Now most of this is from Bush and the rebubs overspending.

But we cannot afford any more social engineering programs from Obama to make this double or triple what the total is now.

Here is the story---on the hedge funds getting money from AIG..

And Thimmy is in big Throuble--

we may as well just finish selling ourselves to the chicoms!

i want to go to my mountain. one road in and plenty of vegetation and game. sit on my porch in the swing, listen to southern gospel...

listen to southern gospel...

#5 | Posted by nanc

Nanc I know what you really mean

"The history of the region and of the music is fraught with racial tension
and strife. The term "Southern gospel" came into usage in the 1970s. One
of the reasons was to distinguish it from African American gospel
music. According to historian James R. Goff, Jr., 'The designation . . .
served, in the wake of integration, to restore some separation between
white and black gospel music. For most of the century, there was a clear
dividing line between the music as performed by white and black groups in
American churches and concert halls. The 1960s, however, brought the
first widespread mixing of white and black gospel styles.'[1]

This deliberate "whitening" of the name may have implications for a coded
racist message. Although not explicitly anti-black, the choice "Southern"
to mark off the genre from African American music and simultaneously to
refer to a sound made popular during the height of legal and social
segregation in the region named, culturally references and celebrates a
segregated society. In this context, "Southern" means white. The coupling
of "Southern" with "gospel" implies that segregation is part of the
divine
"good news."

Nanc really wants to listen to her racist melodies.

oh yeah, and i like african american gospel, but it seems they don't want to mingle with the suthun!

nanc I busted you. Admit your racism.

Rasta,
Your link is racist. "African American gospel?" Why are black people called "African American" while whites tend to call themselves "American?" Why split the loyalty of a black American? Why suggest their loyalty is to somewhere else first? Why assume that because their skin is black their family can be traced back to Africa as if only Africa produces dark skinned humans.

Admit your racism Rasta.

rasta is a parody - why he thinks i'm racist is beyond me - one day i will put up a picture at one of my blogs that would blow his little mind!

Nanc said Southern Gospel knowing full well that it meant white gospel. She should have just said Gospel. When she said Southern she knew it meant in code that whites could only inherit the kingdom of heaven. Nanc uses code to show her racism but some of us are able to catch her in it.

she knew it meant in code that whites could only inherit the kingdom of heaven

Rasta is a racist! Why is it "whites" and not "European Americans?" Southern= white? Better tell all those black southerner that they cannot listen to Southern Gospel any more. They better switch to that equality based Northern Gospel. =P

Kanrei I've got news for you, I'm pretty sure her buddies at stormfront don't think too highly of your kind either.

gospel to me is singing out of a hymnal, numbnuts. the radio station bills itself as "southern" gospel.

rasta - i'm as racist as you are bright. which wouldn't even fill a thimble.

Thanks Democrats!

Rasta,
Nanc is not a Nazi.

kanrei - he's deflecting from the issues of the day, week and month by trying to bring unusual and unwarranted accusations against me. he's retarded, both socially AND mentally.

Maybe not a Nazi but I believe she has similar beliefs as David Dukes.

rasta - there are two people i find highly distasteful and would warrant an inkling of hate from me - those who harm children and self inflicted idiots - which one are you?

To many of you get your news from the zionist controlled media.

Posted by rastaninja at 2009-03-18 03:09 PM

I don't know Rasta, but, between the two of you, I would guess you have more on an issue with "my people" than Nanc does.

david dukes is an anti-semitic - i'm no anti-semitic. i am a christian zionist.

i'm no anti-semitic. i am a christian zionist.

#23 | Posted by nanc at 2009-03-18 03:12 PM

I am a Jewish non-Zionist...ironic, huh?

kanrei - does he mean jews? BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! one of my best blogfriends is an ashkenazi! LMBFTO!

opposites attract!

nanc better read the good book to find out what god does with luke warm xtians.

murphy's going to poop gold twinkies when she sees what we've done to her post!

::skedaddles::

rasta - want me to call the jaws of life to help you get your head out of the dark place?

