How Embarrassing.

[ImWithStupid]

Obama Urges G-20 Nations to Continue To Run Massive Budget Deficits

 

Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, June 18, 2010, 10:27 PM

 

Barack Obama sent a letter to G20 leaders this week urging them to continue to run massive budget deficits in order to “keep economic growth strong.� Obama believes that running high deficits will actually improve the economy. However, European and Chinese leaders disagree with Obama on this dangerous path of economic destruction. They are working to reduce deficits in their countries.

 

 

 

Barack Obama is having a difficult time talking world leaders into continuing to pile up massive budget deficits.

He tripled the US deficit his first year in office.

 

.

 

 

The AP reported:

The president noted that “significant weaknesses� linger among the major and developing economic powers. He told his summit partners “it is essential that we have a self-sustaining recovery that creates the good jobs that our people need.� The White House released a copy of the letter on Friday. In the letter, Obama said that the June 25-27 summit should also focus on efforts to stabilize public deficits in the “medium term,� a reference to the administration’s position that governments need to run huge deficits currently to provide the stimulus needed to ensure a sustained recovery but then move in future years to deficit reduction efforts.

 

But several European nations including Germany, France and Britain are already moving to attack high deficits in an effort to calm global financial markets which have stumbled in recent weeks over concerns that Greece or other highly indebted nations could default on their loans.

 

Obama is having a tough time making the argument for increased deficit spending at home as well. The Senate has blocked a scaled-down jobs bill with critics complaining that the $120 billion pricetag is still too high.

 

 

http://finance.yahoo...507167.html?x=0

[ImWithStupid]

Merkel refutes Obama on G20 fiscal policy

Published: 19 Jun 10 15:26 CET

Online: http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20100619-27969.html

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel directly contradicted US President Barack Obama on Saturday, saying spending cutbacks were now needed following the spate of throwing money at the global economic crisis.

 

 

[builder]

Isn' this the accepted social order of things? Liberals spend up big, then convervatives try and balance the books?

 

Oh, but the outgoing republican prez opened the coffers so all his buddies could line their own pockets at the taxpayer's expense.

 

Poor old Obama had to start off with a monster defecit instead of the usual surplus.

[hugo]

Isn' this the accepted social order of things? Liberals spend up big, then convervatives try and balance the books?

 

Oh, but the outgoing republican prez opened the coffers so all his buddies could line their own pockets at the taxpayer's expense.

 

Poor old Obama had to start off with a monster defecit instead of the usual surplus.

 

While I agree 100% with your remarks at some point the insanity has to stop. We are faced with three massive debts,as is much of the Western world. WE are facing this crisis as the baby boomers approach rertirement age. The national debt, unfunded pension liabilities (Social Security) and unfunded healthcare liabilities. A decade of fiscal irresponsibility must be stopped.

 

The era where Republicans were for limited government and balanced budgets ended when the party was taken over by the social conservatives most of whom had been George Wallace Democrats.

[builder]

 

WE are facing this crisis as the baby boomers approach rertirement age. The national debt, unfunded pension liabilities (Social Security) and unfunded healthcare liabilities. A decade of fiscal irresponsibility must be stopped.

 

The similarities in our present economic climate, meaning Australia and the US of A, are striking. Though we've had 'free' healthcare since I can remember, waiting lists for simple operations are over eighteen months, and those "fortunate" enough to be able to afford private health care often end up in a public hospital bed anyways.

 

As for our national debt, apart from upping the already inflated tax on tobacco by 20%, the fed gov is pushing to slap a 40% "superprofits" tax on the big mining companies,the success of whom is purported to be the reason why this country survived the global financial collapse so easily.

 

The era where Republicans were for limited government and balanced budgets ended when the party was taken over by the social conservatives most of whom had been George Wallace Democrats.

 

Another parrallel here. LNP stalwarts, meaning country conservatives, leaving their party to set up as independents or turncoat to the ALP (your version of the liberals).

