Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1656989 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

YTubeHeadlines

Marietta, GA

#1122586 Apr 21, 2014
.

100% PROOF Pope Francis is ANTICHRIST______



.

Since: Jan 11

Hackettstown, NJ

#1122587 Apr 21, 2014
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1994, the allotment was closed because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species. That's right...twenty years ago, the desert tortoise was endangered. Then, "Clark County, as administrator for the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, purchased the grazing leases from the BLM for $375,000 in 1998 and retired the allotments from grazing in order to fulfill requirements under that plan to protect the threatened desert tortoise." Bundy is trespassing.
Was there any impact on the tortoise population due to the past 20 years of grazing?
No Surprize

Largo, FL

#1122588 Apr 21, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Obama also put Bush's wars on the books and cleaned up after Wall Street.
Flack and numbers is even worse than Carol and numbers.
Your ongoing defense of your ass clown Obama bin Lyin proves you are an idiot...

It's the culture...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122589 Apr 21, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
but didn't Obama take over an economy that was totally ruined by Republicans policies?
the part you guys always leave out.
The Federal Reserve Deserves Blame For The Financial Crisis

The economic meltdown of 2008 should have surprised no one. Countless economists who belong to the Austrian School of economics saw it coming. Investment mavens Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff and James Grant—all proponents of the Austrian School—were among the very few who predicted the economic meltdown. Peter Schiff was literally laughed at multiple times on national television by media pundits for saying that an economic collapse was on the horizon in 2006 and 2007.
None of these men had crystal balls that could look into the future. As Ludwig von Mises, dean of the modern Austrian School, once said,“if it were possible to calculate the future structure of the market, the future would not be uncertain.” We cannot perfectly compute future market activity. The Keynesian school of economics uses mathematical models in attempts to predict the economic future of a country. Unlike the Austrian School, which instead analyzes human action, most Keynesian economic forecasts have been dead wrong.
Why then have Austrian economists been the most accurate about our current financial situation? We mainly need to look at the policies of the Federal Reserve. The single greatest contributor to financial crises is the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates in ways that distort the true price of capital. As Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel-prize winning Austrian economist noted, prices play an important role in the economy, transmitting information that allows market participants to coordinate their plans. The Fed’s distortions create the boom and bust cycle by distorting the information that the price signal conveys to consumers and producers. It may seem like businesses are overinvesting but they are simply responding to false economic signals sent by the Federal Reserve. An inevitable bust occurs due to all of the bad investments made.
Peter Schiff draws a perfect analogy between an artificial boom and a circus that comes to a small town for a couple weeks. During this time, the circus attracts a large crowd, which is a boom to local businesses. Now imagine that a local businessman mistakenly believes that the upturn in his business will endure permanently. He then responds by greatly expanding his business by hiring new workers or opening a second location. Ludwig von Mises called this malinvestment instead of overinvesting. All is well until the circus leaves town and the businessman is left with a large surplus of workers and capacity. He finds out he miscalculated when all the wasteful malinvestments are exposed. This is an example of the boom and bust cycle.
The last decade in America has been a textbook example of a boom and bust cycle. Between 2001 and 2004, the Federal Reserve injected new credit into the economy, pushing interest rates to their lowest level since the late 1970s. As a result, the economy was booming just a few short years ago. This sent out false economic signals to businesses with respect to demand for their products. These businesses responded by hiring more staff, buying more resources, investing in capital, and so forth.
The early 2000s marked the boom phase. We experienced a 52-month record streak of uninterrupted job growth from September 2003 to December 2007. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in March 2007 said that “the global economy is more than sound: it’s as strong as I’ve seen it in my business career.” The stock market was too good to be true. On October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record level of 14,164.53. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke even stated in January 2008 that “the Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession.” Most were too busy celebrating their supposed gains to realize that an inevitable economic bust was about to happen

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122590 Apr 21, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
but didn't Obama take over an economy that was totally ruined by Republicans policies?
the part you guys always leave out.
The Federal Reserve Deserves Blame For The Financial Crisis
Comment Now Follow Comments
US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke speak...
The economic meltdown of 2008 should have surprised no one. Countless economists who belong to the Austrian School of economics saw it coming. Investment mavens Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff and James Grant—all proponents of the Austrian School—were among the very few who predicted the economic meltdown. Peter Schiff was literally laughed at multiple times on national television by media pundits for saying that an economic collapse was on the horizon in 2006 and 2007.

