will result in long run inflation is yet to be seen. Would you really rather us try and balance our budget instead in the midst of a financial crisis? Because of the fear of inflation? That policy would have driven our economy into the ground.

Sure, Bernanke has assured us that he can and will pull on the reigns when inflation starts to happen, but how?

Increasing interest rates, thats how, and how are municipalities, states and the federal government going to deal with that if they cannot balance their budgets now?

• True, inflation is most certainly the issue here.

And that does not even go into the fact that if US inflation statistics were not seriously being tampered with the official inflation rate would be much higher.

However, when even Joe Sixpack starts to question the official inflation story what do you think the Chinese and the Japanese really think about the prospects of loaning the US any more money?

• It would be extremely stupid of the Chinese and Japanese not to keep “loaning” the US more money. By the way, these aren’t really loans. China and Japan do not fund America’s spending. If America wanted to spend more, it would simply print more money (without having to pay interest…) China accepts US$ for exports to America, in exchange for the opportunity to employ millions of citizens because of business partnerships with US corporations. China, for the most part, keeps that $$ in US treasuries, which in this circumstance can be thought of as a savings account with the fed, and allows that $$ to accumulate interest. China would never think about halting exports to America, especially when they are well aware of the fact that America has no solvency constraint (can’t run out of money).

So we have a Fed that would try simultaneously to keep government going and be it by monetizing debt, keep inflation at a reasonable rate and not to kill off the economy.

You can pick one, if you have a benevolent genius at the helm which Bernanke almost definitely is not maybe two.

But all three?

No way. [/quote]

• Once again, increasing the money supply and monetizing debt are not the same thing. It is easy to increase the money supply and stimulate the economy without seeing the type of inflation that arises from monetizing debt. There will likely be inflation under this policy (which is why politicians like Ron Paul are keen to point out that we have tripled the money supply), and again, that should be the primary concern, not balancing the budget.

[laxccm]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]laxccm wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]laxccm wrote:
I don’t think you understand the nature of American debt.

The issue is not balancing the budget, but printing enough money to stimulate the economy without triggering inflation.

[/quote]

I don’t think you understand the nature of American debt either. The policy you state above has been used for many years now with zero, count it zero, affect on stopping us from going near the cliff edge by both parties. Name one time in history the numbers have been this bad (and I don’t mean raw numbers, I mean adjusted). I don’t believe it can be done.
[/quote]

The policy I am advising is not monetizing the deficit. We all know how that has worked out in history. When the Fed decides to put more money into the economy, they are not directly using that money to pay off the deficit. As I said before, they use the money to buy financial assets and stimulate the economy.

Also, I am not saying debt doesn’t matter, it is extremely important. However, balancing the budget should never be viewed as an end in and of itself, as it can impose austerity lead to depression.

Perhaps Warren Buffett says it more succinctly than I do…: “The United States is not going to have a debt crisis as long as we keep issuing our debts in our own currency. The only thing we have to worry about is the printing press and inflation.” Warren Buffett: Failure to Raise Debt Limit Would Be 'Most Asinine Act' Ever By Congress [/quote]

And that stimulates the economy how?

Whatever resources the Fed acquires is no longer being used by the market.

So, in order to “stimulate” the Fed would have to be able to know better than the market, i.e. it would have to have not only have more consequential knowledge than the market but it also should be able to act on it faster than the market.

So, why do you think that the US Fed will be the first entity to make central planning work?

And no, because you are fucked otherwise is not much of an argument.
[/quote]

First, as I’ve already said, the Fed never needs to acquire resources. The Fed is the only entity which can print US dollars. It does not need to borrow to spend. If the Government had never spent any money, there would be 0 dollars in circulation. This is how 100% of US dollars came into existence. It is not cheap money.

Second, when did I ever mention central planning? When the government “spends” it puts money into the private sector (which IS the market). Why would the government need to compete with the market when it can feed it instead?

Finally, “because you are fucked otherwise” is not my argument. My argument is that there are more important economic indicators than debt to predict economic welfare. Worrying only about debt is asinine and counterproductive. We have increased the debt ceiling, tripled the monetary base, and are in the midst of a recovery with no inflation (yet).
Back to the original point of this thread, bashing Obama for debt when our monetary policy has been relatively successful in light of the crisis is unfair.

[laxccm]

Here is a quote from Paul Krugman (nobel prize winning economist) illustrating my point:

â??People think of debtâ??s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: thereâ??s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But thatâ??s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.â??