I always tell people I am an American Jew. I don't speak Hebrew, I don't keep Kosher, I was Bar Mitzvahed and had a Briss, but I am more American in my lifestyle than I am European Jewish like my Grandparents are.

murphy's going to poop gold twinkies when she sees what we've done to her post!

::skedaddles::

#28 | Posted by nanc at 2009-03-18 03:15 PM

Good point! Sorry about the hijack Murphy. I am done =D

Crunch all yah want we'll make more...

The Fed

Bierut Bonzo, Chimpy and Chimpy's old man are responsible for 90% of it. Nice going Repugs.

Rein--so you agree that the debt is too high and no more spending should occur--right?

Yes the thread got a bit hijacked. But no golden twinkies seen anywhere--;o)

Nanc needed to be taught a lesson. Murphy you also need to be taught liberalism is the answer.

rasta - i neutered and tutored you - now skedaddle off - isn't it sack time for you?

"Eleven trillion is nothing," says Flop Ears. "I can do way better than that."

Gee...I wonder what percentage was amassed under Republican administrations, and what percentage was amassed under Democratic administrations?

does it really matter at this point, danforth?

"Gee...I wonder what percentage was amassed under Republican administrations, and what percentage was amassed under Democratic administrations?"

Me too. Maybe you could post a link, instead of sitting around wondering in an attempt to make a point without actually coming out and saying anything.

I wonder if anyone in Congress has ever seriously considered what it would take to eliminate the entire National Debt.

It first requires no deficits, then it requires paying more than the accruals.

It means sacrificing a lot of spending for saving to pay down a debt.

I hate the term African-American. I worked with an American Samoan who hated people calling him that. I learned, by being one of those people one day, that the color of your skin doesn't determine your origins.

#36 | Posted by rastaninja

Rasta--

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

But you know that..

Do you feel a tingle up the leg when calling people names?

Posted by MURPHY at 2009-03-18 10:18 PM | Reply

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

...
#44 | Posted by MURPHY

"I wonder if anyone in Congress has ever seriously considered what it would take to eliminate the entire National Debt."

Probably the first step would be to stop paying interest to the Federal Reserve and to start printing our own money. Expect an assasination if Obama has the guts to propose such a radical idea.

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Murphy, do you ever have a thought of your own???

I wonder if anyone in Congress has ever seriously considered what it would take to eliminate the entire National Debt.

These statements were made during hearings of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, September 30, 1941. Members of the Federal Reserve Board call themselves "Governors." Governor Marriner Eccles was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board at the time of these hearings:

Congressman Patman: "How did you get the money to buy those two billion dollars worth of Government securities in 1933?"
Governor Eccles: "Out of the right to issue credit money."
Patman: "And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our Government's credit?"
Eccles: "That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money."
Congressman Fletcher: "Chairman Eccles, when do you think there is a possibility of returning to a free and open market, instead of this pegged and artificially controlled financial market we now have?"
Governor Eccles: "Never, not in your lifetime or mine."

Probably the first step would be to stop paying interest to the Federal Reserve and to start printing our own money. Expect an assasination if Obama has the guts to propose such a radical idea.

Wow.

A Paultard. I never thought I'd see the day. Welcome to the club. Meetings are on Wednesdays. Bring finger sammiches, we've got cookies and juice!

Why would you bring up Obama and assasination Danni?

Is this YOUR original thought for the week?

BTW--Liberalism is a mental disorder--you missed the sarcasm.

Only on the DR can a thread on the national debt turn into a racial thing.

The green man is always trying keeping the non-green man down while the non-green man buys votes with the promise of free stuff!

Rasta your so full of shit. What about black magazines, black award shows. Private black programs to elevate blacks.

When have you ever heard of Honky magazine? Promoting honiness?

The honky award show!!

Sorry, can't letcha compete cause your not a honky!!

Oh shit, how about black muslims? Louis Farakkan?

Its 2009 and this shit is still happening and your calling Nancy a racist.

Danforth wrote,

"Gee...I wonder what percentage was amassed under Republican administrations, and what percentage was amassed under Democratic administrations?"

