Greece Gives Us A Snapshot Of America's Future Under Obama

[Sallow]

(What is going on in Greece today may have been achieved totally by accident or innocent stupidity, but it provides America a very visible foretaste of its future, a future that will not arrive innocently by accident as in Greece's case. America's future, although in many cases similar to the predicament the Greeks are in, will instead be arrived at by deliberate, calculated, diabolical Machiavellian planning on the part of Mr Obama and the Democrats. His objective is, and has been, the total economic collapse of American Capitalism and the concomitant collapse of American Democracy with the subsequent installation of a Communist State. Remember the "Fundamental Transformation of America" he promised?
Just yesterday Andrew Breitbart identified a prominent figure of, and avowed Communist sympathizer, in one of Mr Obama's wholly owned subsidiaries, Organizing For America, leading a march in the Occupy Chicago protests. The nationwide Occupy movements are part and parcel of Mr Obama's deliberate and eleborately planned orchestrations that are to lead up to America's economic and social collapse)

"It looks like the European bankers' can-kicking just ran out of road. The yield on a one-year bond from the country of Greece hit a new record high earlier today.

A yield of 172% means that bonds issued by Greece are worth just a few pennies more than the paper they're printed on. Put another way, Greece is dead bang certain to default on its debt.

European banks loaned Greece hundreds of billions of Euros -- the reasons don't matter at this point -- and were issued bonds in exchange for the money. The money's gone, spent on heaven knows what. And Greece is bankrupt, trying to make ends meet by laying off its bloated public sector union bureaucracy. That's why riots are occurring there on a near-daily basis."

The European Debt Crisis In Comic Book Form -- So Even Democrats Can Understand

Ah so America is going to stop printing it's own money..borrow money from other countries to build up it's military so they can yank Macedonia from Turkey?

Hmm..could be rabbit..could be.

 

[cbirch2]

Only about 300 billion dollars per year is in interest payments. Whatabout the other trillion? By the way Obama has added 4trillion to the debt.

Nice try ignoring the facts there.

There are other relevant facts that you seem to be ignoring yourself.

1) The national debt, as a percentage of GDP, has been higher in the past without hurting the country.

2) The national debt doesn't ever have to be paid off. It can keep being rolled over indefinitely. In fact, we are carrying debt on the books right now that has been rolled over continuously ever since the Mexican War. Paying off the debt in full isn't even a good idea, let alone necessary; the only time we ever did that, the economy plunged into a ruinous depression immediately thereafter. (That was under Andrew Jackson. He's the reason we don't carry debt rolled over from the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. It would have been better if we did.)

We don't have a debt crisis. That's BS. What we have is a high federal deficit partly because we are in a depression, and partly because of Bush's bonehead tax cuts. If we were to go on forever running a deficit this high, we'd eventually find ourselves in trouble but we won't. And although it's something that will have to change before too much longer, it's not an immediate emergency by any means.

Yes, we had a higher debt to gdp ratio in the 1940's. However now I don't think have the potential to grow at near double digit rates like we did in the decade after that. Our debt is increasing so much faster than GDP, they're anticipating deficits of more than 5% until 2020, I don't think you'll see sustained GDP growth near that. Think of where all that capital could be going if it wasn't being flowed into treasuries at such a high rate.

If you think that running deficits of 10% gdp for the last three years, having a debt to GDP ratio near the highest in the western world is no big deal then obviously it's not worth arguing with you. This is math, not politics. Obviously liberals have never been for much of the former.

Because were in a recession you moron. If you project out from the current baseline GDP growth it looks like shit, because were in a recession. Republicans wont allow countercyclical policy, because they failed econ 101, so were going down the drain.

You want to talk math? Why in the world would you decrease aggregate demand and GDP by cutting spending at a time when the bond markets have no problem financing US debt. Yields on 10-year T notes just hit record lows, so why should we be pursuing austerity in the middle of a recession again?

 

[Sallow]

There are other relevant facts that you seem to be ignoring yourself.

1) The national debt, as a percentage of GDP, has been higher in the past without hurting the country.

