Well, we passed 16 Trillion today....

[CosmicCowboy]

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html

[Yonivore]

Do the Democrats have a debt clock at their convention?

[Th'Pusher]

First order of business should be to cut taxes by an additional 20%. That should do the trick!

[Wild Cobra]

Damn.

It's say "that's a lot of trees" if money wasn't made of cotton.

Are we bringing the plantations back?

[FromWayDowntown]

Are we bringing the plantations back?

Some can only hope . . . .

[boutons_deux]

Are we bringing the plantations back?

Not enough water, been wasted by UCA in fracking, nuking, mining.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's truly mindboggling to think that our national debt was under $6 trillion on January 1, 2002.

[boutons_deux]

get back to us when the US's ability to sell bonds a hyper-low rates begins to founder.

jobs, homes, consumerism are the priorities, not the (Dem) deficit, which is nothing byt a smokescreen to increase austerity and weaken, enslave, and fuck the 99%.

the problem is conservative/Repug policies that caused the REVENUE disaster.

[Wild Cobra]

It's truly mindboggling to think that our national debt was under $6 trillion on January 1, 2002.
Yes.

Too bad that government expanded so much in the Clinton years to where the economy is unsustainable after the Y2K bubble popped.

[boutons_deux]

Yes.

Too bad that government expanded so much in the Clinton years to where the economy is unsustainable after the Y2K bubble popped.

the ECONOMY and LABOR forced expanded in the Clintion years.

the inherent instability of the unregulated capitalism caused the Internet bubble and its bursting, not the govt.

How much do you claim the govt expanded under Clinton? Under dubya/dickhead?

[scott]

Yes.

Too bad that government expanded so much in the Clinton years to where the economy is unsustainable after the Y2K bubble popped.

Government Receipts & Expenditures by Year

Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Total receipts 1,159.3 1,237.0 1,337.2 1,422.8 1,543.9
Total expenditures 1,487.5 1,534.8 1,566.5 1,631.4 1,697.8
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -328.2 -297.8 -229.3 -208.7 -153.9

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total receipts 1,676.7 1,803.0 1,923.7 2,085.2 2,048.2
Total expenditures 1,728.8 1,761.0 1,828.7 1,900.6 2,014.1
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -52.1 42.0 95.0 184.7 34.2

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total receipts 1,884.6 1,907.1 2,038.5 2,315.1 2,552.4
Total expenditures 2,162.6 2,329.3 2,465.4 2,667.4 2,799.6
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -278.0 -422.2 -426.8 -352.4 -247.2

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total receipts 2,681.2 2,530.5 2,247.1 2,410.5 2,529.2
Total expenditures 2,996.2 3,286.7 3,704.5 3,901.0 3,923.2
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -315.0 -756.2 -1,457.4 -1,490.5 -1,394.1

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/

[scott]

In other words, Clinton's "expanded government" would have been small enough for budget surpluses in every year from 2001-11 with the exception of '02 or '03.

[DMX7]

Do the Democrats have a debt clock at their convention?

Did the repugs in 2008?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Oh cool, another thread where Republicans pretend they've ALWAYS cared about the national deficit :lol

[Trainwreck2100]

Oh cool, another thread where Republicans pretend they've ALWAYS cared about the national deficit :lol

you know why invading countries used to be profitable. Cause when you won you took all the other country's good shit to pay for it.

[mavs>spurs]

Government Receipts & Expenditures by Year

Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Total receipts 1,159.3 1,237.0 1,337.2 1,422.8 1,543.9
Total expenditures 1,487.5 1,534.8 1,566.5 1,631.4 1,697.8
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -328.2 -297.8 -229.3 -208.7 -153.9

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total receipts 1,676.7 1,803.0 1,923.7 2,085.2 2,048.2
Total expenditures 1,728.8 1,761.0 1,828.7 1,900.6 2,014.1
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -52.1 42.0 95.0 184.7 34.2

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total receipts 1,884.6 1,907.1 2,038.5 2,315.1 2,552.4
Total expenditures 2,162.6 2,329.3 2,465.4 2,667.4 2,799.6
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -278.0 -422.2 -426.8 -352.4 -247.2

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total receipts 2,681.2 2,530.5 2,247.1 2,410.5 2,529.2
Total expenditures 2,996.2 3,286.7 3,704.5 3,901.0 3,923.2
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -315.0 -756.2 -1,457.4 -1,490.5 -1,394.1

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/

part of that was the govt looting social security though, there were never really true surpluses.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

you know why invading countries used to be profitable. Cause when you won you took all the other country's good shit to pay for it.
truth bomb

The next time we decide to go nation building in an oil-rich middle eastern country, all I ask the corrupt politicians who do it for some special interest reason is that you actually take the oil in the country so we gain from the war. I don't care about all the worthless marines dying if we can turn the war for a profit :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

dick cheney wasn't concerned about deficits

[mavs>spurs]

republicans wanted to borrow money to finance THEIR OWN bs..but now that we've reached our credit limit they don't think anyone else should borrow for their little pet projects.

well i'm here to say left or right, it doesn't really fucking matter who does it, we'd better stop spending or we're all going down. It doesn't matter which party you support..you will CRASH AND FUCKING BURN. wake UP.