[hugo]

The similarities in our present economic climate, meaning Australia and the US of A, are striking. Though we've had 'free' healthcare since I can remember, waiting lists for simple operations are over eighteen months, and those "fortunate" enough to be able to afford private health care often end up in a public hospital bed anyways.

 

As for our national debt, apart from upping the already inflated tax on tobacco by 20%, the fed gov is pushing to slap a 40% "superprofits" tax on the big mining companies,the success of whom is purported to be the reason why this country survived the global financial collapse so easily.

 

 

The whole Western world is pretty much in the same boat. I see what is happening in Greece as spreading in the next decade. At some point higher taxes and lower benefits is inevitable. You just can't keep increasing the limits on your credit cards forever.

[phreakwars]

Imagine that, the socialist and Communist are beating us. This calls for another tax cut, we'll teach em!!

.

.

[phreakwars]

The whole Western world is pretty much in the same boat. I see what is happening in Greece as spreading in the next decade. At some point higher taxes and lower benefits is inevitable. You just can't keep increasing the limits on your credit cards forever.

And you ALSO can't keep holding off on credit card payments, it's the INTEREST that will really kill ya, not the minimum due. Every tax CUT we get is just another step BACK from making that minimum due payment. I say, if we don't want our children and grand children to suffer as some claim is the issue, then we need to "MAN UP" and take on that cost now before we hit the spiraling high interest rate that will lead us to perpetual doom.

 

Anybody ever notice in Ayn Rand world, there are no sick people, there are no disabled people, there are no elderly who can't work any more. THESE are the ones that the broken system is trying to help, and yes, using the baby boomer numbers, is unsustainable. Paying for more people will take more taxes. Foolish is the person who complains, when your old, others will be there to pay for you. In the real world EVERYBODY doesn't make enough money to retire the rest of their life on and sustain all their medical care and necessity's. They are better known as the bottom 90% of us tax payers, including probably EVERYBODY on this site no matter how delusional you might be about how secure you "think" your future is without all that "socialism". If you ARE secure.. well GOOD FOR YOU. But in the REAL world, charity doesn't cut it. We need social programs because it's the HUMANE thing to do.

 

What gets me the most, is watching a right winger "MOCK" another's disability because of their personal political views.

 

I hate seeing that, because it makes me look at that right winger and think... "IS THAT REALLY WHO YOU ARE AS A PERSON AND HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR FELLOW MAN"?

.

.

[builder]

 

 

The whole Western world is pretty much in the same boat. I see what is happening in Greece as spreading in the next decade. At some point higher taxes and lower benefits is inevitable. You just can't keep increasing the limits on your credit cards forever.

 

I haven't really researched what happened in Greece, so I can't comment. I do recall reading that Sarkozy pressured Angela Merkel by saying that if Germany didn't bail out Greece, he would call for a total withdrawal from the euro economy.

 

There may be more to this than meets the eye, hugo. (cue X-files muzak)

 

Lots of noise in Australian media and political circles that throwing more money at fiscal stimulation packages and bail-outs is the only answer, but who will end up footing the bill?

 

Certainly not the "companies too big to fail".

[builder]

In the real world EVERYBODY doesn't make enough money to retire the rest of their life on and sustain all their medical care and necessity's. They are better known as the bottom 90% of us tax payers, including probably EVERYBODY on this site no matter how delusional you might be about how secure you "think" your future is without all that "socialism". If you ARE secure.. well GOOD FOR YOU. But in the REAL world, charity doesn't cut it. We need social programs because it's the HUMANE thing to do.

 

What gets me the most, is watching a right winger "MOCK" another's disability because of their personal political views.

 

I hate seeing that, because it makes me look at that right winger and think... "IS THAT REALLY WHO YOU ARE AS A PERSON AND HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR FELLOW MAN"?

.

.

 

Hmmm, it's an "us" and "them" thing that I used to think was purely American.