2) The national debt doesn't ever have to be paid off. It can keep being rolled over indefinitely. In fact, we are carrying debt on the books right now that has been rolled over continuously ever since the Mexican War. Paying off the debt in full isn't even a good idea, let alone necessary; the only time we ever did that, the economy plunged into a ruinous depression immediately thereafter. (That was under Andrew Jackson. He's the reason we don't carry debt rolled over from the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. It would have been better if we did.)

We don't have a debt crisis. That's BS. What we have is a high federal deficit partly because we are in a depression, and partly because of Bush's bonehead tax cuts. If we were to go on forever running a deficit this high, we'd eventually find ourselves in trouble but we won't. And although it's something that will have to change before too much longer, it's not an immediate emergency by any means.

Yes, we had a higher debt to gdp ratio in the 1940's. However now I don't think have the potential to grow at near double digit rates like we did in the decade after that. Our debt is increasing so much faster than GDP, they're anticipating deficits of more than 5% until 2020, I don't think you'll see sustained GDP growth near that. Think of where all that capital could be going if it wasn't being flowed into treasuries at such a high rate.

If you think that running deficits of 10% gdp for the last three years, having a debt to GDP ratio near the highest in the western world is no big deal then obviously it's not worth arguing with you. This is math, not politics. Obviously liberals have never been for much of the former.

Because were in a recession you moron. If you project out from the current baseline GDP growth it looks like shit, because were in a recession. Republicans wont allow countercyclical policy, because they failed econ 101, so were going down the drain.

You want to talk math? Why in the world would you decrease aggregate demand and GDP by cutting spending at a time when the bond markets have no problem financing US debt. Yields on 10-year T notes just hit record lows, so why should we be pursuing austerity in the middle of a recession again?

We not really in a "recession". What we are in is something very weird. Companies are extremely profitable. They just aren't hiring domestically.

 

[likeabird03]

That is because of the interest on the debt. We are obligated to pay that, just as you are obligated to pay the interest on your credit card or mortgage. That is not Obama spending.

Only about 300 billion dollars per year is in interest payments. Whatabout the other trillion? By the way Obama has added 4trillion to the debt.

Nice try ignoring the facts there.

Fiscal year 2009 was bush's budget. By the end of fiscal 2009 the debt was 12.8 trillion. the debt clock is now at about 14.8 trillion.

So....

Liar.

Nice try. Obamas stimulus package was included in the 2009 budget year. I would say that's pretty significant. Much of the increase that took place in Bush's last year was TARP, much of which was paid back to the treasury later with dividends. Obama probably blew it on Iraq or Green energy or some crap.

 

[likeabird03]

There are other relevant facts that you seem to be ignoring yourself.

1) The national debt, as a percentage of GDP, has been higher in the past without hurting the country.

2) The national debt doesn't ever have to be paid off. It can keep being rolled over indefinitely. In fact, we are carrying debt on the books right now that has been rolled over continuously ever since the Mexican War. Paying off the debt in full isn't even a good idea, let alone necessary; the only time we ever did that, the economy plunged into a ruinous depression immediately thereafter. (That was under Andrew Jackson. He's the reason we don't carry debt rolled over from the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. It would have been better if we did.)

We don't have a debt crisis. That's BS. What we have is a high federal deficit partly because we are in a depression, and partly because of Bush's bonehead tax cuts. If we were to go on forever running a deficit this high, we'd eventually find ourselves in trouble but we won't. And although it's something that will have to change before too much longer, it's not an immediate emergency by any means.

Yes, we had a higher debt to gdp ratio in the 1940's. However now I don't think have the potential to grow at near double digit rates like we did in the decade after that. Our debt is increasing so much faster than GDP, they're anticipating deficits of more than 5% until 2020, I don't think you'll see sustained GDP growth near that. Think of where all that capital could be going if it wasn't being flowed into treasuries at such a high rate.

If you think that running deficits of 10% gdp for the last three years, having a debt to GDP ratio near the highest in the western world is no big deal then obviously it's not worth arguing with you. This is math, not politics. Obviously liberals have never been for much of the former.

Because were in a recession you moron. If you project out from the current baseline GDP growth it looks like shit, because were in a recession. Republicans wont allow countercyclical policy, because they failed econ 101, so were going down the drain.

