Town Square

Post a New Topic

Dollar heading for worst week in 24 years

Original post made by Sharon, Midtown, on Mar 19, 2009


The Feds bought 300 Billion of Treasuries today.
They also printed 1 Trillion US Dollars.
Gold went up $40 and Oil went over $40.

Japan is very unhappy with what the devaluation of the $ does to the Yen

"The U.S. dollar was heading for its biggest weekly fall in 24 years on Friday as investors feared the Federal Reserve's plans to buy longer-term government debt would cheapen the world's reserve currency. Analysts said the Fed's radical decision to buy $300 billion of longer-term government debt and vastly expand its balance sheet meant more and more of the U.S. currency would be created, straining demand.
"This is a historic moment, the start of debasement of the world's reserve currency,
and it feels to many participants that in the grand sweep of history we are witnessing the end of 'Rome' on the Potomac," said Alan Ruskin, a RBS strategist in Greenwich.Web Link

Comments (32)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by qq
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 20, 2009 at 2:53 am

Web Link

Dropping like a stone. Get ready for another market pump and dump session. When the S&P500 and GLD are both moving North, and the Dollar South, something is gonna dump. So far it has been the S&P.

Web Link

qq


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 20, 2009 at 6:22 am

China and Russia are proposing that the world dump the dollar as the world's currency reserve. Basically the Fed gave the finger to the rest of the world and they want payback. Here's the Reuter's story. Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2009 at 6:31 am

inflation, here we come.

Had enough FDR, I mean, Carter..I mean..Obama,..yet?

I, personally, am longing for Bush or even Clinton ( Bill) to come back!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 6:43 am

Well, I guess that sums it up, Perspective--you miss Bush--so you have started a daily crusade against Obama.
Clearly the hysterical, posts written by you, Sharon, Gary and your alter egos means that Obama is doing a good job--he has you so worried that you cannot find stuff to "bash" him with fast enough.
How sad.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 20, 2009 at 6:48 am

Wake up brotha, this is a country where we pride ourselves on criticizing government!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2009 at 6:54 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Too bad we can't divide into 2 countries, those who want to live the Audacious Country of Obama's Dreams, and they can live with the results, and those of us who want to live the American Dream, and we live in that half.

Unfortunately all of us are in the same boat and the captain is sinking the ship.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 7:07 am

Thanks for proving my point once again, Perspective.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 20, 2009 at 7:17 am

Marvin, do you have any substantial thoughts on the real possibility of inflation and the ballooning national debt? I take it you're okay with the Fed spending another $1 trillion of money we don't have in the next couple of months - yep that's right months, not years, months. Another $1 trillion gone in months.

I suppose your unabashed and uncompromising support for the current powers that be makes you complicit in this reckless spending.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 7:26 am

Let's see, when Bush took office there was no deficit--when he left 8 years later we had a massive deficit. Obama has been in power less than two months, working to solve the problems and you seem unable and/or unwilling to give him a chance.
I think the vast majority of American people are happy with the results so far and are willing to give Obama a chance to fix the mess.
Of course, there are a very vocal minority of hatriots who have slammed Obama since day one--they want failure and do not really care about the country.
And if you have read my posts you will note that most of them are written in response to the unabashed and uncompromising bashing of Obama by a small number of malcontents who are bitter, for whatever reason, that the republicans are out of power. As noted by many--the republican wounds are self-inflicted.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 20, 2009 at 7:35 am

I think Obama with only months in office has already racked up half the deficits that Bush did in 8 years.

I guess you also don't care that the rest of the world now wants to use something other than the dollar as the world's reserve currency? The no aObama admistration pays no attention to that. And so the American arrogance continues, maybe not in weaponry and tough talk, but in action and ignorance.

The Fed under Obama has used the treasury like a credit card without limits. Easy credit got us into this mess when people spent money beyond their means. The Fed continues this and as you say, the majority of America does seem happy with it. I agree with you there, Marvin, the majority of America loves spending money that isn't ours. You and most of America are like kids in a candy store - more free money! More free money! More money, more printing!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anna
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 20, 2009 at 7:41 am

It's correct that Bush's budgets were ridiculously irresponsible, but Marvin's reflexive support of Obama is as bad as the Bush lovers he criticizes.

Marvin says that in 8 years, Bush piled up massive deficits. This is true. The worst of Bush's deficits was around $500 billion. As Marvin points out, Obama has been in office less than two months. The current CBO estimate for this years budget is north of $2 TRILLION...in two months.

Obama makes Bush look responsible. And I supported Obama.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 8:05 am

Anna--you should tell the whole story

Web Link

"Having inherited an economy in recession and reeling from interrelated credit and housing crises, Mr. Obama starts off from a stunning deficit for 2009 that is projected to reach $1.75 trillion when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, or nearly four times last year's shortfall. That would represent 12.3 percent of the gross domestic product, a deficit level that is larger than any since the end of World War II.

