Name 1 thing Obama Has Accomplished So Far

[Titanic]

But Bush's 700 bln, is BEING PAID BACK, with interest. Obama's is simply a transfer of wealth. Look at the government's Citi shares. THe government actually OWNS something. Cash for Clunkers did nothing to stimulate the economy. All it did was make people who were going to buy a car, buy one in a certain month. Now GM and others are ramping up production, to refill inventories. Guess what, that inventory isn't actually needed.

Bush's money is not being paid back. The fed dusn even know where a lot of the money is, theres tens of billions which aren't even accounted for. Also, a huge amount of that money was not to buy shares, but to give the banks/financial institutions money to shore them up, but all the banks did was take the money and use it how they want (inc. giving themself bonus's.) The shares that they did buy (with the little money they now have left from the original $700bn), they brought above market price so the taxpayer was once again ripped off. Bush's stimulus was his last chance to pay of the wealthy and the corporations who had supported him for 8 years, and he did just that.

Cash for Clunkers has helped with the economy. Car dealerships were just about surviving, now they have tens of billions of dollars in their revenue stream. It wasn't just people who were going to buy a car, it was also people who wanted too, but just needed that little extra money. Also, I don't think GM ad the other car companies are going to over supply on what they need because they are already in trouble, and also have a better picture of the car market then any of us.

@Nobunga: No, it didn materialise from thin air, it was from the government who were actually doing something actively to help the economy return to growth. Stop being so narrow minded and admit it when the govt has a good plan.

[jbrettlip]

But Bush's 700 bln, is BEING PAID BACK, with interest. Obama's is simply a transfer of wealth. Look at the government's Citi shares. THe government actually OWNS something. Cash for Clunkers did nothing to stimulate the economy. All it did was make people who were going to buy a car, buy one in a certain month. Now GM and others are ramping up production, to refill inventories. Guess what, that inventory isn't actually needed.

Bush's money is not being paid back. The fed dusn even know where a lot of the money is, theres tens of billions which aren't even accounted for. Also, a huge amount of that money was not to buy shares, but to give the banks/financial institutions money to shore them up, but all the banks did was take the money and use it how they want (inc. giving themself bonus's.) The shares that they did buy (with the little money they now have left from the original $700bn), they brought above market price so the taxpayer was once again ripped off. Bush's stimulus was his last chance to pay of the wealthy and the corporations who had supported him for 8 years, and he did just that.

Cash for Clunkers has helped with the economy. Car dealerships were just about surviving, now they have tens of billions of dollars in their revenue stream. It wasn't just people who were going to buy a car, it was also people who wanted too, but just needed that little extra money. Also, I don't think GM ad the other car companies are going to over supply on what they need because they are already in trouble, and also have a better picture of the car market then any of us.

@Nobunga: No, it didn materialise from thin air, it was from the government who were actually doing something actively to help the economy return to growth. Stop being so narrow minded and admit it when the govt has a good plan.

Citi shares are up 70%. 12 of the largest banks have already repaid funds. Any corporation can use funds raised by selling stock however it wants. That isn't a fault of the administration, it is a part of business.

And 2 other things, please tell me what the government DOES to EARN this money it "had". And how a 3 billion $ program added tens of billions of dollars to the dealership.

[Titanic]

Citi shares are up 70%. 12 of the largest banks have already repaid funds. Any corporation can use funds raised by selling stock however it wants. That isn't a fault of the administration, it is a part of business.

And 2 other things, please tell me what the government DOES to EARN this money it "had". And how a 3 billion $ program added tens of billions of dollars to the dealership.

You cant compare share prices now, because a lot of the stability in the financial industry has been put in by Obama. The banks that have repaid have not repaid a lot of what Bush gave them, mainly because what he paid them was not accounted for so the Fed and no one actually knows how much was given to them. I'm not complaining that he brought their shares, its just that it was done so badly, and was overpriced. It is a fault of the administration because they were wasting tens of billions of taxpayers dollars to pay of his friends on Wall Street, and did not actually spend the money in a way which would help fix the crisis.

I dont quite understand this - "tell me what the government DOES to EARN this money it "had"".

Dealerships get tens of billions of dollars because the $3b the government subsidised was not the overall cost of the car. It was just $4500 of the car price, so the consumer still had to pay another $10000 or w/e the remaining price was. Add to that the fact that a lot of these consumers would have taken out interest payments with the dealership (as relatively few people can just pay off that much at one time), and the dealerships now have a improved revenue stream for quite some time.