What he is saying is that most US debt is a result of what I explained above. It’s mostly money that the US government owes to US citizens. The government doesn’t need to pay off its deficit so that Grandma can turn in her savings bonds. Grandma’s savings bonds ARE the government’s deficit.

If anyone is to blame for the recent crisis, it is Clinton, NOT Obama. Please take a look:
http://pragcap.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/sb1.png

In this graph you will notice in the late 90’s that as the Government’s balance was shrinking, the domestic private sector was driven into deficit. This is because the Government was not spending enough for the private sector to net save. To counteract this, regular citizens (private sector) begin to take on debt themselves to fund more spending. If anything is to blame for the prominence of subprime lending and the ensuing bubble, it is this.

Once again, all I’m saying here is that the debt in and of itself is not a source of worry. Balancing the budget often has disastrous effects on the economy. Our government is STILL trying to deal with the negative effects from Clinton’s surplus. Please remember this the next time a presidential candidate discusses the deficit.

[boondoc_holiday]

My question to the group is: does it matter who is president? Can we not agree that if Congress (Article I section 8) continues to shirk its responsibility to bring and regulate sound money, inflation will happen if it’s slow and “regulated” or hyper. Don’t you guys think this currency will crash? It may take months, it may take years, but history shows us that fiat currencies always devalue to nothing.

What am I missing?

[groo]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not Obama’s biggest fan but your equation does not consider that diminished tax revenue due to Bush running the economy in the ditch.

[/quote]

Here we go nice one should have known that. It’s STILL BUSH’S FAULT!

You never disappoint.

[/quote]

I think the real estate market crashed , if was a big hit , it was no one’s fault . There are few that have a grasp of the way our economy is truly working
[/quote]

The housing market crashed because the banks were giving out sub-prime mortgage loans at the lowest rates in history. Then, when the Fed raised the rates, everybody started to default on their loans, leading to foreclosures. Don’t blame the/a president for that, blame the mortgage companies.

CS [/quote]

I assure you my intention was to state there was no real fault, I just act like the Republicans are more evil than the Democrats because the Republicans want you to believe the Democrats are more evil than the Republicans .
[/quote]

GO RON PAUL! Oh that’s right he failed like I said he would…never mind.[/quote]

No, the American electorate failed, but it will pay a very high price for it.

I can even tell you right now who is going to win the election.

Goldman Sachs. [/quote]
I have only one thing to say to you from the American electorate.

[pittbulll]

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not Obama’s biggest fan but your equation does not consider that diminished tax revenue due to Bush running the economy in the ditch.

[/quote]

And what would that be , Big Money is ruling America and as long as the Republicans have their say it will be so and to a lessor degree that goes for Democrats

Here we go nice one should have known that. It’s STILL BUSH’S FAULT!

You never disappoint.

[/quote]

I think the real estate market crashed , if was a big hit , it was no one’s fault . There are few that have a grasp of the way our economy is truly working
[/quote]

The housing market crashed because the banks were giving out sub-prime mortgage loans at the lowest rates in history. Then, when the Fed raised the rates, everybody started to default on their loans, leading to foreclosures. Don’t blame the/a president for that, blame the mortgage companies.

CS [/quote]

I assure you my intention was to state there was no real fault, I just act like the Republicans are more evil than the Democrats because the Republicans want you to believe the Democrats are more evil than the Republicans .
[/quote]

GO RON PAUL! Oh that’s right he failed like I said he would…never mind.[/quote]

No, the American electorate failed, but it will pay a very high price for it.

I can even tell you right now who is going to win the election.

Goldman Sachs. [/quote]
I have only one thing to say to you from the American electorate.[/quote]

[pittbulll]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not Obama’s biggest fan but your equation does not consider that diminished tax revenue due to Bush running the economy in the ditch.

[/quote]

And what would that be , Big Money is ruling America and as long as the Republicans have their say it will be so and to a lessor degree that goes for Democrats

Here we go nice one should have known that. It’s STILL BUSH’S FAULT!

You never disappoint.

[/quote]

I think the real estate market crashed , if was a big hit , it was no one’s fault . There are few that have a grasp of the way our economy is truly working
[/quote]

The housing market crashed because the banks were giving out sub-prime mortgage loans at the lowest rates in history. Then, when the Fed raised the rates, everybody started to default on their loans, leading to foreclosures. Don’t blame the/a president for that, blame the mortgage companies.

CS [/quote]

I assure you my intention was to state there was no real fault, I just act like the Republicans are more evil than the Democrats because the Republicans want you to believe the Democrats are more evil than the Republicans .
[/quote]

GO RON PAUL! Oh that’s right he failed like I said he would…never mind.[/quote]

No, the American electorate failed, but it will pay a very high price for it.

I can even tell you right now who is going to win the election.

Goldman Sachs. [/quote]
I have only one thing to say to you from the American electorate.[/quote]
[/quote]

And what would that be , Big Money is ruling America and as long as the Republicans have their say it will be so and to a lessor degree that goes for Democrats

[groo]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not Obama’s biggest fan but your equation does not consider that diminished tax revenue due to Bush running the economy in the ditch.

[/quote]

And what would that be , Big Money is ruling America and as long as the Republicans have their say it will be so and to a lessor degree that goes for Democrats

Here we go nice one should have known that. It’s STILL BUSH’S FAULT!

You never disappoint.

[/quote]

I think the real estate market crashed , if was a big hit , it was no one’s fault . There are few that have a grasp of the way our economy is truly working
[/quote]

The housing market crashed because the banks were giving out sub-prime mortgage loans at the lowest rates in history. Then, when the Fed raised the rates, everybody started to default on their loans, leading to foreclosures. Don’t blame the/a president for that, blame the mortgage companies.

CS [/quote]

I assure you my intention was to state there was no real fault, I just act like the Republicans are more evil than the Democrats because the Republicans want you to believe the Democrats are more evil than the Republicans .
[/quote]

GO RON PAUL! Oh that’s right he failed like I said he would…never mind.[/quote]

No, the American electorate failed, but it will pay a very high price for it.

I can even tell you right now who is going to win the election.

Goldman Sachs. [/quote]
I have only one thing to say to you from the American electorate.[/quote]
[/quote]

And what would that be , Big Money is ruling America and as long as the Republicans have their say it will be so and to a lessor degree that goes for Democrats
[/quote]

[orion]

[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
My question to the group is: does it matter who is president? Can we not agree that if Congress (Article I section 8) continues to shirk its responsibility to bring and regulate sound money, inflation will happen if it’s slow and “regulated” or hyper. Don’t you guys think this currency will crash? It may take months, it may take years, but history shows us that fiat currencies always devalue to nothing.

What am I missing?
[/quote]

Nothing.

Can we move on to how it will crash and how to make some money from that regrettable and inevitable occurenceÃ?

[orion]

[quote]laxccm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Aside from the point that cheap money can stimulate the economy instead of distorting it, which I vehemently disagree with, “printing enough money to stimulate the economy without triggering inflation” is pretty much impossible at this point.

• It is very possible that economies are not operating at full capacity, and that by increasing the money supply you can stimulate growth without causing inflation. Either way, after the 08 crisis, the Fed NEEDED to increase the money supply. We have so far seen no inflation whatsoever having more than tripled our money supply since 08. Whether that will result in long run inflation is yet to be seen. Would you really rather us try and balance our budget instead in the midst of a financial crisis? Because of the fear of inflation? That policy would have driven our economy into the ground.

Sure, Bernanke has assured us that he can and will pull on the reigns when inflation starts to happen, but how?

Increasing interest rates, thats how, and how are municipalities, states and the federal government going to deal with that if they cannot balance their budgets now?

• True, inflation is most certainly the issue here.

And that does not even go into the fact that if US inflation statistics were not seriously being tampered with the official inflation rate would be much higher.

However, when even Joe Sixpack starts to question the official inflation story what do you think the Chinese and the Japanese really think about the prospects of loaning the US any more money?

• It would be extremely stupid of the Chinese and Japanese not to keep “loaning” the US more money. By the way, these aren’t really loans. China and Japan do not fund America’s spending. If America wanted to spend more, it would simply print more money (without having to pay interest…) China accepts US$ for exports to America, in exchange for the opportunity to employ millions of citizens because of business partnerships with US corporations. China, for the most part, keeps that $$ in US treasuries, which in this circumstance can be thought of as a savings account with the fed, and allows that $$ to accumulate interest. China would never think about halting exports to America, especially when they are well aware of the fact that America has no solvency constraint (can’t run out of money).

So we have a Fed that would try simultaneously to keep government going and be it by monetizing debt, keep inflation at a reasonable rate and not to kill off the economy.

You can pick one, if you have a benevolent genius at the helm which Bernanke almost definitely is not maybe two.

But all three?

No way. [/quote]

• Once again, increasing the money supply and monetizing debt are not the same thing. It is easy to increase the money supply and stimulate the economy without seeing the type of inflation that arises from monetizing debt. There will likely be inflation under this policy (which is why politicians like Ron Paul are keen to point out that we have tripled the money supply), and again, that should be the primary concern, not balancing the budget.
  [/quote]

All right, if it is easy, how is it done?

[pittbulll]

JUST LIKE Jesus said "fuck the poor and sick " If we did away with all our social programs we could widdle our budget down by %30 , saving more money to dominate the world .

[orion]

[quote]laxccm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]laxccm wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]laxccm wrote:
I don’t think you understand the nature of American debt.

The issue is not balancing the budget, but printing enough money to stimulate the economy without triggering inflation.

[/quote]

I don’t think you understand the nature of American debt either. The policy you state above has been used for many years now with zero, count it zero, affect on stopping us from going near the cliff edge by both parties. Name one time in history the numbers have been this bad (and I don’t mean raw numbers, I mean adjusted). I don’t believe it can be done.
[/quote]

The policy I am advising is not monetizing the deficit. We all know how that has worked out in history. When the Fed decides to put more money into the economy, they are not directly using that money to pay off the deficit. As I said before, they use the money to buy financial assets and stimulate the economy.

Also, I am not saying debt doesn’t matter, it is extremely important. However, balancing the budget should never be viewed as an end in and of itself, as it can impose austerity lead to depression.

Perhaps Warren Buffett says it more succinctly than I do…: “The United States is not going to have a debt crisis as long as we keep issuing our debts in our own currency. The only thing we have to worry about is the printing press and inflation.” Warren Buffett: Failure to Raise Debt Limit Would Be 'Most Asinine Act' Ever By Congress [/quote]

And that stimulates the economy how?

Whatever resources the Fed acquires is no longer being used by the market.

So, in order to “stimulate” the Fed would have to be able to know better than the market, i.e. it would have to have not only have more consequential knowledge than the market but it also should be able to act on it faster than the market.

So, why do you think that the US Fed will be the first entity to make central planning work?

And no, because you are fucked otherwise is not much of an argument.
[/quote]

First, as I’ve already said, the Fed never needs to acquire resources. The Fed is the only entity which can print US dollars. It does not need to borrow to spend. If the Government had never spent any money, there would be 0 dollars in circulation. This is how 100% of US dollars came into existence. It is not cheap money.

Second, when did I ever mention central planning? When the government “spends” it puts money into the private sector (which IS the market). Why would the government need to compete with the market when it can feed it instead?

Finally, “because you are fucked otherwise” is not my argument. My argument is that there are more important economic indicators than debt to predict economic welfare. Worrying only about debt is asinine and counterproductive. We have increased the debt ceiling, tripled the monetary base, and are in the midst of a recovery with no inflation (yet).
Back to the original point of this thread, bashing Obama for debt when our monetary policy has been relatively successful in light of the crisis is unfair.

[/quote]

First, you do not have “no inflation”.

You have “no inflation” if you use hedonic measurements and if you exclude housing, groceries and energy from the CPI.

I.e. gas, food and lodging.

I am sorry, but, no.

Then, and this point is important, the Fed does not need to require resources? Hel yeah, it does. What you do is assigning mystical properties to money when it has none. Money is a placeholder that allows us to make somewhat rational economic decisions by revealing the relative scarcity of goods. No more, no less.

To pretend that one barrel of oil, one log of timber or one ingot of iron is created because the Fed has printed money amounts to a magical world view.

If it creates money and buys stuff it draws real stuff from the market and does stuff with it that the market would not do, meaning, it destroys wealth, unless of course you believe that they know better than an emergent system that just so happens to express the ordinal value scales of 6-7 billion people in realtime.

Just a tad above their pay grade, or so I believe.

Also, what recovery?

[orion]

[quote]laxccm wrote:
Here is a quote from Paul Krugman (nobel prize winning economist) illustrating my point:

â??People think of debtâ??s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: thereâ??s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But thatâ??s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.â??

What he is saying is that most US debt is a result of what I explained above. It’s mostly money that the US government owes to US citizens. The government doesn’t need to pay off its deficit so that Grandma can turn in her savings bonds. Grandma’s savings bonds ARE the government’s deficit.

If anyone is to blame for the recent crisis, it is Clinton, NOT Obama. Please take a look:
http://pragcap.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/sb1.png

In this graph you will notice in the late 90’s that as the Government’s balance was shrinking, the domestic private sector was driven into deficit. This is because the Government was not spending enough for the private sector to net save. To counteract this, regular citizens (private sector) begin to take on debt themselves to fund more spending. If anything is to blame for the prominence of subprime lending and the ensuing bubble, it is this.

Once again, all I’m saying here is that the debt in and of itself is not a source of worry. Balancing the budget often has disastrous effects on the economy. Our government is STILL trying to deal with the negative effects from Clinton’s surplus. Please remember this the next time a presidential candidate discusses the deficit. [/quote]

I think Krugmann should get his story straight.

Either printing money has no effect at all, meaning, it does not grant you control over any resources (why do it then?), or it does and has real effects on the economy which just so happens to open the door for the possibilty that the truckload of unintented consequences that inevitably follow every government action ( yeah, I know, the Fed is, like, totally not a government institution) will not offset any benefit of his prescribed policies.

Also, on a personal note, if you look into Krugmans publications as a journalist and his way of dealing with criticism it is very, very hard not to see him as a joke and a partisan hack.

How often does he have to be proven wrong before he is laughed off the stage?

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
JUST LIKE Jesus said "fuck the poor and sick " If we did away with all our social programs we could widdle our budget down by %30 , saving more money to dominate the world .[/quote]

Strawman.

It is still ad hominem week.

Poophead.

[CSEagles1694]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.” [/quote]

Yes that is a bad thing, but why blame Obama by naming the thread after him? What do you have to say in the future when a republican president causes it to go to new record highs?[/quote]

Because he’s a failure as a President.

“The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.”
[/quote]

Who was the last president that was not a failure?[/quote]

Last two Presidents too balance a budget were Cinton and LBJ both Democrats and now you will see how it spins when a Democrat does somthing well :)[/quote]

Clinton had a Republican Congress. Thanks for playing.

CS[/quote]
Thsi si what I was referring to , thanks for playing

now you will see how it spins when a Democrat does somthing well
[/quote]

A Democrat didn’t do anything well except sign a piece of paper. Congress (which was controlled by the Republicans) did the dirty work and balanced the budget.

CS

[laxccm]

[quote]orion wrote:

First, you do not have “no inflation”.

You have “no inflation” if you use hedonic measurements and if you exclude housing, groceries and energy from the CPI.

I.e. gas, food and lodging.

I am sorry, but, no.

Then, and this point is important, the Fed does not need to require resources? Hel yeah, it does. What you do is assigning mystical properties to money when it has none. Money is a placeholder that allows us to make somewhat rational economic decisions by revealing the relative scarcity of goods. No more, no less.

To pretend that one barrel of oil, one log of timber or one ingot of iron is created because the Fed has printed money amounts to a magical world view.

endquote]

We have tripled the money supply. Inflation has not tripled under any measure. This is evidence of the fact that an economy can be running under capacity. That is my point. In reference to your other post, it’s already been done. Monetizing the deficit will always lead to more inflation than increasing money supply.

The recovery I am referring to is the current ongoing rally: SOME AMAZING YEAR-TO-DATE STATS…. – Pragmatic Capitalism

Also, I am not assigning any mystical properties to money. I am explaining how money works in a country that is an autonomous currency issuer. When you said resources, I thought you were referring to money. Obviously, printing money does not “create” oil. But it sure as hell pays for expensive offshore drilling operations, and that ain’t cheap.

[Sloth]

You don’t have to vote republican, just don’t vote for Obama.

[pittbulll]

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.” [/quote]

Yes that is a bad thing, but why blame Obama by naming the thread after him? What do you have to say in the future when a republican president causes it to go to new record highs?[/quote]

Because he’s a failure as a President.

“The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.”
[/quote]

Who was the last president that was not a failure?[/quote]

Last two Presidents too balance a budget were Cinton and LBJ both Democrats and now you will see how it spins when a Democrat does somthing well :)[/quote]

Clinton had a Republican Congress. Thanks for playing.

CS[/quote]
Thsi si what I was referring to , thanks for playing

now you will see how it spins when a Democrat does somthing well
[/quote]

A Democrat didn’t do anything well except sign a piece of paper. Congress (which was controlled by the Republicans) did the dirty work and balanced the budget.

CS[/quote]

It’s over your head CS

[phatphit]

bama the spender. bama the job killa. bama the golfer in chief. obama the liar. bama the fraud. i got more…chronic campaigner