You want to talk math? Why in the world would you decrease aggregate demand and GDP by cutting spending at a time when the bond markets have no problem financing US debt. Yields on 10-year T notes just hit record lows, so why should we be pursuing austerity in the middle of a recession again?

I know name calling is the standard last ditch effort of many liberals but I will not respond to that. Government is not the economy, it draws on the private sector economy to feed itself, like a tumor. Yields on treasuries are low because the fed is printing money and using it to buy t-bills through quantitative easing and "operation twist", do some research. Real foreign demand for T-Bills has fallen in recent months, we had our rating downgraded, these are the facts. Obama implemented the counter cyclical measures during his two years of nearly complete control and we had the weakest recovery regardless.

 

[likeabird03]

"US Entering Grek Territory"

Mitch Daniels: U.S. entering 'Greek territory' - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

 

[Dragon]

Yes, we had a higher debt to gdp ratio in the 1940's. However now I don't think have the potential to grow at near double digit rates like we did in the decade after that.

If we fix certain problems in our economy, mainly involving the unsustainable maldistribution of wealth, we should be able to return to fairly high growth. It may not be quite as high as in the postwar decades because of slower population growth, but on a per capita basis there's no reason we can't repeat that accomplishment.

Think of where all that capital could be going if it wasn't being flowed into treasuries at such a high rate.

Fundamental mistake: that all capital available to private investors will always be invested productively. That isn't so. The limit on productive investment isn't the availability of capital, it's consumer demand.

If you think that running deficits of 10% gdp for the last three years, having a debt to GDP ratio near the highest in the western world is no big deal then obviously it's not worth arguing with you. This is math, not politics.

When math is applied to the real world, real-world considerations, not all of them mathematical, must inform how the math is applied.

 

[cbirch2]

"US Entering Grek Territory"

Mitch Daniels: U.S. entering 'Greek territory' - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

A republican governor is your unbiased source? srsly?

 

[likeabird03]

"US Entering Grek Territory"

Mitch Daniels: U.S. entering 'Greek territory' - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

A republican governor is your unbiased source? srsly?

Okay you got me, just kidding, it's just a lie that our debt is approaching 100% of our GDP, silly me. Stop with the name calling and ad hominem attacks. You're not doing yourself or liberal ignoramuses like yourself any justice. I'm starting to see how a two bit community organizer with little real world experience got elected.

And that's all? You're not standing by the untrue facts you posted before? If you're going to call me a liar you better present the evidence as to why before you throw out any more BS. I think you're the liar here.

 

[likeabird03]

If we fix certain problems in our economy, mainly involving the unsustainable maldistribution of wealth, we should be able to return to fairly high growth. It may not be quite as high as in the postwar decades because of slower population growth, but on a per capita basis there's no reason we can't repeat that accomplishment.

Tell me, how do you suggest this take place? Higher tax rates? That's you're plan to boost our GDP growth? We have the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world at 35%, and you think increasing things such as that in the name of wealth redistribution would somehow be the recipe for growth or bring jobs/industry back to this country.

Fundamental mistake: that all capital available to private investors will always be invested productively. That isn't so. The limit on productive investment isn't the availability of capital, it's consumer demand.

No, not ALL of it will. But 1.4 trillion dollars annually is a pretty big chunk of the overall credit markets so to insinuate that it has no effect is not true. And if you think that it's being put to productive use in the hands of the US Government then I want some of what you're smoking.

When math is applied to the real world, real-world considerations, not all of them mathematical, must inform how the math is applied.

Still a total disregard for the facts. Tell me what considerations there are that somehow offset the fact we're running such large deficits compared the size of our economy, and that somehow what's happening to the European countries (which are running the same size deficits) isn't something that could happen here.

 

[likeabird03]

 

[Matilda]

^^^^^ So how is this Obama's fault? The debt after Bush II was already in a runaway position approaching 100% of GDP.

 

[likeabird03]

^^^^^ So how is this Obama's fault? The debt after Bush II was already in a runaway position approaching 100% of GDP.

Baseline spending was not running away at the end of the Bush administration. The TARP near the end of 2008 is why you see that big jump. This money was paid back with dividends to the US taxpayer about a year later. But instead of this money going back to the treasury it was spent under Obama. Probably on Iraq or more green energy/cronie capitalist ventures.