Actually I wonder what part was amassed under a democratic congress and what part was amassed under a republican congress?

BUZKILLER

It was under $500 Billion when Reagan took office - hadn't been over that since FDR - average $250 until Carter and the bill for Vietnam came due.

Reagan amped it to $3 Trillion, Bush 41 to $4 Trillion

Clinton - it rose to $5 Billion in 8 years - the last two years budget surpluses.

Bush 43 - went from $5 Trillion to over $10 Trillion
Add in the bailouts and Iraq and you're talking $12 Trillion eventually.

Bush 43 spent his first 6 with one party rule (when the national debt skyrocketed for the second time since Reagan, who increased it 6X during his presidency and gave us our first trillion dollar national debt and budget in U.S. History).

Wow.

A Paultard. I never thought I'd see the day. Welcome to the club. Meetings are on Wednesdays. Bring finger sammiches, we've got cookies and juice!

#49 | Posted by Axiom

Hopefully Obama has a lot of change.

#54 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Interestingly enough, it took ~28 years to accumulate most of that 11 trillion. Guess how quickly Obama plans to more than double that?

Guess how quickly Obama plans to more than double that?

What did Rush tell you?

To be fair, stimulus is necessary. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last time the U.S. will do it during a recession. The government is always the stimulator of last resort when credit and consumer spending dry up.

The bailouts come at a very bad time, but gave us equity ownership. 80$ in AIG's case. We'll probably recoup the bailout money in the long run and make a profit, but the economy is in such bad shape right now the timing couldn't have been worse.

We're going to have to spend some money right now. The private sector doesn't have it, the Fed's lowered overnight rates to 0% - they're out of options. I view the stimulus as necessary and pragmatic: Lower withholding, people put to work, infrastructure repaired and improved - things that will benefit us for the money.

Once we're out of this mess (along with, hopefully, new jobs in new industries that are a foundation for a new manufacturing base) I'm sure the focus will turn to what we do with the debt. My view is if we have to spend money to push this country forward, let's put it to good use.

When Clinton took office we were in a recession, not as bad as this, but a recession. However, we didn't have to bail out practically the entire financial industry. Hopefully we've learned out lesson (again) and Wall Street and all financial institutions are forced (kicking and screaming perhaps) back to pragmatic, conservative business practices that aren't focused on tomorrow's stock price. That approach is an open invitation for the top floors across America to keep their eye on cashing in those options rather than on long term growth and value for the shareholders.

I hope the days of "Heads I win, Tails you lose" executive compensation are over too. Time to legislate an end to those ridiculous gobs of money. Let corporations return to writing off cash salaries and bonuses, do away with stock options for execs, and let's get busy building things again instead of shuffling paper for millions.

80% (equity ownership) in AIG

What did Rush tell you?
#58 | Posted by Alexandrite

LOL, in an effort to deflect, Alex brings up Rush, who I haven't listened to in years. Why the deflection Alex? What's the answer? Hint: it's in the link I provided.

AU, I agree that we do need to spend some money right now; it just seems that we spend in the good times and spend in the bad. The US will continue to get deeper into debt if, in the good times, we don't start making cutbacks. It annoys me to no end that we didn't do anything about the deficit in the early 2000's. I just don't see any cutbacks happening with Obama's budget even when the economy picks back up; in fact, I see the opposite.

Americanunity, Reagan didn't increase anything he only signed the democratic congress's legislation. Please take your thumb out of your ass and read the constitution for once. All spending originates in the house of represenatives then goes to the senate. If approved by both bodies it is sent to the president to sign.

The republicans were in control in the 90's when the deficit was kept in check. The democrats were in control in the 80's when it was not. As for 2001-2006 I believe we had a pair of wars and without them the deficit would have been roughly the same percentage as the 1990's. Even if you try to blame republicans for the increases from 2001-2006 the democrats took over in 2006 and have exploded the budget deficit ever since. They have made it far worse than the republicans ever could.

Reagan had a Republican Senate the first 6 years of his Presidency.

"Even if you try to blame republicans for the increases from 2001-2006"

Whatever you do, don't do that. Don't even try.

