The Observation Deck

Sad!

With as often as the President plays golf, you'd think he'd understand that the highest score loses.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/ ... ref=Sunday

You might want to read beyond the headline boys.

sharon kinsella wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=Sunday

You might want to read beyond the headline boys.

And you might want to re-read what you posted...

Here are some facts from the Treasury Department...


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-h ... -george-hw

released by the Treasury Department. As of the close of business on Oct. 3, the total national debt was $14,837,099,271,196.71—up about $44.8 billion from Sept. 30.

That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.

This $4.212-trillion increase in the national debt means that during Obama’s term the federal government has already borrowed about an additional $35,835 for every American household--or $44,980 for every full-time private-sector worker. (According to the Census Bureau there were about 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010, and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 93,641,000 full-time private-sector workers.)

When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.

At the end of January 1993, the month that President George H. W. Bush left office, the total national debt was $4.1672 trillion, according to the Treasury. Thus, the total national debt accumulated by the first 41 presidents combined was about $44.8 billion less than the approximately $4.212 trillion in new debt added during Obama’s term

http://www.breitbart.tv/devastating-vid ... e-numbers/


Nothing more than hype... all words... nothing has improved since Obama took office.. Iraq? Afghanistan? Lybia? The economy? We got change but not the change we hoped for...

Stephen Eisel wrote:

released by the Treasury Department. As of the close of business on Oct. 3, the total national debt was $14,837,099,271,196.71—up about $44.8 billion from Sept. 30.

That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.

This $4.212-trillion increase in the national debt means that during Obama’s term the federal government has already borrowed about an additional $35,835 for every American household--or $44,980 for every full-time private-sector worker. (According to the Census Bureau there were about 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010, and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 93,641,000 full-time private-sector workers.)

When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.

At the end of January 1993, the month that President George H. W. Bush left office, the total national debt was $4.1672 trillion, according to the Treasury. Thus, the total national debt accumulated by the first 41 presidents combined was about $44.8 billion less than the approximately $4.212 trillion in new debt added during Obama’s term

When I was speaking with Congressman Kucinich a couple weeks back, he was outraged
that the Federal Reserve was out of control. He mentioned they just cranked out $1.5 Trillion
dollars to help bailout the Euro. Now the Federal Reserve has always been a pet peeve of
mine, so I asked. "Are you telling me the Government has zero input or oversight of the
Fed?" His answer was, "We never did, we still don't and they are running the country into
the ground."

This would explain why Bush's numbers never added up, nor Obama's. Maybe just maybe
it is time to walk away from the Federal Reserve and go to another system.

FWIW


.

It would be about the same no matter who won in 2008. they'd either capitulate. Or unemployment would be 20 percent. so, it would just be another three trillion dollars bailing out credit card companies, mortage-backed security holders, credit-default funds, and derivatives tycoons.

Good luck, goon squad!

ryan costa wrote:It would be about the same no matter who won in 2008. they'd either capitulate. Or unemployment would be 20 percent. so, it would just be another three trillion dollars bailing out credit card companies, mortage-backed security holders, credit-default funds, and derivatives tycoons.

Good luck, goon squad!

nice spin!

Looking at the national debt in a vacuum is misleading. Most accept that an increased national debt in time of war is necessary, but we expect it to be brought under control when the war ends. Unfortunately, since we are now so concerned with running the whole world, the time of war never seems to end. Perhaps if we were less prone to stand by certain allies no matter what, we would not have groups of people hating us and we could get out of all these wars.

Also, the national debt should be considered with the strength of our economy. A debt that seems overwhelming now wouldn't even be seen as a bump in the road if our economy was prospering. I think learned people look at the national debt as a percentage of our economic activity, however measured. Thus virtually the same debt that would be, perhaps 2 percent of our economic activity would become 15 or 20 percent if the economy badly sagged, even though the size of the debt would not have changed.

And it is rarely accurate to ascribe any increase in the national debt since the date of the current president's inauguration to him, because the budget for the fiscal year does not match the date of the inauguration. It would be more accurate to credit any increase in the debt during that first nine-month period to the prior president, who was in office when the budget commitments were made. Not that I want to defend Obama, who is more a thimblerigger than a executive, but if we want to look at how the government was handled, we should look at the Congress more than at the President. It is certainly not surprising that Kucinich wants to divert attention from his sorry record to the Fed, but I am not convinced that the Fed should be subject to political pressures; does anyone really think the Congress would do a more responsible job. What happened to the national debt during Kucinich's tenure?

What seems clear to me is that we have let our government get out of control by demanding that it provide too many services, while allowing the politicians to claim the services will be paid for somehow in the next ten years (perhaps when we win the lottery?). Too many of us have allowed our own finances to get out of control; I guess if the government cant do it, we can do it at home. And there is apparently no personal shame in having mishandled your own finances, as we seem to expect the government to bail us out each time.