Quote:

---

Redstorm said:

Quote:

---

In America the problems are in it's economy, and in the rest of the world it's their relationship with America.

---

Are you sincerely stating that the rest of the world is not having economic problems?

---

Quote:

---

buckwheat said:
No  I said Capitalism acts as regulation because you pay for you mistakes and that keeps people in check.. But because of government intervention particularly the Community Reinvestment act we took that away.

---

Quote:

---

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

    * President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
    * President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
    * President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
    * President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
    * President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
    * President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

    * President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
    * President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

---

What???  I'd love to see evidence for that one.

Anyway, I'm not disputing the graph.  If McCain proposed something similar (which I'm sure he would have to try and prevent Great Depression II) I'd be furious as well.  At least we're getting roads, bridges, schools, healthcare, etc. instead of just bombs. 

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
What makes you think you're getting anything?

---

Quote:

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

---

buckwheat said:
No  I said Capitalism acts as regulation because you pay for you mistakes and that keeps people in check.. But because of government intervention particularly the Community Reinvestment act we took that away.

---

How exactly does Capitalism act as regulation when you "pay for your mistakes", if you can't pay what you owe?  Banks owe billions, if not more which they can't afford to pay.  If the banks fail, they take everyone down with them that they owe money to.

And if you think the Community Reinvestment Act had anything to do with this crisis, you need to quit watching Faux news.  It's not the poor people who borrowed money that started this financial crisis (that's been going on forever), it's middle and upper class people that created the recent housing bubble with the help of banks willing to loan to anyone, regardless of ability to repay.  Banks made huge profits on the loans, and then repackaged and sold them to get rid of the risk.  Everyone who bought the repackaged loans, and everyone who sold credit default swaps guaranteeing the loans are now fucked.  That's free market capitalism.  There should have a been a law stating you can't take on more risk than you can afford to pay.  That's regulated capitalism (NOT socialism, which is Government ownership of business).

---

Quote:

---

buckwheat said:


That is not even the argument for CRA's causing this.That is a straw man that the media focused on once CRA started getting popular. Yes the actual loans to the poor where only a part of it. But the government backing of Fannie Mae and Freddy mack threw risk out the window.And once you do  that yes people will be greedy. Why bother with good loans if the government will bail you out? Like i said before Privatizing the profit and socializing the risk is not capitalism. With capitalism your pay for failed risk taking.  Mark to market and low interest rates didn't help out either.All consequences of congress both sides involved but dems hold a much bigger blame.

---

Quote:

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

---

buckwheat said:
No  I said Capitalism acts as regulation because you pay for you mistakes and that keeps people in check.. But because of government intervention particularly the Community Reinvestment act we took that away.

---

How exactly does Capitalism act as regulation when you "pay for your mistakes", if you can't pay what you owe?  Banks owe billions, if not more which they can't afford to pay.  If the banks fail, they take everyone down with them that they owe money to.

And if you think the Community Reinvestment Act had anything to do with this crisis, you need to quit watching Faux news.  It's not the poor people who borrowed money that started this financial crisis (that's been going on forever), it's middle and upper class people that created the recent housing bubble with the help of banks willing to loan to anyone, regardless of ability to repay.  Banks made huge profits on the loans, and then repackaged and sold them to get rid of the risk.  Everyone who bought the repackaged loans, and everyone who sold credit default swaps guaranteeing the loans are now fucked.  That's free market capitalism.  There should have a been a law stating you can't take on more risk than you can afford to pay.  That's regulated capitalism (NOT socialism, which is Government ownership of business).

---