PDA

View Full Version : GOP predicts doomsday if Obama budget passed (Obama Laughs)



RobJohnson
03-22-2009, 08:27 PM
http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/ObamaLaughs.jpg

WASHINGTON Congressional Republicans on Sunday predicted a doomsday scenario of crushing debt and eventual federal bankruptcy if President Barack Obama's massive spending blueprint wins passage.

But a White House adviser dismissed the negative assessments, saying she is "incredibly confident" that the president's policies will "do the job" for the economy.

In a TV interview, Obama himself laughed when discussing the dire state of parts of the economy and ascribed his laughter to "gallows humor."

White House Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Christina Romer insisted that the nation's flailing economy will be rebounding by 2010.

Administration officials and the president himself have taken a cheerier tone despite economic indicators that are anything but positive.

Republicans say Obama's budget is no laughing matter. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_economy)

AlmostThere
03-22-2009, 09:27 PM
I saw Ms. Romer's interview. One particular Q/A caught my attention. Asked if the one trillion dollars pumped into the economy last week could trigger inflation down the road, she replied that it wouldn't. Usually the reply is," it's something we have to be aware of and stay on top of" or words to that effect. She said it's a foregone conclusion it won't be a problem because the people running the recovery plan know what they're doing. This woman didn't impress me before this comment. She has cemented that opinion now. My guess is she was a PTA President somewhere before being snagged for this job. :rolleyes:

If so, that would make her the person with the most executive experience in this administration.

THE RESISTANCE
03-23-2009, 07:28 AM
Community organizer.

linda22003
03-23-2009, 07:31 AM
I My guess is she was a PTA President somewhere before being snagged for this job. :rolleyes:

If so, that would make her the person with the most executive experience in this administration.

She was an economics professor, with a research background in the Great Depression in the United States.

PoliCon
03-23-2009, 08:10 AM
She was an economics professor, with a research background in the Great Depression in the United States.

A keynesian no doubt . . . . hardly a real economist if that is the case . . . .

linda22003
03-23-2009, 08:12 AM
A keynesian no doubt . . . . hardly a real economist if that is the case . . . .

Even worse than you suspect - MIT gave her a doctorate in economics. ;)

PoliCon
03-23-2009, 09:02 AM
Even worse than you suspect - MIT gave her a doctorate in economics. ;)

ooooohhhh she's a communist. :rolleyes:

AlmostThere
03-23-2009, 11:52 AM
She was an economics professor, with a research background in the Great Depression in the United States.
I'm sure you recognized my sarcasm. She may well have loads of credentials. But when asked a serious question about a topic that has extremely serious consequences for this country, and she gives a totally bullshit answer, I tend to lose faith in her opinion.

THE RESISTANCE
03-23-2009, 07:46 PM
ooooohhhh she's a communist. :rolleyes:


Yes. That is why she is a student of the Great Depression . Studies that will help her understand what went wrong that caused Communism not to catch hold. A second chance only comes along once in a while. So each generation must have their team prepared and ready to attack.

She may have an original copy of" RECRUIT" given to her by her mentor..

Full-Auto
03-23-2009, 10:16 PM
As more time passes I become more convinced Obama is a freaking idiot.

It's becoming common knowledge even among the most ignorant liberals that his deficit spending is unsustainable. When the government announces that the sitting Presidents proposed spending is unsustainable and will cause economic collapse if not stopped... there's a slight problem.

I'm not kidding folks, our dollar will look like a 1980's Peso here very soon if the government continues to print TRILLIONS of dollars at will without anything to back them. It will cost $5,000 for a can of Coke.

Every time this assclown orders the Fed to print another Trillion dollars, he's taking money out of your pocket because it only further devalues the money you have left... which in many cases across America aint much.

This moron MUST BE STOPPED.

I've already noticed a turning away from the ignorant bliss by the morons that voted for this lunatic. Their crazed "HOPE, CHANGE!" ramblings have been replaced with... "well, let's give him at least 100 days to see if he can turn things around".

Right.

Denial.

Idiots.

BadCat
03-23-2009, 10:39 PM
As more time passes I become more convinced Obama is a freaking idiot.

It's becoming common knowledge even among the most ignorant liberals that his deficit spending is unsustainable. When the government announces that the sitting Presidents proposed spending is unsustainable and will cause economic collapse if not stopped... there's a slight problem.

I'm not kidding folks, our dollar will look like a 1980's Peso here very soon if the government continues to print TRILLIONS of dollars at will without anything to back them. It will cost $5,000 for a can of Coke.

Every time this assclown orders the Fed to print another Trillion dollars, he's taking money out of your pocket because it only further devalues the money you have left... which in many cases across America aint much.

This moron MUST BE STOPPED.