BARTIMUS

The wars were a tad over a Trillion when Bush left office.

Where'd the other 4 Trillion go? See any new schools?

The tax cuts were a horrible idea. Clinton's top tax rate - 39% - enabled us to pull out of a recession, create 20 million good paying jobs, and as you pointed out leave the last two years budgets with surpluses. He left a plan to pay off the national debt in 10 years - by just about now.

Bush' tax cuts for the fat cats created most of the national debt he doubled with a little over $5 TRILLION in additional national debt. You realize that $5 Trillion more in debt costs us $250,000,000,000 a YEAR to service, right?

BARTIMUS

Clinton had a Democrat controlled Senate his entire term in office.

Reagan had a Republican Senate the first 6 years of his Presidency.

If you really look at what the policies regarding our budgets did to the national debt you should remember that when you make errant statements like "Reagan had a Democratic Congress .. " or "Clinton had a Republicn Congress". Neither statement are true. You're referring to the House only.

As you say, it takes both bodies to agree, then the President signs the budget he initially proposed in it's final form.

Funny that when the GOP got total control, we saw deficit spending and debt skyrocket like never before in our history - unless we were in a world war. From Roosevelt through Carter, our ratio of GDP to debt slowly declined from 120% to 60% - we paid off our bills. 100% Democratic Congress most the way. National debt steady at between $250-500 Billion.

When Carter took over the national debt was $250 Billion. When Reagan left office it was $3.5 Trillion. Bush 41, $4.6 Billion. Clinton, $5.2 Billion (he only added $600 Billion). Bush 43 (with GOP Congress), $11 Trillion. He added $5.5 Trillion and counting to the national debt. More like $7 Trillion when the bailouts are all said and done.

Iraq will add another Trillion or two in the long term.

obama said yesterday "don't git in a tizzy pointing fingers at this or that,the buck stops with him" and then he wants to spend 2 trillion more bucks.

"The republicans were in control in the 90's when the deficit was kept in check. The democrats were in control in the 80's when it was not."

The president's administration writes the budget, the Congress approves it.

"and then he wants to spend 2 trillion more bucks."

Wants to spend???

Dishonest and you know it.

The president's administration writes the budget, the Congress approves it.
#68 | Posted by danni

Just a point of clarification, the Congress approves the budget AFTER making changes (sometimes significant changes) and adding additional spending to it - where do you think all the earmarks come from?

But generally, even if it was the Congress that spent like crazy, the President is the one that gets the credit or blame.

"But generally, even if it was the Congress that spent like crazy, the President is the one that gets the credit or blame."

Exactly my point. If huge deficits or if surpluses are left whoever is president generally gets the credit or blame. Blame for the 11 trillion of debt falls sqarely on Reagan/Bush/Bush.

Wants to spend???

well does he want to cut any government spending or freeze any spending? no,every department gets a 8% increase above what received from last months welfare package plus a 13% increase in government jobs.

Semtex, I still don't think he "wants" to spend more, he's trying to prevent a depression, I just don't think it is really fair to judge his budget as if things were normal. Down the road he says he will be cutting, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt right now.

Danni,
He said alot of things he is now going back on. What leads you to believe that he can be trusted?

In order to have a properous society it is necessary to use labor, capital, technology and resources wisely. Our Government has a responsibility to balance those interests and fails to do so.

INstead, the system has been rigged, by the owners of the Federal Reserve, so that virtually all profits revert to those with capital. Finance, Insurance, Real Estate was 2% of Corporate profits in the fifties and 40% lately. We used to make things that people needed, but now paper shufflers, who make money from thin air, are all the rage. They are the only concern of Bernanke and Geithner. As long as they are able to collect compound interest the system is unsustainable and must fail. Every compound interest rate has a doubling period associated with it. Eventually, the capitalists get everything, just like in a game of monopoly. The game is always the same, only the time period varies.

"What leads you to believe that he can be trusted?"

