United States Heading towards a Depression?

There you go again with nonsense. I can appreciate you trying to ramp up Bush's spending resume, but I'd appreciate it if you used factual information instead of excuses for what you think he tried but failed to do. As far as I can tell, the only war he started was Iraq, unless you feel he picked the fight in Afghanistan, and the war had two fundamental problems from a spending perspective.

1) The spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is pathetic when compared to the type of spending I'm glad to see Obama is doing
2) It wasn't permanently added to our budget to properly grow the size of government. The wars end, the spending stops.

Now I don't normally give credit to Bush, but I'll concede he did try to push through a health care plan that spent 100 billion dollars (over a decade) to get additional people insured, and if he'd have accomplished that, I'd have given him some points. He didn't. I have no doubt Obama, on the other hand, will accomplish getting his 634 billion dollar health care budget through to insure everyone, permanently. This is exactly the type of long term growth of the government we need.

I'll also concede that Bush did other types of long term spending and government growth things, such as creation of a variety of new government agencies including the dept. of homeland security and the TSA. The TSA in particularly I like because it employs people who, as far as I can tell, would not be employable almost anywhere else, and forces the rich to practically strip naked while walking through any airport and take an extra hour out of their busy schedules to get through security.

My issue with Bush again is, he didn't go far enough. Bush added a few buildings to the size of government, Barack will build us a shining city. We are not talking a difference of 10-50% in size, we are talking a difference of 500% in size. Bush quite simply isnt even in the same league. Not talkin apples and oranges, we are talking grapes and watermelons.

You mentioned Bush needed more time. Barack has accomplished his spending in 100 days. Why couldn't Bush do it in 8 years? Pathetic.

 

The difference between 1990 and today is that investors are looking for a hedge againast inflation and that there are cash buyers. The problem is price. Prices will keep falling until there is an equilibrium between the cost of buildings and rent.

The banks and pension funds etc are going to take some big loses. There's probably will be another $2-$3 trillion in bank loses. I suspect that some time in the fall Fannie/Freddie and the big banks will be crying for more money.

The collapse of commercial real estate was enough to trigger the 1990 recession. At commercial to the finacial crisis and unemployment could touch 12%.

we haven't yet seen the full effect of rising unemployment. The economy is losing around 400,000 to 500,000 jobs a month. So that means more retail stores, offices and plants will be shut sending commercial into a downward spiral.

California may need a bailout. Freddie/Fannie and the banks need more cash. GM needs another $5 billion and Congress is likely to pass another $1 trillion stimulus. Not to mention the Obama health care plan.

The only way to pay the bill is with inflation.

Now, some are starting to warn about an economic beast called stagflation — the combination of higher prices and a struggling economy.

“The economy may be at greater risk of inflation than the conventional wisdom indicates,” Charles I. Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, warned in a speech Thursday. He said prices could climb 2.5 percent in 2011, a higher forecast than the Fed’s expectations of 1 to 1.9 percent inflation.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Michigans-April-jobless-rate-apf-15331481.html

Temporary lay offs.
Good Times.
Easy credit rip offs.
Good Times.
Scratchin' and surviving.
Good Times.
Hangin in a chow line
Good Times.
Ain't we lucky we got 'em
Good Times.

 

What can one say to that except.... DYN-O-MITE!!!!

 

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. You seem fixated on what might happen under Obama.

But, we know what DID HAPPEN under Bush.

I'm not here to predict Obama's future. He may be the spending success of Bush, he may not. It's hard to tell after 5 months.

However, Bush had 8 YEARS of wars, Katrina, loose credit, housing bubble, and declining manufacturing, and trade deficits.

Bush did an EXCELLENT job of exporting business, encouraging debt, protecting the country, increasing dependence on imports, helping US cities like New Orleans, and regulating Wall Street, hedge funds, and the banks.

You can't argue with that record. In fact, you aren't. You are trying to say Obama WILL, or MAY, or MIGHT be as successful as Bush. No one knows one way or the other. But, it is clear what Bush was. Bush was the best thing to happen to the United States over the past 8 years. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, Henry Paulson have shown their value in creating the great and powerful country the US is today.

Can Obama put together a team like Bush can? Time will tell, but time hasn't told anything yet because it's only been 5 months.