I've already noticed a turning away from the ignorant bliss by the morons that voted for this lunatic. Their crazed "HOPE, CHANGE!" ramblings have been replaced with... "well, let's give him at least 100 days to see if he can turn things around".

Right.

Denial.

Idiots.


Don't be waiting until he is "stopped".
Put a bunch of $$ in gold and platinum...and do it soon.

Full-Auto
03-24-2009, 07:52 AM
Good advice.

I also want to add that this clown has done more damage to our nation and economic health in less than 100 days that any other President in history.

Odysseus
03-24-2009, 09:14 AM
She was an economics professor, with a research background in the Great Depression in the United States.
Then she ought to know better than to instigate a second Great Depression, shouldn't she?

Good advice.

I also want to add that this clown has done more damage to our nation and economic health in less than 100 days that any other President in history.
100 days? He's done more damage in two months than any other president has in a full term. It took FDR four terms to even approach this level of federal consumption of GDP, and he was fighting WWII. Maybe if Jimmy Carter had been reelected, we might, might see this level of bumbling incompetence combined with deliberate malfeasance and overall cluelessness.

hazlnut
03-24-2009, 02:42 PM
A keynesian no doubt . . . . hardly a real economist if that is the case . . . .

Remember, the U.S. economic system and fiscal policy represents an uniquely American hybrid of Keynes, Friedman, and the Austrian School. (currently leaning more toward Keynes, but should swing back to the middle if things stabilize)

Wall Street is grateful for a temporary interventionist approach... to their unregulated free market. To have one's cake and eat it too.

If anyone comes across an a true free-market approach hypothetical to the AIG / Banking / Auto Industry--one that predicts unemployment, poverty, and a recovery time lime... I'd be interested in reading it. If we let them all fail, how long would the depression have lasted? What type of industries/businesses would have grown and thrived while others perished? What type of class shift would occur?

I know there have been a few recent non-fiction books that touched on possible scenarios, but none to my knowledge go the distance starting from the premise of letting the market correct itself without any intervention whatsoever.

PoliCon
03-24-2009, 09:40 PM
Remember, the U.S. economic system and fiscal policy represents an uniquely American hybrid of Keynes, Friedman, and the Austrian School. (currently leaning more toward Keynes, but should swing back to the middle if things stabilize)

Wall Street is grateful for a temporary interventionist approach... to their unregulated free market. To have one's cake and eat it too.

If anyone comes across an a true free-market approach hypothetical to the AIG / Banking / Auto Industry--one that predicts unemployment, poverty, and a recovery time lime... I'd be interested in reading it. If we let them all fail, how long would the depression have lasted? What type of industries/businesses would have grown and thrived while others perished? What type of class shift would occur?

I know there have been a few recent non-fiction books that touched on possible scenarios, but none to my knowledge go the distance starting from the premise of letting the market correct itself without any intervention whatsoever. Which is why the country is facing economic collapse. We need to return to Adam Smith.

Odysseus
03-25-2009, 09:08 AM
If anyone comes across an a true free-market approach hypothetical to the AIG / Banking / Auto Industry--one that predicts unemployment, poverty, and a recovery time lime... I'd be interested in reading it. If we let them all fail, how long would the depression have lasted? What type of industries/businesses would have grown and thrived while others perished? What type of class shift would occur?

I know there have been a few recent non-fiction books that touched on possible scenarios, but none to my knowledge go the distance starting from the premise of letting the market correct itself without any intervention whatsoever.
The problem is that government created the mess, so any solution will have to entail some government activity. Most of the subprime loans would not have been made in the first place if government hadn't forced banks to make loans to bad credit risks in areas where the properties weren't going to appreciate in value, so simply cutting the banks loose to take the fall for the malfeasance of Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd is grossly immoral. There are a couple of possible solutions. The historical precedent is Bush 41 and the Resolution Trust Corporation, which dealt with the S&L debacle. Basically, the RTC bought up foreclosed assets and resold them, shoring up the prices while putting them back into play in the market. It was expensive, but not when compared to the Obama plan. That would allow the banks to divest their toxic assets without taking too much of a loss, while letting the market gradually reassert itself. The timeline for government acquisition of the assets would have to be fast, but for liquidation of the assets, slower is actually better, as you don't want to suddenly flood the market with cheap homes. That will just collapse housing prices further. Using the first RTC as a guide, four-five years is a reasonable timeline to complete the bailout. However, a simpler program would be for the feds to provide loan guarantees similar to the VA program. The guarantees would raise the aggregate credit scores of each borrower, allowing them to refinance variable rates mortgages to fixed rates, which would lower monthly payments and reduce defaults. The housing market would still see some price drops, but it wouldn't be a freefall, and the lenders would still get most of their money. Most importantly, either of these solutions would provide stability for the housing market while not violating the basic premises of contracts, and that's the critical issue, since instability and uncertainty are causing more damage than the actual financial losses.