By the last year of his term, in the 2013 fiscal year, Mr. Obama projects a deficit of $533 billion, or 3 percent of the overall economy, a level that economists consider sustainable. Even so, he foresees the level of the nation's debt held by the public rising from 58.7 percent in the current year to 67.2 percent in a decade, a level not seen since 1951."


and

Web Link

"Obama was already facing a daunting deficit because of massive tax cuts tilted to the wealthy that President George W. Bush pushed through early in his administration, combined with the costs of two foreign wars. Bush disguised their true costs by treating them as emergency appropriations, apart from budget calculations."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anna
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 20, 2009 at 8:54 am

Whatever you think about the Bush years, and even what you think about Obama, it is undeniable that Obama's budgetary and spending policies are focused not on the deficit, but on his other policy goals. Even if you blame Bush for all the deficits to date, it is undeniable that Obama cares little about doing anything to reduce them. He is in fact increasing them. Maybe that's necessary to save the economy, and maybe not. But to pretend that Obama is a responsible steward of the deficit is silly.

And NOBODY believes the numbers in Obama's budget for the outyears. Virtually every publication and economist who's looked at these numbers believe they're based on recklessly optimistic assumptions about growth and the recovery from the current recession. The Obama budget is at best a thinly disguised political screed - which makes it wholly appropriate for your posts on this forum.

Like I said, I supported Obama, but I'm not so blind as to think he's being responsible or increasingly - even reasonable - in his management of our economic problems.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:01 am

Nobody believes the numbers, Anna??

"By the last year of his term, in the 2013 fiscal year, Mr. Obama projects a deficit of $533 billion, or 3 percent of the overall economy, a level that economists consider sustainable. Even so, he foresees the level of the nation's debt held by the public rising from 58.7 percent in the current year to 67.2 percent in a decade, a level not seen since 1951."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:03 am

BTW, Anna, thanks for judging the appropriateness of my posts. How is Gary doing?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:06 am

Here's Jon Stewart on Chris Dodd and Geithner holding the two responsible for the AIG bonuses. Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anna
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:11 am

I think Marvin's myopia is causing him difficulty even in reading his own posts.

Marvin's quoted passage says that economists think deficits of 3% of GDP are manageable. This says nothing about whether economists think Obama's plan to achieve that level of deficit reduction by 2013 is doable. And by overwhelming margins, they don't.

There are a lot of people here whose attachment to ideology get in the way of their objectivity. The fact that some on the other side of you on any particular issue also are unreasonable, hardly explains or excuses your own inability to think and analyze objectively.

The Bush drones and the Bush haters each did a lot to destroy any chance of reasoned discourse over the past 8 year. It's a pity to see the same thing happening already with Obama.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:13 am

Richard Holbrooke, a veteran diplomat who is now the administration's point man on Pakistan and Afghanistan, served on AIG the board between 2001 and mid-2008. 7+ years!

During that period, AIG undertook the aggressive investment strategies that led to a near-collapse and forced a multi-billion-dollar federal bailout.

What did know? when did he know it? what decisions did he ratify?

Meanwhile from Bloomberg Just inWeb Link

" President Barack Obama's budget will generate a $1.9 trillion deficit this year, $100 billion more than the administration projected, according to a person familiar with a Congressional Budget Office report to be released today.

The White House had projected this year's deficit will reach $1.75 trillion.

The person said next year's shortfall will also be larger than projected, totaling $1.4 trillion.
The administration said in its budget request to Congress last month that next year's deficit would total $1.171 trillion."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:21 am

I do like the way you say you supported Obama and then launch into one of the typical, daily tirades we are so used to. I guess you think that by saying you supported Obama, you feel that you are fooling us into thinking that you are not one of the usual suspects.
You also do not provide any proof for your claims--all you do is cite "overwhelming margins". Is that the opinions of Perspective, Gary, Anna, Resident and Sharon?

Obama must be doing a good job, since the daily cacophony on this forum with regard to Obama is reaching a fever pitch from those that want him to fail.

So, how is Gary?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anna
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:35 am

I've got no interest in getting involved in Marvin's personality-based feud with Gary and other posters here. And I'm certainly not going to get into one myself with him.

One would think that the statement that most economists think the Obama budget projections are unduly optimistic so totally uncontroversial as to be common knowledge. (And one would suspect that anyone who thinks otherwise is blinded by ideology or some other impediment to clear thinking.)

It's kind of tiresome to have to state the obvious and mundane, but Marvin and any other Obama Robots might wish to check out here (Web Link), or here (Web Link), or here (Web Link)

Sigh..