California is doing great after 8 years of Bush. So, you know first hand how good his policies have been.

 

Our county in california is now the most affordable in the country for home ownership. Its actually cheaper now to buy a house than rent one! Like i said we were the hardest hit area in the country and now we have basically hit bottom. THe rest of the country will follow.

I do not think however housing hitting bottom will mean the end of the recession. Instead well have a double dip recession with massive inflation. And the banks will still be in crisis too making it hard to get credit like during the boom years.



I believe part of the reason for the double dip recession in the early 80's was because Paul Volker the fed reserve chairman tamed excessive inflation by raising interest rates which sucked liquidity out of the market and made it hard to obtain credit.

I think this time either the fed will let runaway inflation get to hyperinflation so we have a inflationary depression or they do what volker did in the 80's and we have a very deep recession worse than this current one to get our interest rates lowered.

Either way we are screwed and I think people don't realize that what we are experiencing right now at the moment is minor compared to what it may look like in 1-3 years.

 

You are rambling incoherently now. Look I focused in on one issue because I figure it is an important issue. Spending. Its not pie in the sky, or wishful thinking, or what he might do, or could do, or may do. Its done! Sure there is more to come that has not yet been approved because some weak ass wanna be Democrats are getting cold feet about a 2 trillion dollar deficit, but you know and I know its done. Obama didn't need 8 years, he pulled it off in 90 days. That is how inept Bush was.

You need to let go of the past and your hero Bush. Hell you brought up his whole team, like we didn't do a good enough job exposing each and every one of those people for the America hating satanists that they are. Those days are over, let it go.

You brought up California, though I'm not sure why. I think most idiots understand California's demise is Bush's fault. With any luck Obama will fix the situation by bailing them(us) out too, god bless him. Maybe California will take the Guantanamo detainees in exchange for the bailout money! That way we can shut down that torturous hell hole and end the imprisonment of innocents (in Cuba, the part we occupy). The money it will take to relocate all of these people to California can be considered another special stimulus package to the state since, after all, spending is stimulus!

 

Im in california and I hope obama doesn't bail out us out. I hope arnie cuts off the welfare queen morons.

 

Obama is likely to give freebies to the wrong people and make everything worse, so I do agree with your posts.

 

Your posts make minimal sense. You seem to completely neglect the fact that Cuba has not been the most U.S. and freedom friendly country out there and you seem to completely ignore the actions of enemies of freedom as the people you seem to defend who are currently held in Guantanamo Bay to keep the world safe.

You have to be able to look above your own feelings and look at the bigger picture to understand that there is a need to do more than just provide something cosmetic, but look into the future and make sure that there is a message to those who are dedicated to destroying everything we and our ancestors have been working hard on providing for the next generation.

I do not understand people like you. I am glad I don't, but it does get frustrating when you turn on the TV and see people completely ignore facts and start rambling about the rights of criminals, terrorists and mass murders and completely disregard the needs of those who have earned their place in society to stay safe and life their lives without the interference of those who follow all sorts of dictators and ideologies contrary to human nature and human rights.

Hope you will at least be a little more open to accepting the feedback from those who at least want to try to shine some light into this mess.

 

Well, I try not to get too opinionated either. Generally speaking, I use Obama as a litmus test. If he is for it, I'm for it. If he's against it, I'm against it. At times it leaves me sounding a bit schizophrenic(I was for it, before I was against it), but it is a sacrifice I am willing to make for him. I just wish the Republicans would leave him alone!!!

 

Wow that is the most stupid political logic I ever seen. Sadly you probably represent millions of Americans who are blindly following him just for the sake of following him even though he is unqualified, has no real skills other than to talk bull, and is wrong on everything.

 

What does "It's done!" mean? Are you saying the jobs have been created, materials purchased, cars ordered, and weapons bought? It may be allocated but does that mean it's been spent?

Bush spent the money. Congress under Obama has allocated the money. If Obama had spent like Bush...

Why isn't unemployment the same as Bush?
Why isn't inflation the same as Bush?
Why isn't the housing market like Bush?
Why isn't the credit market like Bush?
Why isn't the stock market rising like Bush?

