Index Page | Login Page | Registration Page
PREVIOUS MESSAGE(S)
'15 k a year over 20 years or so? Not really.  (N/T)' posted by Selma - 21/12/2009, 23:02:04
'Not if you have to live off that - I'm presuming you'll want to retire. NT (N/T)' posted by Selma - 21/12/2009, 23:02:57
'The money isn't for me.' posted by Robwood - 21/12/2009, 23:16:24

CURRENT MESSAGE

The above graphs do
The above graphs do look iespmrsive, and demonstrate very well the fact that the Republicans have been the major contributors to the national debt.However, I will take issue to the very low figure of 16% debt increase that is reported for Obama. The big problem is the creative accounting that surrounds the Wall Street bailouts. What has been happening is that the banks received literally trillions in bailouts, but have paid it back by unloading their junk financial instruments (derivatives) onto the US government (via Fannie and Freddie). This junk is labeled assets though they are worthless. It's a ticking time bomb that Obama will have to hope won't blow up until after he leaves office.Not that this is any excuse for the Republicans' blatant hypocrisy on the national debt. Their ingenious theory that lowering taxes for the rich would result in big budget surpluses (because it would cause the economy to boom) is incredible hogwash.





(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Anvar

MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
19 december 2014, 11:35:31

AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
117.169.1.99




REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE

- no replies yet -



REPLY FORM

name:
email:
title:
message:
Please type the text of the image below into the text box here to confirm that you are human, before posting a comment:

  sign post using your signature    |      no text
    
Index Page | Login Page | Registration Page
















message was viewed 293 time(s).