Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
I find it funny that the rightwingers like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and that witch Coulter talk like all of our national spending was initiated only by President Obama......that he started off w/ a zero balance and generated all this debt alone. I recall that GWB had gotten a lot of criticism regarding NOT including war expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budget. But I'm sure that our current debt and deficit has come from our war effort that Bush place our country into for the last ten plus years...then there's that prescription drug benefit that I recall hearing about that GWB paid for.
Let's look at the Debt held by the Public since TARP was initiated. I will be gennerous and say that even though 700 billion was set as the maximum amount available, only about 500 billion has been distributed or held in reserve. Looking at the Debt held by the public in reserve, the dedt increased 500 billion from Dec 1, 2008 until March of 2009. Let's just say that that entire amount was TARP. Now, if as you say the entire amount has been paid back, there should be a corresponding decrease in the public debt by 500 billion sometime between March 2008 and today. Nowhere is there any significant decrease by that amount to be found. Or, let's put it another way. I borrow $100 to give to a friend, the friend pays me back but I don't pay back the loan. Has that fact that the friend paid me back any bearing on whether my debt hasn't been effected? The bank bailout may or may not have contributed to the debt, but certainly the pay back has done nothing to reduce it either.
Keynesian economics does not support direct payments to consumers, you know that. It promotes "priming the pump" by either increasing the money supply, which the Fed has done and Paul objects to, or it promotes payments by the government to purchase goods to stimulate the pump.
What Benanke fails to mention is the fact that the dollar is falling due to his policies. Paul missed a golden opportunity there.
This area is mostly true, however, gold can be money if it is in the form of a coin.
Or, if I take a gold brick down to the store for a loaf of bread I'm sure the manager would be more then willing to "trade".[/b]
But why is it "tradition", that's the real question? Could it be because gold as opposed to any paper currency is universally accepted? Could it be that gold represents diversification providing for security to the paper currency, just in case.
Could it be that gold can both be broken down into smaller portions and at the same time have the ability to put back together, unlike diamonds? Once again Berneake gave the most shallow answer available to him.
Those people are not conservative. They are liberals that act conservative. (hannity and limbaugh) They preach many liberal values...
This is a good read for anyone claiming only President Obama is responsible for the current debt.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When Obama took office in January of 2009, the federal debt was about $10 trillion, or roughly 70 percent of GDP. Today it's about $14.3 trillion, which is close to 100 percent of GDP. By the end of Obama's third year, the debt will have risen by about $5.5 trillion, or 55 percent. That's partly because of all the stimulus spending enacted under Obama, meant to help end the worst recession since the 1930s. But it's specious to say that Obama should have foregone all that extra spending just to keep the debt under control. Any president, Democrat or Republican, would have been under severe pressure to do something to ease the pain of the recession, and it's worth keeping in mind that President George W. Bush, a Republican, enacted a smaller stimulus plan in 2008, when the magnitude of the nascent recession was still unknown. We have new doubts today about the effectiveness of stimulus spending, but in 2008 and 2009 it was widely considered one of the most effective ways to battle a recession.http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2011/07/15/who-to-blame-for-the-debt-fiasco
If I weren't such a patriotic American I'd almost like to see what our country would be like had the gov't not intervened and kept the measly $250/family tax rebate that scholar GWB provided.
1. If spending was in its' current state and the debt threatening the nations economy - yes. Especially with impending HC changes and costs indicating it might not be the advertised solution it was purported to be.
2. Given the circumstances of lack of economic recovery as predicted, the continuation of increasing regulations precluding job growth, and the lack of hitting the goals promised with the past "plans" I suspect Barry would like this not to be an issue during his re-election campaign. As for the Army that might not be in line with Barry's thinking - perhaps the 2010 elections might indicate your assessment isn't too solidly grounded. And the 'eat our peas' comment might well come back to haunt him. And perhaps not, but frankly Barry on the economy isn't really a confidence builder.
Didn't you ask my opinion? I know I didn't ask for yours.