None of these men had crystal balls that could look into the future. As Ludwig von Mises, dean of the modern Austrian School, once said,“if it were possible to calculate the future structure of the market, the future would not be uncertain.” We cannot perfectly compute future market activity. The Keynesian school of economics uses mathematical models in attempts to predict the economic future of a country. Unlike the Austrian School, which instead analyzes human action, most Keynesian economic forecasts have been dead wrong.

Why then have Austrian economists been the most accurate about our current financial situation? We mainly need to look at the policies of the Federal Reserve. The single greatest contributor to financial crises is the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates in ways that distort the true price of capital. As Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel-prize winning Austrian economist noted, prices play an important role in the economy, transmitting information that allows market participants to coordinate their plans. The Fed’s distortions create the boom and bust cycle by distorting the information that the price signal conveys to consumers and producers. It may seem like businesses are overinvesting but they are simply responding to false economic signals sent by the Federal Reserve. An inevitable bust occurs due to all of the bad investments made.

Peter Schiff draws a perfect analogy between an artificial boom and a circus that comes to a small town for a couple weeks. During this time, the circus attracts a large crowd, which is a boom to local businesses. Now imagine that a local businessman mistakenly believes that the upturn in his business will endure permanently. He then responds by greatly expanding his business by hiring new workers or opening a second location. Ludwig von Mises called this malinvestment instead of overinvesting. All is well until the circus leaves town and the businessman is left with a large surplus of workers and capacity. He finds out he miscalculated when all the wasteful malinvestments are exposed. This is an example of the boom and bust cycle.

The last decade in America has been a textbook example of a boom and bust cycle. Between 2001 and 2004, the Federal Reserve injected new credit into the economy, pushing interest rates to their lowest level since the late 1970s. As a result, the economy was booming just a few short years ago. This sent out false economic signals to businesses with respect to demand for their products. These businesses responded by hiring more staff, buying more resources, investing in capital, and so forth.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122591 Apr 21, 2014
The early 2000s marked the boom phase. We experienced a 52-month record streak of uninterrupted job growth from September 2003 to December 2007. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in March 2007 said that “the global economy is more than sound: it’s as strong as I’ve seen it in my business career.” The stock market was too good to be true. On October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record level of 14,164.53. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke even stated in January 2008 that “the Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession.” Most were too busy celebrating their supposed gains to realize that an inevitable economic bust was about to happen.

Just as the Austrian business cycle predicts, the boom was followed by a bust because booms created by monetary inflation are unsustainable. The stock market crashed in October 2008. Many were quick to wrongly blame free market capitalism for the economic crash. As economist Henry Hazlitt once said,“in a crisis and a slump, and…worse than the slump itself may be the public delusion that the slump has been caused, not by the previous inflation, but by the inherent defects of ‘capitalism.’” The free market has not failed since we’ve never had free market capitalism. Instead, government intervention in the economy failed.

Many Americans probably believe that continuous boom and bust cycles are natural occurrences. The truth is we would not experience such dramatic economic swings were it not for monetary policies that distort real prices and encourage improper investment decisions. Boom and bust cycles are inevitable when government interventions confuse market participants.

Matt Kibbe is president and CEO of FreedomWorks, a nation-wide grassroots organization fighting for lower taxes, less government and freedom and the author of Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#1122593 Apr 21, 2014
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>The Hells kitchen chef's Pelosi and Reid cooked-up and produced nothing but poison, since 2007 losing 750,000 jobs per month, the worst recession in 80 years, controlling the purse strings, a Housing Collapse, a near financial meltdown, tripling the debt, two quagmire wars Clinton started that Kerry and Clinton democRats voted for before they were against you ignorant dumbass...
AND... Hair Balls for brains Hairy Reid still cooking-up more terrorism and poison and hate for America when W was and left office, something, an overdose of poison even a sellout Obama bin Lyin still can't recover from today you complete idiot...
Most American now see demokRATS for what they truly are today: losers, communists and liars you deranged idiot...
Fools like you sonicmoron, dumbassdave and sock PDUPONT and Obama bin Lyin has succeeded in losing demokRATs the House and Senate in 2014 you loser... Liberalism is dead!!
It's the culture...
a bunch of nonsensical noise. just the usual.

but hey, if you have a right wing chain email that you copy and paste from that lies about everything screwed up by republicans, i'd like to read it. kinda bored this morning, so what the heck! a little right wing fiction would fix what ails me.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#1122594 Apr 21, 2014
Rev. Franklin Graham on Sunday said that he stood by earlier comments agreeing with so-called gay “propaganda” bans in Russia because President Vladimir Putin was doing “what’s right” for the country.

