"As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse. The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Aging populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt. â??
I thought Obama and his crew were crowing about the economy finally perking up, with only (only!) 36,000 jobs lost last month.
Continued…
“High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt,” it said.
Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.
If so, gold would go “up, and up, and up” as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s."
I guess this spells the end of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obama’s insane healthcare ideas, aid to the states, handouts to crony capitalists, and more than 50% of the american people living pretty much free of taxes.
Thank you, Alan Greenspan (John Galt/Francisco D’anconia). We deserve it.
While I agree with the premise that we can not sustain this kind of spending we can not continue to pick expensive wars while simultaneously cutting taxes.
Obama has been in office a little over one year; most of his programs have not even taken effect. , so I contend all of our problems are from pat presidents, with the exception of Clinton and L.B.J.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While I agree with the premise that we can not sustain this kind of spending we can not continue to pick expensive wars while simultaneously cutting taxes.
Obama has been in office a little over one year; most of his programs have not even taken effect. , so I contend all of our problems are from pat presidents, with the exception of Clinton and L.B.J.
[/quote]
I wish I could have a year at my job to get something done. Oh wait you are saying even a year is not long enough. How long pittbull? 2 years? if he is in for 2 years and the shit is still hitting the fan hard, what then? Oh, he needs 3? When does it end? After his first term will you be like, oh he only had 3.5 years to fix things, it isn’t nearly enough, I must vote him in again because the next 4 years he will certainly do what he promised.
Also if you want to nitpick, Dems OWNED congress for his first year, IF anything could have been done to the levels they wanted and quickly it would have been in the first year. Once these midterms come around kiss any of his big agendas goodbye, they won’t control either house so it’s not likley he will be getting anything “done” in his 3.5 years as president.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While I agree with the premise that we can not sustain this kind of spending we can not continue to pick expensive wars while simultaneously cutting taxes.
Obama has been in office a little over one year; most of his programs have not even taken effect. , so I contend all of our problems are from pat presidents, with the exception of Clinton and L.B.J.
[/quote]
If history serves me correctly, didn’t we get the tax cuts before we were attacked on 9/11? Didn’t the war start after we were attacked? Hasn’t the current administration been able to pull all the troops out, or do they continue to send more troops over there?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While I agree with the premise that we can not sustain this kind of spending we can not continue to pick expensive wars while simultaneously cutting taxes.
Obama has been in office a little over one year; most of his programs have not even taken effect. , so I contend all of our problems are from pat presidents, with the exception of Clinton and L.B.J.
[/quote]
If history serves me correctly, didn’t we get the tax cuts before we were attacked on 9/11? Didn’t the war start after we were attacked? Hasn’t the current administration been able to pull all the troops out, or do they continue to send more troops over there?[/quote]
2001 and 2003 we were two years into it
In Obama’s defense he is winding down Iraq which makes the Republicans happy and not me, He has anounced a pull out date in Afganistan
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While I agree with the premise that we can not sustain this kind of spending we can not continue to pick expensive wars while simultaneously cutting taxes.
Obama has been in office a little over one year; most of his programs have not even taken effect. , so I contend all of our problems are from pat presidents, with the exception of Clinton and L.B.J.
[/quote]
I wish I could have a year at my job to get something done. Oh wait you are saying even a year is not long enough. How long pittbull? 2 years? if he is in for 2 years and the shit is still hitting the fan hard, what then? Oh, he needs 3? When does it end? After his first term will you be like, oh he only had 3.5 years to fix things, it isn’t nearly enough, I must vote him in again because the next 4 years he will certainly do what he promised.
Also if you want to nitpick, Dems OWNED congress for his first year, IF anything could have been done to the levels they wanted and quickly it would have been in the first year. Once these midterms come around kiss any of his big agendas goodbye, they won’t control either house so it’s not likley he will be getting anything “done” in his 3.5 years as president.
V[/quote]
I do not know what you do, but it must be a very powerful position and so complex that people could demigogue it for you to compare your esteemed position with Obama.
I am no fan of the Democrats, I must admit I like Obama , but as I said time tells all
All I can say is, did anyone else catch Micheal Moore on the Rachel Maddow show last night, Mother fucker was speaking the truth.I generally ignore Mike Moore but last night I was liking what he was saying.