[thegreekdog]

I have another question for you to add to the list Titanic:

Question 1 - How, exactly, has President Obama done anything, differently than President Bush, to shore up Afghanistan?
Question 2 - What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

[muy_thaiguy]

I have another question for you to add to the list Titanic:

Question 1 - How, exactly, has President Obama done anything, differently than President Bush, to shore up Afghanistan?
Question 2 - What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

Plus, they need to pay for the insurance, tags, registration, the whole deal. Especially insurance, that will be the real kicker along with payments.

[jay_a2j]

I have another question for you to add to the list Titanic:

Question 1 - How, exactly, has President Obama done anything, differently than President Bush, to shore up Afghanistan?
Question 2 - What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

Answer 1: He hasn't. He has picked up right where Bush left off. It's funny to see people complain about Obama's huge bailout yet didn't say a word 6 months before when Bush did it.

Answer 2: The dollar becomes worthless, which has been the intent all along. Enter Amero and the North American Union, goodbye US sovereignty.

[pimpdave]

I have another question for you to add to the list Titanic:

Question 1 - How, exactly, has President Obama done anything, differently than President Bush, to shore up Afghanistan?
Question 2 - What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

Answer 1: He hasn't. He has picked up right where Bush left off. It's funny to see people complain about Obama's huge bailout yet didn't say a word 6 months before when Bush did it.

Answer 2: The dollar becomes worthless, which has been the intent all along. Enter Amero and the North American Union, goodbye US sovereignty.

Question about Answer 1: What does Afghanistan have to do with the stimulus bill?

Question about Answer 2:

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

First of all, Obama's first accomplishment was to defeat another 4 years of mismanagement of Bush's policies, domestic and foreign.

[jonesthecurl]

I have another question for you to add to the list Titanic:

Question 1 - How, exactly, has President Obama done anything, differently than President Bush, to shore up Afghanistan?
Question 2 - What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

Answer 1: He hasn't. He has picked up right where Bush left off. It's funny to see people complain about Obama's huge bailout yet didn't say a word 6 months before when Bush did it.

Answer 2: The dollar becomes worthless, which has been the intent all along. Enter Amero and the North American Union, goodbye US sovereignty.

Ah, yes, remind me when the hyper-inflation and $10 loaf of bread kicks in?

[jbrettlip]

Citi shares are up 70%. 12 of the largest banks have already repaid funds. Any corporation can use funds raised by selling stock however it wants. That isn't a fault of the administration, it is a part of business.

And 2 other things, please tell me what the government DOES to EARN this money it "had". And how a 3 billion $ program added tens of billions of dollars to the dealership.

You cant compare share prices now, because a lot of the stability in the financial industry has been put in by Obama. The banks that have repaid have not repaid a lot of what Bush gave them, mainly because what he paid them was not accounted for so the Fed and no one actually knows how much was given to them. I'm not complaining that he brought their shares, its just that it was done so badly, and was overpriced. It is a fault of the administration because they were wasting tens of billions of taxpayers dollars to pay of his friends on Wall Street, and did not actually spend the money in a way which would help fix the crisis.

I dont quite understand this - "tell me what the government DOES to EARN this money it "had"".

Dealerships get tens of billions of dollars because the $3b the government subsidised was not the overall cost of the car. It was just $4500 of the car price, so the consumer still had to pay another $10000 or w/e the remaining price was. Add to that the fact that a lot of these consumers would have taken out interest payments with the dealership (as relatively few people can just pay off that much at one time), and the dealerships now have a improved revenue stream for quite some time.

Ok, so now Obama has solidified the financial markets, even though you said previously that TARP was all Bush. You act as if the gov handed bags of money to the banks, with no paper trail, etc. If the shares were overpriced, how did Citi rise 75%? Your arguments on this point aren't making much sense. Things like the CP facility, MMF insurance and others MADE the government money. The company I work for probably paid about $35 million for insurance that was never needed. They were enacted under Bush/Paulson. Building a border station in ND for 4 million isn't helping anyone (under the stimulus bill).

You said the government was spending "its" money to boost the economy. I was asking how the government earns its money (Hint, it is the taxpayers money and would be better spent by us.)

[Ray Rider]

What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

Precisely! Although I would say that the people who benefit by the program will not necessarily be the people who pay for it; sooner or later the bill will be so large that the burden must be passed on to the next generation.

[Titanic]

I have another question for you to add to the list Titanic:

Question 1 - How, exactly, has President Obama done anything, differently than President Bush, to shore up Afghanistan?
Question 2 - What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

1) He has sent tens of thousands more troops into Afghanistan (which was desperately needed, one of the reason the Taliban reappeared was due to the power vacuum that was left when Bush diverted the attention to Iraq). Also, he in invested much more money into the infrastructure in the country, building up the Afghan army and police with greater numbers, and also trying to talk with the tribal leaders to get them to come to some agreement with the US army. O, and because he is not George Bush, not everyone in the region actually hates him.