During a March interview with the Charlotte Observer, Graham had asserted that LGBT people were trying to “recruit” children by adopting them, and suggested that it was “exploitation.”

He also said that he “agreed” with Putin because “protecting his nation’s children was a pretty smart thing to do.”

RawStory

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#1122595 Apr 21, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> The Federal Reserve Deserves Blame For The Financial Crisis
Comment Now Follow Comments
US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke speak...
The economic meltdown of 2008 should have surprised no one. Countless economists who belong to the Austrian School of economics saw it coming. Investment mavens Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff and James Grant—all proponents of the Austrian School—were among the very few who predicted the economic meltdown. Peter Schiff was literally laughed at multiple times on national television by media pundits for saying that an economic collapse was on the horizon in 2006 and 2007.
None of these men had crystal balls that could look into the future. As Ludwig von Mises, dean of the modern Austrian School, once said,“if it were possible to calculate the future structure of the market, the future would not be uncertain.” We cannot perfectly compute future market activity. The Keynesian school of economics uses mathematical models in attempts to predict the economic future of a country. Unlike the Austrian School, which instead analyzes human action, most Keynesian economic forecasts have been dead wrong.
Why then have Austrian economists been the most accurate about our current financial situation? We mainly need to look at the policies of the Federal Reserve. The single greatest contributor to financial crises is the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates in ways that distort the true price of capital. As Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel-prize winning Austrian economist noted, prices play an important role in the economy, transmitting information that allows market participants to coordinate their plans. The Fed’s distortions create the boom and bust cycle by distorting the information that the price signal conveys to consumers and producers. It may seem like businesses are overinvesting but they are simply responding to false economic signals sent by the Federal Reserve. An inevitable bust occurs due to all of the bad investments made.
Peter Schiff draws a perfect analogy between an artificial boom and a circus that comes to a small town for a couple weeks. During this time, the circus attracts a large crowd, which is a boom to local businesses. Now imagine that a local businessman mistakenly believes that the upturn in his business will endure permanently. He then responds by greatly expanding his business by hiring new workers or opening a second location. Ludwig von Mises called this malinvestment instead of overinvesting. All is well until the circus leaves town and the businessman is left with a large surplus of workers and capacity. He finds out he miscalculated when all the wasteful malinvestments are exposed. This is an example of the boom and bust cycle.
The last decade in America has been a textbook example of a boom and bust cycle. Between 2001 and 2004, the Federal Reserve injected new credit into the economy, pushing interest rates to their lowest level since the late 1970s. As a result, the economy was booming just a few short years ago. This sent out false economic signals to businesses with respect to demand for their products. These businesses responded by hiring more staff, buying more resources, investing in capital, and so forth.
Too bad George W Bush and Alan Greenspan 'saw it coming',but thought it was nothing to worry about because big Wall Street banks were making billions of dollars in profit(in the short run) on the backs of the Middle Class and poorest social classes in America .
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1122596 Apr 21, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
a bunch of nonsensical noise. just the usual.
but hey, if you have a right wing chain email that you copy and paste from that lies about everything screwed up by republicans, i'd like to read it. kinda bored this morning, so what the heck! a little right wing fiction would fix what ails me.
So says the thread spammer Sonicfilther who posts inaccurate information and leftwing misinformation every day!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122597 Apr 21, 2014
How the Federal Reserve Caused the Financial Crisis
CLIFF KÜLE10/28/2011

