Berkshire Hathaway bond's trade lower than US debt

[sideoutshu]

No, i mean the war in which the Bush Admin fixed intel to fit their agenda to get a Congressional vote. It's a pretty cool gig when you can get the BS in such a form as to have it believable.

Downing St. Memos FTW!

.

You the war that democrats took so lightly that they didn't due their due diligence before blindly voting yes because it was the popular thing to do? Funny how on one hand you claim how "stupid" Bush was and on the other you point out that he fooled all of your heros on the most important decision of many of their careers.

[theanalogkid]

Yea, he signed the GLB bill and there's differing lines of opinion on whether it's the reason for the financial collapse or not, but I'll concede on that point (GLB). Here's the thing with George though, he let it happen despite years of warning signs and advisories. He was given a crystal ball and refused to look at it (or decided to ignore it). We hear the "it's really Clinton's fault" all the time .... but I say "Then why didn't Bush and his 4 year GOP Congress fix it?" It's because he is a supporter of deregulation. Just as people are blaming Obama for what is going on under his watch, then Bush should be held under the same criticism.

But the financial institution thing is just one oversight among many. I doubt that there is much more to say about how much the Iraq war has drained our national wallet. Beyond the Iraq War, for his 8 years at the helm, we're looking at $2.5 trillion in entitlement spending and $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. Now I'm not really an "expert" in these things but I'm not dumb either - that's a lot of money.

"Bush outspent both Reagan and Clinton. President Reagan boosted defense
outlays by 41 percent during his terms, but he also cut real nondefense outlays by 10 percent. Overall, total discretionary spending increased by 15.8 percent during Reagan’s terms. During Clinton’s first term, real discretionary spending actually decreased by 8 percent. During his second term, with the Republicans in control of Congress, it increased by 8.8 percent. Over Clinton’s eight years then, real discretionary spending increased by 0.1 percent. During his two terms in office, however, President Bush increased real discretionary spending by 44 percent."

Bush was the first president since John Quincy Adams not to exercise his veto power during a complete four-year term, even though the Republican-controlled Congress was on a spending spree.

One of my biggest complaints with Bush, outside of that ridiculous decision to go to invade Iraq, is that he didn't keep an eye on the national check book.


.

I don't see Obama cutting spending anywhere, he's gowning the federal government budget even more than Bush. Bond yields aren't being set based on past events. They are being set based on predictions. Clearly most bond traders are painting a bleak picture about what is ahead. The fact they are demanding a higher interest rate from the federal government than they are from a corporation is pretty alarming.

I agree Bush should take the brunt of the blame, but Obama isn't doing much to reduce the deficit. His budget is 25% of the GDP, what happens if it gets up to 30 or 35%? Still Bush's fault at that point? Can't spend out of a deficit. Spending $900 billion on HC reform (I don't see how spending more money is reform), and getting a $700 billion stimulus bill which hasn't stimulated anything isn't going to close the deficit in the budget.

Obama did campaign on "Change we can believe in" I don't believe he's making any significant changes, and his hypocrisy is being clearer and clearer with every passing day.

[Nevada_Ballin]

You the war that democrats took so lightly that they didn't due their due diligence before blindly voting yes because it was the popular thing to do? Funny how on one hand you claim how "stupid" Bush was and on the other you point out that he fooled all of your heros on the most important decision of many of their careers.

Gimme a break... due diligence? That's what the Intel agencies are supposed to do. Where you expecting a Congressman to place a few phone calls to some Al-Qaeda ops, maybe the infamous Minister of Information or send Saddam a few emails to verify what our own Intel agencies were "reporting" as truth to the Congress?

Sorry but that "due diligence" is weak. Especially when the people who Congress would follow Due Diligence with were the same people who were shaping the intel to fit the policy in the first place.


.

.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I don't see Obama cutting spending anywhere, he's gowning the federal government budget even more than Bush. Bond yields aren't being set based on past events. They are being set based on predictions. Clearly most bond traders are painting a bleak picture about what is ahead. The fact they are demanding a higher interest rate from the federal government than they are from a corporation is pretty alarming.

I agree Bush should take the brunt of the blame, but Obama isn't doing much to reduce the deficit. His budget is 25% of the GDP, what happens if it gets up to 30 or 35%? Still Bush's fault at that point? Can't spend out of a deficit. Spending $900 billion on HC reform (I don't see how spending more money is reform), and getting a $700 billion stimulus bill which hasn't stimulated anything isn't going to close the deficit in the budget.

Obama did campaign on "Change we can believe in" I don't believe he's making any significant changes, and his hypocrisy is being clearer and clearer with every passing day.

The main point of HC reform was to cut the deficit. Whether that really happens remains to be seen We'll have to revisit it in about 20 years

Obama is far from done. Expecting immediate change from the mess left on the White House table is expecting too much too soon. There's a lot more work to do. We'll see if it gets done.

.

[resnor]

Bush and other Republicans wanted to change Fannie and Freddie, but leading Dems like Frank and Reid said those insitutions were fine.