2) This is the whole point of the healthcare debate and Obama's budget. He is doing exactly what Clinton did when he came into power, he is sorting out the federal budget so it can return to a surplus in the long term. If he did nothing then the future costs will cripple the economy, but hes trying to sort out the escalating costs so that the budget by the middle of the decade can be balanced, and also be on track to post healthy surplus's to reduce the public debt.

As for the Cash for Clunkers part, it is a subsidy for the people and businesses in a recession, but it will be paid back when the country is back in the growth so the lasting effect is not bad as its actually going to help the country return to growth.

Ok, so now Obama has solidified the financial markets, even though you said previously that TARP was all Bush. You act as if the gov handed bags of money to the banks, with no paper trail, etc. If the shares were overpriced, how did Citi rise 75%? Your arguments on this point aren't making much sense. Things like the CP facility, MMF insurance and others MADE the government money. The company I work for probably paid about $35 million for insurance that was never needed. They were enacted under Bush/Paulson. Building a border station in ND for 4 million isn't helping anyone (under the stimulus bill).

You said the government was spending "its" money to boost the economy. I was asking how the government earns its money (Hint, it is the taxpayers money and would be better spent by us.)

That's exactly what did happen. A huge part of Bush's stimulus was not accounted for, and no one actually has any clue where the money did go. The shares rising has nothing to do with what price the government paid for them. The shares has risen a lot because a lot of people thought the whole industry was going to collapse, but now that it has stabilised people are willing to invest in their stock again. Also, I know some people have paid the government back, but its nowhere near what the government invested overall and the lack of oversight on the original stimulus is the reason why.

Finally, the money would not be better spent by the taxpayer. How is the taxpayer going to sort out the financial or automotive industry? It needed huge government intervention and large financial backing, which can only come from the government and not from private individuals.

[thegreekdog]

1) He has sent tens of thousands more troops into Afghanistan (which was desperately needed, one of the reason the Taliban reappeared was due to the power vacuum that was left when Bush diverted the attention to Iraq). Also, he in invested much more money into the infrastructure in the country, building up the Afghan army and police with greater numbers, and also trying to talk with the tribal leaders to get them to come to some agreement with the US army. O, and because he is not George Bush, not everyone in the region actually hates him.

These things were not widely reported at all. In fact, after doing a quick search on the internet, I can't seem to find anything on this.

2) This is the whole point of the healthcare debate and Obama's budget. He is doing exactly what Clinton did when he came into power, he is sorting out the federal budget so it can return to a surplus in the long term. If he did nothing then the future costs will cripple the economy, but hes trying to sort out the escalating costs so that the budget by the middle of the decade can be balanced, and also be on track to post healthy surplus's to reduce the public debt.

This makes no sense at all to me. It seems like you're saying that he's increased spending dramatically so that he can return to a surplus in the long term... this does not make sense. And he's not doing what President Clinton did. President Clinton cut spending and did a great job balancing the budget. All that being said, if the budget, by the middle of the decade (I think you mean the middle of next decade) is balanced, I'll admit I was wrong. And with that being said, I'm afraid he's going to raise taxes. Anyway, if you could explain this further I'd appreciate it. I just have no idea how massive (MASSIVE) increases in spending will result in a better budget in the future.

[jbrettlip]

Don't let the facts get in the way of your thinking, Titanic....please see Wall Street Journal page C3. Talks about the 10 % return on TARP and how it solidified the financial sector. Most of the "unrecovered" money went to Fannie, Freddie(GSEs's), AIG (a freaking toilet bowl), and GM and Ford (who did that?). I know you love Obama, and I don't but please, look at the facts.

[Titanic]

These things were not widely reported at all. In fact, after doing a quick search on the internet, I can't seem to find anything on this.

The fact hes sent 17,000 extra troops is very well known. Surely you should have been able to find that within about 10 secs?

This makes no sense at all to me. It seems like you're saying that he's increased spending dramatically so that he can return to a surplus in the long term... this does not make sense. And he's not doing what President Clinton did. President Clinton cut spending and did a great job balancing the budget. All that being said, if the budget, by the middle of the decade (I think you mean the middle of next decade) is balanced, I'll admit I was wrong. And with that being said, I'm afraid he's going to raise taxes. Anyway, if you could explain this further I'd appreciate it. I just have no idea how massive (MASSIVE) increases in spending will result in a better budget in the future.

Originally Clinton raised the deficit. The budget deficit increased in his first year, but he was also facing a budget crisis much less severe then the current one. By raising spending now he can sort out all of the things which would cause huge costs in the future, ie healthcare. By sorting out these things he can put the budget on a long term positive track. He will raise taxes, I don't think theres any doubt that, just as soon as the economy recovers properly.

[thegreekdog]

The fact hes sent 17,000 extra troops is very well known. Surely you should have been able to find that within about 10 secs?

Yes I did. Now, about the improvement of infrastructure... I guess I'm just confused about, logically, one can support President Obama on the one hand for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan (or Iraq) and criticize President Bush on the other hand, when their policies regarding these wars are substantially similar. I also am confused about how the supporters of President Obama point to President Bush's prosecution of said wars as one of the major failings of his presidency, but find themselves unable to criticize President Obama for the same wars and similar policies.

By raising spending now he can sort out all of the things which would cause huge costs in the future, ie healthcare. By sorting out these things he can put the budget on a long term positive track. He will raise taxes, I don't think theres any doubt that, just as soon as the economy recovers properly.

Sorry, I still don't understand this. How does increasing spending sort out anything? I think increased spending just increases spending. In fact, I would venture to say increased spending, especially on the myriad of programs and projects on which the money was spent, would make things more complex.

[Titanic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget

Read that, and further links on Wikipedia and elsewhere of future mandatory budget costs. These costs if not sorted out now or in the very near future will end up swallowing the budget and casuing huge deficits, which would mean taking srastic measures to sort out the situation then. The extra costs now are to fix these things, nothing can be sorted out for free. The extra costs now to sort them out will pay off themself if the long term budget is stabilised.

[thegreekdog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget

Read that, and further links on Wikipedia and elsewhere of future mandatory budget costs. These costs if not sorted out now or in the very near future will end up swallowing the budget and casuing huge deficits, which would mean taking srastic measures to sort out the situation then. The extra costs now are to fix these things, nothing can be sorted out for free. The extra costs now to sort them out will pay off themself if the long term budget is stabilised.

Jeez... all these posts just for this? If I understand what you're saying, the "costs" you're talking about are costs associated with the president and his associated advisors actually understanding the budget. I'm absolutely fine with some of that. So, you apparently were talking about those costs.

The costs I'm talking about are the costs resulting from the two bailout/economic revitalization bills that the president signed.

[Titanic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget

Read that, and further links on Wikipedia and elsewhere of future mandatory budget costs. These costs if not sorted out now or in the very near future will end up swallowing the budget and casuing huge deficits, which would mean taking srastic measures to sort out the situation then. The extra costs now are to fix these things, nothing can be sorted out for free. The extra costs now to sort them out will pay off themself if the long term budget is stabilised.

Jeez... all these posts just for this? If I understand what you're saying, the "costs" you're talking about are costs associated with the president and his associated advisors actually understanding the budget. I'm absolutely fine with some of that. So, you apparently were talking about those costs.

The costs I'm talking about are the costs resulting from the two bailout/economic revitalization bills that the president signed.

Now I'm confused....Your asking how the bailouts and stimulus have helped the economy?

[thegreekdog]

I have another question for you to add to the list Titanic:

Question 1 - How, exactly, has President Obama done anything, differently than President Bush, to shore up Afghanistan?
Question 2 - What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

These were my two questions, Titanic. You answered the first one (sort of). The second one is what I was referred to.

My argument is that President Obama is increasing the budget on a dramatic level, higher than ever, and that this is a bad thing and the spending now will have to be paid in the future. And I think that is a bad thing.

[Titanic]

I have another question for you to add to the list Titanic:

Question 1 - How, exactly, has President Obama done anything, differently than President Bush, to shore up Afghanistan?
Question 2 - What happens, in x number of years, when the bill for Cash for Clunkers (or any other plan) comes due? Do we have another round of spending to help save the economy again? Do we raise taxes to help pay for spending that occurred x number of years ago? That's my major issue with Cash for Clunkers: it will have to be paid for at some point, and the same people it ostensibly benefitted are the same people to pay for it. The other issue with Cash for Clunkers is that it, again, encourages people to spend money they don't have for something they probably didn't need.

These were my two questions, Titanic. You answered the first one (sort of). The second one is what I was referred to.

My argument is that President Obama is increasing the budget on a dramatic level, higher than ever, and that this is a bad thing and the spending now will have to be paid in the future. And I think that is a bad thing.

I'm sure I've answered the stimulus and bailout questions elsewhere. I'm tired atm, but will find a link tomorrow.

[pimpdave]

He got you to start this thread

Yo, everyone, this is worth revisiting.

We can all agree that Obama managed to break a barrier in the history books just in being elected President. Given the history of race relations in the USA, that's no small accomplishment.

[notyou2]

Amen brother