The crisis has altered this old picture of the money creation process. The partnership between the government & the Federal Reserve Banks has been creating money to replenish their partnership. Relatively little of recent money creation has been getting to the people (click to enlarge).
Dr. Paul's Diagnosis? The Federal Reserve Caused the Disease
Dr. Ron Paul is among the top of our Most Admired Advisers (MAA) for good reason. His recent essay, published in the Wall Street Journal, is a case in point (link to his essay is below). Dr. Paul emphasizes that to understand the economy's problems, you must "first understand the nature of money". His message and ours are almost identical. Our stated "GOALS" say: "DEFINE MONEY. Understand how it is issued, controlled & its designing structure before trying to understand economics & markets." Also: "the heart to economics is: How have you defined your Money? It is lifeblood to the economy."
what is money
end the fed bookDr.Paul's essay says: "the Federal Reserve fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price - the price of time ... its attempt to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control ... Money is not a government phenomenon, and it need not and should not be managed by government. When central banks like the 'Fed' manage money, they are engaging in price fixing, which leads not to prosperity but to disaster." Dr. Paul claims: "The Federal Reserve has caused every single boom and bust that has occurred in this country since the bank's creation in 1913. It pumps new money into the financial system to lower interest rates and spur the economy ... increases in the supply of money make the price of money (interest rates)... lower than the market would make it. The lower interest rates affect the allocation of resources." Resources get mis-allocated. Money gets invested where a free market would not go. Projects and ventures that only seem profitable at artificially low interest rates are not the best use of the nation's resources. The constant balancing (and rebalancing) of economic activity, a primary function of free markets, is lost.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122598 Apr 21, 2014
Cliff Küle's Küdos to Ron Paul for saying it better than we could ourselves. Our money is owned & controlled for the benefit of those who own & control it. How often have we tried to explain that the Federal Reserve is essentially a 'Politburo'? He who controls the monetary system controls the economy. Our system works better than a Communist economic system because some of our system is 'Free Market Capitalism'. No matter how many times people repeat that we live in a pure system of 'Free Market Capitalism', it does not make it true. The truth is that America's money is owned by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve is not owned by the citizens or the government. If money were a physical object,'ownership' would be so much simpler to understand. However, money is an abstract concept & understanding 'ownership' of something abstract is not easy. To make it simple we suggest that Americans understand this: We, the people, are not allowed to audit the Federal Reserve, or find out who actually owns it. These things would be no problem if Government &/or the People owned America's money. Too Bad - So Sad for the 99%- who are not closely connected to the owner /operators of our country's money.
blood bump
Money is the 'blood supply' to the economy. A Central Bank with the power to create money out of thin air is like a doctor that has attached & controls an intravenous pump. Dr. Bernanke & his team of doctors decide how much 'blood' to pump & which organs will receive it. The money is under the control of those doctors at the Federal Reserve. How free are people whose blood supply is under someone else's control?
The Founding Fathers of the United States wrote a Constitution that was intended to keep the people free. One important aspect of that freedom was for the people to keep control of the money. Article I of the Constitution defined money in a way that does not allow today's money. Why do Americans accept this subversion of the Constitution? Why have Americans rejected these principles of freedom from their Founding Fathers? Is it possible that Henry Ford was right when he said it is a good thing that the people don't understand their system of money; otherwise there would be a Revolution?
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#1122599 Apr 21, 2014
Patrick n Angela wrote:
- Carol -
Hope Your Hubby does well in this frightening situation.
Talk to Your insurance provider!
Her tale, blaming the hospitals billing arrangements on Obamacare was dubious. Of course everything she posts is dubious if not an outright lie.

My neighbor of 15 years died from melanoma__I often drove him for treatments. My best friend has had dozens of small melanomas removed, some were cancerous, he visits the dermatologist four times per year for scans made even more complicated by tattoos.

At any rate__she's claimed right along that her husband had company provided health insurance and that it also covered her.

If it was elective surgery the hospital or dermatologist might have requested the deductible in advance. Nothing at all to do with the ACA.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122600 Apr 21, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text> Too bad George W Bush and Alan Greenspan 'saw it coming',but thought it was nothing to worry about because big Wall Street banks were making billions of dollars in profit(in the short run) on the backs of the Middle Class and poorest social classes in America .
Alan Greenspan? Uh I got news for you, Obama administration is pumping far more money into the stock market than the Bush administration ever did. Baghdad Bob wrong again!!!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122602 Apr 21, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>"baa ram ewe" Babe___1995
Oh yeah almost forgot! Is that your house getting sucked into a hole down the in the Villages?