Yesterday he said.."the buck stops here."
On another occasion he said that if the economy doesn't recover we'll have another president.
He discusses the situation honestly with the people and doesn't promise miracles.
That's about all I think we can ask of him.
I have no reason so far to distrust him.
Sure he may have to alter some things he talked about due to the incredible catastrophe he encountered when entering the WH.

Now, do you still trust Bush and the Republicans???

Another $5 billion out the door...to the auto suppliers now.

so what..

this debt only mattered when bush was in office.
so whats the big deal now???

What leads you to believe that he can be trusted?"

Yesterday he said.."the buck stops here."
On another occasion he said that if the economy doesn't recover we'll have another president.
He discusses the situation honestly with the people and doesn't promise miracles.
That's about all I think we can ask of him.
I have no reason so far to distrust him.
Sure he may have to alter some things he talked about due to the incredible catastrophe he encountered when entering the WH.

Now, do you still trust Bush and the Republicans???

#76 | Posted by danni at 2009-03

HEY THERE YOUNG LADY.

his comment about the buck was one of the most disengenuous sounding things a president has said in a while.

and look...HE SIGNED THE STIMULUS BILL that had this exception in it about bonuses..did he not??

so if he signed it then he agreed with it..
so why isnt anyone going after obama while they scream about these things...????

OH I KNOW...they dont want to distrub his concentration while he is picking the basketball tournament on his way to LENO....at our expense of course...

All complaints with no word on how to get out of this mess. The point of the stimulus is to get our economy back to a level where we can start tackling the debt. It's going to take years. If we fold, let everything fail now, freeze spending and just let the Depression come and throw our asses onto the street, how many years will it take then for the debt to get paid off and back to zero?

"debt doesn't matter to Dems now...": hogwash.

For all the Obama psycho-fans, stacked on Bush or republicans, CEO bonuses--or whatever: "It's trillions-stupid!" ...and if you ever dream of saving this republic-start questioning what is the Popularis doing. It is no longer dems vs. repubs or even conservatives vs. liberals. When Congress (as oppose to progress) gets excited about punitive taxation on individuals it's beginning to look like the cultural revolution of the past. Chaos and wiped-up perceived wrongs are playing into this psychology.
But then--it is comfortable to have your hated "mascots" and like the proverbial frog being cooked slowly in this Marxist goulash.

#81

Liberty, what about me? I'm not stacked on Bush or Rep.s... I'm thinking this Keynesian approach is the fastest way to recovery. We'll see a bigger government, but not the end of all capitalism. Is it better to pass a stimulus and hope it results in self-sustaining stimulation that'll eventually help pay off debt, or just embrace the Depression now so that we can get it over with (not) quickly?

I'm not aware of Keynesian approach ever producing desirable results. It most likely will produce a high inflation (if not hyper-inflation) and this will reduce/destroy more wealth. As bad as the markets sometime get--it is still the best known macroeconomic tool to correct excesses and inefficiencies, provided they are allowed to work its way through.
Bailouts and Government handouts (perhaps this is redundant) on the other hand are total distortions of those markets and they tend to muddle things up for a long time. What they might accomplish are stabilized lower standards and re-distribution of production and resources.

They are legal tools to aid the markets to achieve correction and efficiencies now. Well, these are my two cents

"I'm not aware of Keynesian approach ever producing desirable results."

Guess you missed the 20th century and the economic policies of all the advanced industrial countries.

If you mean advances in Europe-then you're wrong, in my opinion. The main impetus for that development was the American super-economic engine. Left alone-they really developed a kind of socialistic hybrid that gets along to go along if nothing else interferes...

debt doesn't matter to Dems now...": hogwash.

#80 | Posted by Scrumplet at 2009-03-19

just heard an audio clip of obama campaigning and blasting bush for the deficit and debt climbing

is there no leftists that sees the irony there?

$11 Trillion, pretty soon we're talking about real money...

Who do we owe the money?

I have asked this questions several times over the last couple of months and not one single person has even tried.

I am afraid the people are afraid to actually think about it and answer.

Change we can believe in. thanks Obama.

$11 Trillion will double at the end of this administration by 2012...it's "Chinese" money anyway.