Originally posted by inimalist
YouTube video
Good stuff. I like Dan and Deb's music. Also, they make much better than that. Similar to listening to Power Pill: you'd think that Richard D. James wasn't as absurdly and ridiculously as talented as he is just by listening to some of his Power Pill stuff.)
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
Obama has been in office for 9 months and the national debt has risen $1.39 trillion. Bush in office for 8 years created 4.9 trillion and he was the worst spender?If debt keeps increasing at that rate, Obama debt will be up to 11.12 trillion at the end of his second term... assuming he gets elected again... and he probably will... (and that is being kind and giving him $1.39 debt increase per year rather than per nine months, which is where the record stands now.)
By precentages, he has already trounced Bush. If the rate continues he will be at Bush's levels in 2011... 5 years quicker than Bush got to that level.
Great. Not to be a tad rude, but, do you have anything to add that I already haven't said? (Everything you just said is the same as what I said, with more numbers and more words.) I just wanted to point out that despite Obama's total spending (not record, if inflation is taken into account, which it should.), still is not the same as Bush's. He did say that his overall goal is to balance the budget while mentioning that he would have to spend money to dig out of this economic crisis before he could start focusing more on fiscal policy.
This does not change, however, my distaste for big government and mega-spending. I still disagree with it.
Yes, I would have preferred some of the businesses fail, some to consolidate, on other's to be liquidated/sold piece by piece to other organizations. Sure, "my" way would have taken longer to recover from, but in 5 years, "my" way would have created a stronger and more stable market. We'd also have "hard learned lessons" which would be more likely to stave off something similar to this. My way would have also included a tad more regulation from the government. My way would create a much more steady growth rate, not this up and down explosive B.S. we are seeing now. After 5-7 years, my way would result in better economic growth BECAUSE: stability breeds predictability and trust in that predictability. That's what the government is trying to artifically do now. It's not working even remotely as well as they wanted. Sure, we are seeing improvements...but how much of that is the market self-righting and how much of that is government intervention?
If you haven't noticed, I prefer regulation over intervention....by a lot.
Sometimes, I can sound every bit like a conservatard. Other times, a libtard.
But, by all means, everyone go to town on my idea of better regulation with little to no intervention. Maybe I'm just a stupid shortsighted idiot. I'm more than happy to learn.