Adam 36

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1122603 Apr 21, 2014
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text> Too bad George W Bush and Alan Greenspan 'saw it coming',but thought it was nothing to worry about because big Wall Street banks were making billions of dollars in profit(in the short run) on the backs of the Middle Class and poorest social classes in America .
Clinton's fingerprints are all over it...

Previously restricted papers reveal attempts to rush president to support act, later blamed for deepening banking crisis

Wall Street deregulation pushed by Clinton advisers, documents reveal

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122605 Apr 21, 2014
How Government Created the Financial Crisis
Research shows the failure to rescue Lehman did not trigger the fall panic.

By JOHN B. TAYLOR
Updated Feb. 9, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET
Many are calling for a 9/11-type commission to investigate the financial crisis. Any such investigation should not rule out government itself as a major culprit. My research shows that government actions and interventions -- not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy -- caused, prolonged and dramatically worsened the crisis.
David Gothard
The classic explanation of financial crises is that they are caused by excesses -- frequently monetary excesses -- which lead to a boom and an inevitable bust. This crisis was no different: A housing boom followed by a bust led to defaults, the implosion of mortgages and mortgage-related securities at financial institutions, and resulting financial turmoil.
Monetary excesses were the main cause of the boom. The Fed held its target interest rate, especially in 2003-2005, well below known monetary guidelines that say what good policy should be based on historical experience. Keeping interest rates on the track that worked well in the past two decades, rather than keeping rates so low, would have prevented the boom and the bust. Researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have provided corroborating evidence from other countries: The greater the degree of monetary excess in a country, the larger was the housing boom.
The effects of the boom and bust were amplified by several complicating factors including the use of subprime and adjustable-rate mortgages, which led to excessive risk taking. There is also evidence the excessive risk taking was encouraged by the excessively low interest rates. Delinquency rates and foreclosure rates are inversely related to housing price inflation. These rates declined rapidly during the years housing prices rose rapidly, likely throwing mortgage underwriting programs off track and misleading many people.
Adjustable-rate, subprime and other mortgages were packed into mortgage-backed securities of great complexity. Rating agencies underestimated the risk of these securities, either because of a lack of competition, poor accountability, or most likely the inherent difficulty in assessing risk due to the complexity.
Other government actions were at play: The government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraged to expand and buy mortgage-backed securities, including those formed with the risky subprime mortgages.
Government action also helped prolong the crisis. Consider that the financial crisis became acute on Aug. 9 and 10, 2007, when money-market interest rates rose dramatically. Interest rate spreads, such as the difference between three-month and overnight interbank loans, jumped to unprecedented levels.
Diagnosing the reason for this sudden increase was essential for determining what type of policy response was appropriate. If liquidity was the problem, then providing more liquidity by making borrowing easier at the Federal Reserve discount window, or opening new windows or facilities, would be appropriate. But if counterparty risk was behind the sudden rise in money-market interest rates, then a direct focus on the quality and transparency of the bank's balance sheets would be appropriate.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1122606 Apr 21, 2014
Early on, policy makers misdiagnosed the crisis as one of liquidity, and prescribed the wrong treatment.
To provide more liquidity, the Fed created the Term Auction Facility (TAF) in December 2007. Its main aim was to reduce interest rate spreads in the money markets and increase the flow of credit. But the TAF did not seem to make much difference. If the reason for the spread was counterparty risk as distinct from liquidity, this is not surprising.
Another early policy response was the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, passed in February. The major part of this package was to send cash totaling over $100 billion to individuals and families so they would have more to spend and thus jump-start consumption and the economy. But people spent little if anything of the temporary rebate (as predicted by Milton Friedman's permanent income theory, which holds that temporary as distinct from permanent increases in income do not lead to significant increases in consumption). Consumption was not jump-started.
A third policy response was the very sharp reduction in the target federal-funds rate to 2% in April 2008 from 5.25% in August 2007. This was sharper than monetary guidelines such as my own Taylor Rule would prescribe. The most noticeable effect of this rate cut was a sharp depreciation of the dollar and a large increase in oil prices. After the start of the crisis, oil prices doubled to over $140 in July 2008, before plummeting back down as expectations of world economic growth declined. But by then the damage of the high oil prices had been done.
After a year of such mistaken prescriptions, the crisis suddenly worsened in September and October 2008. We experienced a serious credit crunch, seriously weakening an economy already suffering from the lingering impact of the oil price hike and housing bust.
Many have argued that the reason for this bad turn was the government's decision not to prevent the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers over the weekend of Sept. 13 and 14. A study of this event suggests that the answer is more complicated and lay elsewhere.
While interest rate spreads increased slightly on Monday, Sept. 15, they stayed in the range observed during the previous year, and remained in that range through the rest of the week. On Friday, Sept. 19, the Treasury announced a rescue package, though not its size or the details. Over the weekend the package was put together, and on Tuesday, Sept. 23, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson testified before the Senate Banking Committee. They introduced the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), saying that it would be $700 billion in size. A short draft of legislation was provided, with no mention of oversight and few restrictions on the use of the funds.
The two men were questioned intensely and the reaction was quite negative, judging by the large volume of critical mail received by many members of Congress. It was following this testimony that one really begins to see the crisis deepening and interest rate spreads widening.
The realization by the public that the government's intervention plan had not been fully thought through, and the official story that the economy was tanking, likely led to the panic seen in the next few weeks. And this was likely amplified by the ad hoc decisions to support some financial institutions and not others and unclear, seemingly fear-based explanations of programs to address the crisis. What was the rationale for intervening with Bear Stearns, then not with Lehman, and then again with AIG? What would guide the operations of the TARP?
It did not have to be this way. To prevent misguided actions in the future, it is urgent that we return to sound principles of monetary policy, basing government interventions on clearly stated diagnoses and predictable frameworks for government actions.
Massive responses with little explanation will probably make things worse. That is the lesson from this crisis so far.
Chris Lopez