No, Obama hasn't spent anything yet. We will see if he spends as well as Bush, but it's only been 5 months! Why are we comparing Bush to Obama. It makes no sense. It's like comparing a rookie to a veteran. Wait until they both have the same years in office, then compare.


Unless you are trying to tell me the government allocates, decides, and spends that fast (which I would strongly disagree).

California is doing great after 8 years of Bush. There are plenty who will attest to that. Just go to Hollywood or Silicon Valley.

I don't know about Guantanamo, but George Bush had to put them somewhere. Obama should follow suit and put them in another (non-Democratic) country. Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iraq?

 

I've never said that. I said Bush didnt spend enough. Obama is spending orders of magnitude more than Bush. We can dicker about allocate vs. spend, but I think the CBO sees it as real enough to make their estimates.

I dont know. You're the one who keeps bringing up Bush.

More nonsense. California is doing horrible, and its all Bush's fault! Yes, people have jobs, but the government is bankrupt because of the Bush real estate crash(Vacant homes generate no property taxes). Sure some say it had to do with egregious spending, but I say they didn't spend enough! Then the stupid voters would approve the tax increases needed to keep the whole thing going. Look,you cant just go half way. Big spending requires tax increases on the rich, and printing money if necessary. CA failed.

 

Median sales price in northern california rises (although overall the state is still declining)

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12420291


This is one of the best housing videos I seen, great graphs you won't see elsewhere'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeLK8zhzNug

 

I also recall the CBO estimating budget surpluses for the next 10 years back in 2000.

And we all know how that worked.

Then how are you making judgements or value statements about Obama. You must be comparing him to someone. You keep saying he's spending. Compared to whom?

Bush spent more than any President in US history. Bush did all the spending necessary. Tell me this, where was he supposed to do additional spending? He started wars. He expanded government. He bailed-out the banks. Now, tell me, how is Obama any different, so far?

Besides, taxes have nothing to do with spending. Bush proved that. So, what is this tax on the rich stuff about?

Oh look, here's a Congression Budget Office graph of Bush spending. Not estimates, reality.

 

Nice graph. It does a nice job in trying to portray Bush as a big spender, but it seems to have some problems of scale. 1) It pushes 50 years of presidency onto the Y axis, 2) its not inflation adjusted, and 3) it curiously stops at the year 2008 with a projection(the final number was 509 Billion btw). Once you make the Y axis 4 times bigger to account for 2009 spending, you'll realize what a cheap ass penny pincher Bush was. That is reality, not estimations. Now if you want to talk about Debt, that graph gets REALLY interesting.

 

Notice the date on the graph... 3/6/08. That is more than a year after it's last data point. And you say Bush ended much lower. That is because 2008 is finished.

It is still 2009, mid-2009 at that. Let's wait until at least 2010 before saying Obama is as successful as Bush in spending.

Otherwise, it just seems like you are jumping the gun at Obama and wishing for things that are not there yet (or at least not confirmed yet, unlike Bush).

One thing the graph does show is how great the Republicans are with spending money. They have a clear, undisputed history of spending the country's wealth to ensure prosperity.

 

Am I understanding you correctly, You want to ignore the year of data that is not on your graph that we already have? That is my point, we are ALREADY there. That's why it is significant. If your graph were to accurately display the spending through mid 2009, it would have to amplify its Y axis by 4x. So using your graph with 50 years of data, we need to 4x the graph's Y axis to hold data from the last 6 months. Are you hearing me now?

 

i have to agree. here in new york city my boss got a reduction of 15 to 25% on the leases that he had with multiple landlords. he has two stores in Manhattan one in longisland and one in ct. the landlords did not even put up a fight. he just made a call.he said he needs help or he has to leave them and they all sent a proposal. i recommend anyone with a commercial lease to call their landlord now.

 

You're not understanding me.

You want to compare a PARTIAL year to a chart of FULL years.

You want to compare the 1st year of a President to FULL terms of Presidents.

The total is not set yet. It's like you want to call the game before all the innings have played, the quarters are ended, and the periods completed.

Let the year finish before you jump to your conclusions.

We know Bush is the most profligate President in US history. What's wrong with just accepting that title. As you can see, America did well under Bush policies and spending.