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:43 am

Anna, totally agree with you. I wish the Weekly would edit out some of his personal attacks when we're all trying to discuss the issue. He's getting tiresome. Thanks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:52 am

Anna and Resident (and Gary)--everyone is entitled to an opinion--including the people quoted in your links.
I guess, Resident while you are allowed to complain about my "personal attacks"(BTW, car to enlighten me with what you consider a personal attack?), you have no issue with comments such as "Marvin's myopia", "Bush haters" and "Marvin and any other Obama Robots" for example.
So, resident, if you want to have a one-sided discussion there are much more appropriate forums for your daily bleatings. The fact that you consider me "tiresome" means that I am doing a good job.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 20, 2009 at 9:55 am

No Marvin, you're actually pushing me further away from Obama. Yes, if that is your goal, then yes, you are doing a good job in making me see that Obama supporters trully are myopic, arrogant, and hateful people like you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 10:14 am

You complain about personal attacks--yet you have no problems writing:
"Obama supporters trully are myopic, arrogant, and hateful people".
BTW, I really did not expect to make you like Obama--I am just refuting your daily attacks. I am also sure that Obama does not really care what you think of him.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2009 at 2:23 pm


Holbrooke,now obamas special envoy, received more than $100,000 in compensation annually from AIG for 8 yrs, but according to the White House,
"Mr. Holbrooke had nothing to do with and knew nothing about the bonuses."
Shouldn't he have known something about those bonuses, given his generous compensation package as a key member of the AIG board of directors?

"The role of a board is to keep a company from going over a cliff," said Robert Litan, an expert on financial institutions at The Brookings Institution in Washington. "I wouldn't be surprised if, in a future lawsuit, a court were to find the (AIG) directors behaved negligently."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Sharon--to be fair you should also have mentioned that former Republican Defence Secretary William COhen was also on the AIG Board:

Web Link

All of you expressing outrage over Obama and the AIG bonuses should read this article:

Web Link

"Folks, not too long ago it was the Republicans who excoriated Democrats for having the gall to suggest that the government regulate executive pay and bonuses.

In September of 2008, Republican Senator Richard Shelby (SC) made it very clear that government had no business regulating private corporations. He said,

"It should be up to the board of directors of a private corporation to set the compensation of an executive… it shouldn't be Congress's role."

In early February, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) had this to say about regulating executive pay, "I really don't want the government to take over these businesses and start telling them everything about what they can do." "



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Marvi

Get out more read some history books go to the library

If you seek any credibility get your facts correct

William Sebastian Cohen (born 28 August 1940):

Cohen served as Secretary of Defense (1997–2001) under Democratic President Bill Clinton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Sharon--my post above was correct--William Cohen is a Republican--the fact that he served under a democratic president is irrelevant


Web Link

"William Sebastian Cohen (born 28 August 1940) is an author and American politician from the U.S. state of Maine. A Republican, Cohen served as Secretary of Defense (1997–2001) under Democratic President Bill Clinton."

You may have been confused because I wrote "Republican Defense Secretary"

My post was credible and my facts were correct


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anna
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 20, 2009 at 4:15 pm

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month - a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable."

Web Link


The opinions, quoted in this post, and in the previous links so airily dismissed by Marvin, are not just opinions to which all people are entitiled. The links are to stories about economists' opnions that Obama's budget figures are overoptimistic, and that his budget is unrealistically unsustainable.

Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference to anyone posting here with the handicap of ideological blinders, but this is exactly what Marvin challenged saying, "you also do not provide any proof for your claims-..."

The point is that it is difficult to have a dialogue when one of the posters here challenges one to prove a (undeniable) point, and then when this proof is forthcoming, dismisses it in passing on to another spree of drive-by vitriol.

But I have the distinct feeling that dialogue isn't the goal.

C'est la vie.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2009 at 5:07 pm

Thank you Anna. Very well written.

I wonder what the effect will be on the Marvins of the nation of having the CBO support what we have been saying. Remember, Marvin...this is the CBO. They actually work FOR Pres. Obama now, and are risking his wrath, the wrath of Pelosi and Reid, and the wrath of any one else in DC who can make their lives hell, not to mention risking having their site shut down like the last time they published data he didn't like before the final Stimulus vote. How long will this report and/or site stay up?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get a clue
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 20, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Ha! You prefer the dollar under Bush!! Where it's been languishing at 40% below where it is today!

You're probably still listening to Jim Cramer! "Yeah, the stock's overpriced but buy anyway".

Good luck, you're gonna need it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Very well written, Anna. Bit off the mark, of course.
However, what you seem to ignore is that dialogue is not the goal from the people who second your opinions. That has become clear in this thread and others.
It is common practice for when claiming a point of view or "fact" to provide some supporting links to it. the point may be undeniable to you--but not everyone shares your view. You made claims in your earlier posta nd I asked for citations. nothing wrong with that--too bad you have a problem with that point.

Your other comment: "dismisses it in passing on to another spree of drive-by vitriol." seems to be a bit out ofplace since you have no problem with the "drive by" vitriol expressed by Resident and others.

Clearly this whole argument is really a smoke screen. One finds it hard to believe that a true ardent supporter woul dturn on Obama after 7 weeks in office. I guess the claim of being an Obama supporter is meant to give your comments additional credibility.
I think many of us know what is reallygoing on here.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Grab a Bowl of Heaven soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,866 views

Don't fund the rape culture at my alma mater
By Jessica T | 36 comments | 2,363 views

Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,956 views

Mothers, daughters, books, and boxes
By Sally Torbey | 4 comments | 1,085 views

Campaign Endorsements: Behind the Curtain
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,048 views