New York, NY

#1122607 Apr 21, 2014
flack wrote:
President Barack Obama: Added $5.081 trillion, a 44% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
FY 2013 -$672 billion.
FY 2012 -$1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 -$1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 -$1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 -$253 billion.(Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)
President George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
FY 2009 -$1.632 trillion.(Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 -$1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 -$501 billion.
FY 2006 -$574 billion.
FY 2005 -$554 billion.
FY 2004 -$596 billion.
FY 2003 -$555 billion.
FY 2002 -$421 billion.
President Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
FY 2001 -$133 billion.
FY 2000 -$18 billion.
FY 1999 -$130 billion.
FY 1998 -$113 billion.
FY 1997 -$188 billion.
FY 1996 -$251 billion.
FY 1995 -$281 billion.
FY 1994 -$281 billion.
President George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
FY 1993 -$347 billion.
FY 1992 -$399 billion.
FY 1991 -$432 billion.
FY 1990 -$376 billion.
President Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.
FY 1989 -$255 billion.
FY 1988 -$252 billion.
FY 1987 -$225 billion.
FY 1986 -$297 billion.
FY 1985 -$256 billion.
FY 1984 -$195 billion.
FY 1983 -$235 billion.
FY 1982 -$144 billion.
Percentages can be deceptive. If you notice Reagan's total debt was $1.86 trillion for 8 years while winning the Cold War. Obama's is $5.081 trillion in 5 years and he has done what? At least Bush has 911 and two wars to fight!!!
You're wrong about Obama' non-accomplishments.

I'll give you a few.

Most golf games.
Best and most expensive and elaborate family vacations.
Ugly angry woman contest in the White House: Michelle vs Valerie
Destroyed a healthcare system.
Reversing gains made in welfare.
Worst foreign policies since Carter.

I'm sure there are more.
Mrs Robinson

Palm Coast, FL

#1122608 Apr 21, 2014
Patrick n Angela wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush tax cut and Republican Depression of 2008 may have been factors?
Aging population and higher cost of medical care.
Tea Party shutting down government and threatening the full faith and credit of the Government.
My incompetent son-in-law being elected to the presidency in 2008 and 2012.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr what a russsh 11,557
Trump is A 5 hr Chilli J 165
Shouldn't this skank apologize B4 next session? 6 hr SQUAW B Malignant 13
Juanita Broaddrick explains why she supported T... 6 hr BUBBA GUILTY 2
Moore Jones will be close. 7 hr The Predicting Kimd 1
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 7 hr They cannot kill ... 3,731
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Dudley 64,306

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages