More bad business from another bailed-out bank!

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

Yeah, that's been discussed already. Obama's a hypocrite and so are many others who support him. He's selling away our, our children, our grandchildren, etc. futures away. It's almost like it's a game to him. "Hey, let's start bringing ourselves in debt and see if this works." Well, I don't know about you guys, but swiping my credit card over and over never helped me get out of debt.

Damn, I'm getting angry just thinking about this. Good thing I'm going to the gym in a few minutes, should be a great workout!

lets see here,,

George bush put the US 10 trillion in debt,,

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.

Originally Posted by bradwright

lets see here,,

George bush put the US 10 trillion in debt,,

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.

Your math assumes that Obama stops spending right now for year 1. He's only been in office a couple months so multiply his 800 billion by 6 to get your yearly rate.

Regardless of who spent what, I still think it's a terrible idea. GM planning to file bankruptcy AFTER accepting a bailout. Banks blowing the bailout money instead of helping the people. It's all BS and it needs to stop.

Originally Posted by County Mike

Your math assumes that Obama stops spending right now for year 1. He's only been in office a couple months so multiply his 800 billion by 6 to get your yearly rate.

Regardless of who spent what, I still think it's a terrible idea. GM planning to file bankruptcy AFTER accepting a bailout. Banks blowing the bailout money instead of helping the people. It's all BS and it needs to stop.

your right it doesn't matter who spent what really,
everybody could argue forever over that when in fact thats not the main issue here,
as far as GM taking bail out money and then talk about bankruptcy after?
i think last year at the beginning of all this they might have over estimated there future sales,and trust me there not the only ones,

and when it comes to the banks,well,they just dont seem to understand that if the money the government gave them doesn't reach the people that need it then the economy will suffer even further and their abillity to be profitable in the future will be gone.

dont get me wrong here,if there was some other way to do this then i would say great,
but there isn't,you see the problem with just letting them all go under is what it would do to the economy,everybody is so dependent on everyone else making and spending money that if you took to big of a hit all at the same time then it would be devastating to a lot of people,

the flow of cash is essential for any countrys economy to work and if people are going to be scared about what the future holds and start to save all their money instead of spending it then the government at some point really needs to step in and literally throw some money around to keep the economy going,

this really isn't about how much money is being spent anymore,its about staving off one of the biggest financial collapses the world has ever seen,
because if that happens most people wont be worrying about their mortgage payment as much as they would be wondering where their next meal is coming from,

with the way the whole world is getting caught up in this its a lot bigger problem then most people realize,

somebody put it into perspective for me(i think it was goat but not sure)when they simply posted in another thread some where,
21/12/2012,and that could be a very real possibility,

Originally Posted by bradwright

lets see here,,

George bush put the US 10 trillion in debt,,

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.

Did you see the link I posted. http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/O...-spending.html

The article says that if Obama keeps up the spending he already has done and proposed, it will far out do what Bush did.

Originally Posted by CAVEMAN

Did you see the link I posted. http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/O...-spending.html

The article says that if Obama keeps up the spending he already has done and proposed, it will far out do what Bush did.

i missed that actually so i went back and read it,,
i guess i was a little off on my numbers(but i will never admit it)
but the thing that strikes me as being odd about the whole thing is
a lot of people cant seem to get past the fact that Obama is spending billions long enough to ask themselves why is he spending billions,
your country is not alone here,

in Canada we are pretty much in the same boat,except our banking system is in pretty good shape,
but that still isn't stopping us from being sucked into the US born recession,

our government is throwing around money like drunken sailors up here also,
not that i like it anymore then you do but its something that wont stop soon,

i think a little less fighting about who is spending what and quite a bit more energy on some solutions might be the thing everyone should be focusing on here.

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by bradwright

lets see here,,

George bush put the US 10 trillion in debt,,

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.

When GB came into office, the national debt was approx. 6 trillion, by the time he left, it was 9 trillion, so to say GB put us 10 trillion in debt is incorrect - it sounds like something CNN would say.

Within Obama's first month of being President, he thought it would be a good idea to add another 800 billion to that debt. Now I agree, it's great that he's investing into new programs, but to promise to cut earmark spending "line by line" then retract the promise, invest into failing companies, mandating strict government control in a free society, etc. is completely irresponsible.

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

When GB came into office, the national debt was approx. 6 trillion, by the time he left, it was 9 trillion, so to say GB put us 10 trillion in debt is incorrect - it sounds like something CNN would say.

Within Obama's first month of being President, he thought it would be a good idea to add another 800 billion to that debt. Now I agree, it's great that he's investing into new programs, but to promise to cut earmark spending "line by line" then retract the promise, invest into failing companies, mandating strict government control in a free society, etc. is completely irresponsible.

there is no point trying to discuss this with you at all,,
you dont see the big picture here,

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by bradwright

there is no point trying to discuss this with you at all,,
you dont see the big picture here,

The point you stated is that Bush put us 10 trillion in debt, which is not correct, his effective increase was 3 trillion (from 6 trillion to 9 trillion). I'm not saying what he did was right, but reporting he caused 10 trillion is a twist of facts.

Now your statement about Obama:

Originally Posted by bradwright

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.

would mean that Obama would DOUBLE the amount that Bush increased the U.S. deficit. Yes, I'm missing the big picture here.

Is this big enough? (full article: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)

actually the debt was 5 trillion when bush entered office and 10.5 trillion when he left,
but whats a few trillion here and there,
your graft showing the GDP in relation to your national debt is a nice touch,but useless,really quite pretty though,

and when i said you dont see the big picture i know thats really not true,
i'm just wondering why you choose to ignore it.

[rockdawg21]

So, you can't read a graph? Those red bars indicate the amount of debt. Look at the one above 2000, it's not at the 5 trillion mark. Look at the one at 2008, it's not at the 10 trillion mark.