 

My own nephews are so caught up in the headlong rush to spend themselves into perpetual debt that it scares the sh t outta me.

 

I've just liquidated almost everything I worked for, paid out my debts, except for 3 grand on the "fantastic plastic" and hit the road. As I told the ATO (your IRS) I'm a gypsy now. Try and get blood out of this stone.

 

I know that's turning tail, and not "manning up" phreakwars, but I don't give a sh t.

 

I'm going to see this country before the capitalists destroy the bits that are still worth seeing. If, when I'm done swanning around, I need support, I'll go back and haunt my capitalist nephews.

 

They owe me heaps for all the construction work I've done for them.

[phreakwars]

the "companies too big to fail".

Here's a GREAT stimulus plan. Take those useless fukkin "too big to fail" banks and have them relinquish mortgages of EVERYBODY who they are lending to and EVERY CREDIT CARD if they are allegedly "FAILING". Give people who are paying on homes their deeds clear of any liens.. Fukk em.. let em fail HARD.

 

Could you imagine all the people who would have all kinds of disposable income if they weren't tied down to a house payment, car payment or credit card? All because their bank was a huge fukk up.

 

Now THAT sounds fair. Motivates the banks to REGULATE THEMSELVES or face the consequences.

 

Hell, if that was MY bank say.... I'd have an extra $550 a month just from not having a house payment. Eliminate my car payment... hell.. I'm going to DISNEY WORLD!!

.

.

[builder]

Love it phreakwars. If only.

 

I start a company, get finance, run it into the ground while living the high life ( sound familiar?), I go bankrupt. You think any gov agency is gonna bail me out?

[hugo]

You cannot reward corporate or individual responsibility. Not sure how you can blame the banks for giving people car and home loans. Yes, in some cases credit standards were too loose, but no one had a gun pointed to their head forcing them to buy a house or car on credit.

[builder]

You cannot reward corporate or individual responsibility.

 

Did you mean irresponsibility, hugo? if not, please explain.

 

 

Not sure how you can blame the banks for giving people car and home loans.

 

Actually, there are standards that lenders need to apply, meaning proving that the loaner has the capacity to repay at least the principal of the loan amount. The "low docs" and then the "no docs" loans were the start of the rot, hugo.

 

The lenders assumed that the market bubble would continue to inflate, and after foreclosure, they would profit from lending on the increased value after reselling it. With car loans, the auto is auctioned off for whatever they could get, and the outstanding debt remains, to be recouped in any way possible.

 

Yes, in some cases credit standards were too loose, but no one had a gun pointed to their head forcing them to buy a house or car on credit.

 

Come on buddy. If I make regular payments on my credit card, I'm offered upper limit increases every second week. They (banks and sharks alike) were throwing money around. After all, it's just a bunch of zeros with a number at the start.

[hugo]

You cannot reward corporate or individual responsibility.

 

Did you mean irresponsibility, hugo? if not, please explain.

 

 

Not sure how you can blame the banks for giving people car and home loans.

 

Actually, there are standards that lenders need to apply, meaning proving that the loaner has the capacity to repay at least the principal of the loan amount. The "low docs" and then the "no docs" loans were the start of the rot, hugo.

 

The lenders assumed that the market bubble would continue to inflate, and after foreclosure, they would profit from lending on the increased value after reselling it. With car loans, the auto is auctioned off for whatever they could get, and the outstanding debt remains, to be recouped in any way possible.

 

Yes, in some cases credit standards were too loose, but no one had a gun pointed to their head forcing them to buy a house or car on credit.

 

Come on buddy. If I make regular payments on my credit card, I'm offered upper limit increases every second week. They (banks and sharks alike) were throwing money around. After all, it's just a bunch of zeros with a number at the start.

 

 

Irresponsibility, of course. Yes, the banks were throwing money around. I could have bought a bigger house. I did not. Just because you can get a loan does not mean you should take it. The fact is many of these "home" buyers were simply investors; just like the banks they were gamblers. The financial crisis was brought on by gamblers at both the corporate and individual level. Of course, the corporations gambles were less risky because of the past history of government bailouts. When you privatize gains and socialize losses you increase risk taking.

[builder]

When you privatize gains and socialize losses you increase risk taking.

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a conservative gov in power in your country at that time? I know they were calling the shots in my country at that same time.

 

The "low docs" loans had just infiltrated out banking sectors.

[hugo]

When you privatize gains and socialize losses you increase risk taking.

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a conservative gov in power in your country at that time? I know they were calling the shots in my country at that same time.

 

The "low docs" loans had just infiltrated out banking sectors.

 

A so-called conservative government held the executive branch. In my opinion borrowing and spending is less conservative than taxing and spending. What both the Clinton and Bush administrations had as a goal was increasing the minority home ownership rate. A problem was minorities tended to have lower incomes, credit scores and often wished to buy in riskier areas. The feds actually encouraged the banks to lower lending standards; It did not take much arm twisting, There is a lot of blame to be spread around and there were huge failures in both the public and private sectors.

 

I think a bigger factor than the low doc loans was the easiness of getting second liens that basically covered the down payment with very low credit scores. I was a realtor from 2001 to 2005. I saw people get in homes for less than a $1000 who I would not loan a plug nickle to.

[builder]

We had private landholders offering 'rent to buy' options without even going through a bank or finance company. That's how easy it got here. Pushed the price of everything, including crapped out old caravans through the roof.

[phreakwars]

See, now, MY bank wasn't like that. But they did something I didn't care for, they gave the loan to US Bank (another too big to fail), which I didn't care for but accept because of terms offered. Sure my wife and I had a higher range of credit that we could have gotten into a home double the value of the one we own now, but our lender went over our recommended payments with us and helped us make a REASONABLE investment that fit our needs that wasn't gonna leave us worry "what are we gonna do if one of us loses a job".

 

My dumb ass brother and his own personal mistakes (actually his whole marriage was a mistake), was a great way to see failure in action.

 

He had a nice house, 2 brand new cars, a great job. But unfortunately, a wife with a huge spending habit and a credit score to help her get that.

 

He didn't appreciate coming off the road after weeks in his truck and finding credit card statements with a minimum due of $1500. Add that to his GREAT LIFE of his very nice brick home and SUV and car payments... well it's obvious what wanting the good life brings.

 

He seems happier with his new wife these days and is happy living the days where money and possessions weren't the reason you were working in the first place, just like he remembered growing up.

.

.

[timesjoke]

Yes, the banks were throwing money around. I could have bought a bigger house. I did not. Just because you can get a loan does not mean you should take it. The fact is many of these "home" buyers were simply investors; just like the banks they were gamblers. The financial crisis was brought on by gamblers at both the corporate and individual level. Of course, the corporations gambles were less risky because of the past history of government bailouts. When you privatize gains and socialize losses you increase risk taking.

Great point Hugo.

 

Most people forget that the individuals getting the loans were just as responsible as the banks that were giving them. Property values leaped and everyone was on a high road of making money.

 

 

And guess who was really happy?

 

Your local tax appraiser who was allowed to double and more the value of existing homes and tax the piss out of people because fo the artificial increase in prices, prices that today nobody wants to lower back down to those prior levels, and guess what, it is again the Government who does not want to let the prices return to normal because they are already spending the money based on those higher land values and letting the values decline to where they "should" be would cripple already hurting governments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bender, you talk about how social programs are the right thing to do but the problem is not tax cuts or tax increases, you like most people completely miss the real problem and that is out of control spending by our Government represenatives. You could increase taxes to everyone in America to 50% but if the elected officials increase spending to match, your not going to pay down the debts, we can't fix out deficits without getting people in office who are willing to severely cut back spending. Cutting spending most likely would reduce social programs but who ever promised people a "free ride" in life?

 

 

Compassion and welfare should be operated by family, friends, community and churches, not Governments.