[Bill_Brasky]

you know why invading countries used to be profitable. Cause when you won you took all the other country's good shit to pay for it.

It's still very profitable. Those at the top have just figured out a way to make sure that it's only profitable for them though and not the rest of the country.

[mavs>spurs]

It's still very profitable. Those at the top have just figured out a way to make sure that it's only profitable for them though and not the rest of the country.

figured out a way? it's not that hard.

they get me and you to front them 5 trillion to start a war that will net them 1 or 2 trillion in plundered loot. you might say well thats a poor investment but guess what..the 5 million lost wasn't even theirs to begin with. they're 2 trillion richer...ha ha jokes on you.

[Wild Cobra]

In other words, Clinton's "expanded government" would have been small enough for budget surpluses in every year from 2001-11 with the exception of '02 or '03.

The surpluses were only on paper. We haven't paid down the debt since 1969. With such a wonderful economy every liberal and/or democrat like to credit Clinton for, why didn't the debt decrease?

[AaronY]

Oh cool, another thread where Republicans pretend they've ALWAYS cared about the national deficit :lol

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/content/articles/2011/02/05/news/doc4d4dcba064507854008927.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p212/coconuter/bush_thumbs_up.png

[Wild Cobra Kai]

It's truly mindboggling to think that our national debt was under $6 trillion on January 1, 2002.

Thanks, W.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Yes.

Too bad that government expanded so much in the Clinton years to where the economy is unsustainable after the Y2K bubble popped.

Calendar fail. 2002 is LONG after Clinton left office.

[johnsmith]

This thread is such a kick ass example of what's wrong with politics in America and why guys like Boutons are actually right that this country is fucked (I refuse to use the word unfuckable because it sounds fucking retarded).

OP: Our debt is 16 trillion
Repub: Thanks for nothing Obama
Dem: Your guy started it
Repub: Your guy made it worse
Dem: Yeah but your guy started it.

Repub/Dem: Vote for my guy and it will change.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's truly mindboggling to think that our national debt was under $6 trillion on January 1, 2002.

Yeah, and that's with interest rates at almost 0%. Just wait till interest rates normalize and we start paying a couple trillion a year in interest on top of the 40% deficit spending.

[Th'Pusher]

There is still a deal to be had on the issue of long-term debt reduction and the 'fiscal-cliff' is the catalyst to get a deal done. One side wants to do it by raising taxes with modest reforms to entitlements over time and the other side wants to do it by reducing taxes an additional 20%, eliminating the estate tax, eliminating capital gains taxes on those making >$200k with major reforms to entitlements and drastic spending cuts although there is little specificity wrt the cuts.

[boutons_deux]

MIC-spending/tax cutting policies put USA in debt, and the same policies can reduce the debt.

USA has revenue problem, not a spending problem

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

This thread is such a kick ass example of what's wrong with politics in America and why guys like Boutons are actually right that this country is fucked (I refuse to use the word unfuckable because it sounds fucking retarded).

OP: Our debt is 16 trillion
Repub: Thanks for nothing Obama
Dem: Your guy started it
Repub: Your guy made it worse
Dem: Yeah but your guy started it.

Repub/Dem: Vote for my guy and it will change.
:lmao

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

USA has revenue problem, not a spending problem
This is everything that's wrong with the country, someone who's so far left/so far right he says it's one or the other. The way our deficit is ballooning out of control, it's both a revenue and spending problem.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This thread is such a kick ass example of what's wrong with politics in America and why guys like Boutons are actually right that this country is fucked (I refuse to use the word unfuckable because it sounds fucking retarded).

OP: Our debt is 16 trillion
Repub: Thanks for nothing Obama
Dem: Your guy started it
Repub: Your guy made it worse
Dem: Yeah but your guy started it.

Repub/Dem: Vote for my guy and it will change.

hell just froze

[coyotes_geek]

USA has revenue problem, not a spending problem

Both actually, but thanks for playing.

[boutons_deux]

the conservative/Repug policy-driven revenue problem ($Ts in tax cuts) and THEIR Banksters' Great Depression ($Ts in lost property/income taxes) and THEIR bogus/bullshit wars dominate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is a revenue and spending problem. One side denies this outright whereas the other agrees, however they lack the balls to do anything about it

[TeyshaBlue]

You mean the T's in tax cuts that Obama now owns? And the Bankster's Great Depression http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif was an exclusively Republican phenomenon? I'll give the Republicans the wars, but the Dems get the assist.

[TeyshaBlue]

This is a revenue and spending problem. One side denies this outright whereas the other agrees, however they lack the balls to do anything about it

Pretty well said.:toast

[coyotes_geek]

the conservative/Repug policy-driven revenue problem ($Ts in tax cuts) and THEIR Banksters' Great Depression ($Ts in lost property/income taxes) and THEIR bogus/bullshit wars dominate.

Thank God Obama and the dems came along and got rid of all those evil Bush tax cuts and ended all the wars. Fuck, I thought that Afghanistan thing was never going to end.

[CosmicCowboy]

Put another way, the national debt is currently $136,260 per household. This includes the almost 50% of households that pay no income taxes. This debt has risen by $45,848 per household just since Obama took office 3 1/2 years ago.

So how much do you think your taxes need to go up to be able to keep pace with this kind of spending?

[Warlord23]

Scott's table says it all; both W and O have screwed the pooch in terms of spending.

Bush
Expenditure that he inherited from Clinton [2000]: 1.9 Trillion
Expenditure at the end of his tenure [2008]: 3.286 Trillion
CAGR: 7.1% per annum over 8 years

Obama
Expenditure that he inherited from Bush [2008]: 3.286 Trillion
Expenditure at the end of last year [2011]: 3.923 Trillion
CAGR: 6.1% per annum over 3 years

Bush spent money while cutting taxes. Obama did nothing to reverse those tax cuts and continued spending. However, the numbers beg the question: why wasn't the Tea Party formed during 8 years of 7% spending hikes under a Republican president? Why did it get formed within the first year of Obama's presidency, and why are his spending hikes portrayed as much worse than his predecessor's?

[CosmicCowboy]

Scott's table says it all; both W and O have screwed the pooch in terms of spending.

Bush
Expenditure that he inherited from Clinton [2000]: 1.9 Trillion
Expenditure at the end of his tenure [2008]: 3.286 Trillion
CAGR: 7.1% per annum over 8 years

Obama
Expenditure that he inherited from Bush [2008]: 3.286 Trillion
Expenditure at the end of last year [2011]: 3.923 Trillion
CAGR: 6.1% per annum over 3 years

Bush spent money while cutting taxes. Obama did nothing to reverse those tax cuts and continued spending. However, the numbers beg the question: why wasn't the Tea Party formed during 8 years of 7% spending hikes under a Republican president? Why did it get formed within the first year of Obama's presidency, and why are his spending hikes portrayed as much worse than his predecessor's?

Because the same percentage of a larger base line = more dollars every year. Letting spending grow "only" 6% still means that spending doubles in 11.66 years.

[Latarian Milton]

wal-mart drained more wealth out of this country than the cost of all these wars combined tbh

[coyotes_geek]

Bush spent money while cutting taxes. Obama did nothing to reverse those tax cuts and continued spending. However, the numbers beg the question: why wasn't the Tea Party formed during 8 years of 7% spending hikes under a Republican president? Why did it get formed within the first year of Obama's presidency, and why are his spending hikes portrayed as much worse than his predecessor's?

Primary reason: My guy's defecit = OK, your guy's defecit = not OK

Secondary reasons:
1) Bush years 2001-2002 national attention was on 9-11. Bush years 2003-2007 everyone was happy with 4%-5% unemployment and double digit market returns. By the time things went to shit we were already into the 2008 election cycle and Bush was pretty much an afterthought.

2) I think the $1 trillion dollar defecit presented an emotional barrier for a lot of people.

[Winehole23]

I think the $1 trillion dollar deficit presented an emotional barrier for a lot of people.could become the new normal. there's a number of things we've gotten used to in the last ten years that were basically unthinkable before 9/11.

[Warlord23]

Because the same percentage of a larger base line = more dollars every year. Letting spending grow "only" 6% still means that spending doubles in 11.66 years.

The Tea Party was formed in 2009 (before Obama completed 1 year in office). They sure reacted very promptly to his projected spending increases following a recession, considering that they calmly sat through a $200 billion spending increase by Bush in 2005 when there were no comparable economic conditions to justify such spending.

The Tea Party is a bunch of partisan hypocrites.

[coyotes_geek]

could become the new normal. there's a number of things we've gotten used to in the last ten years that were basically unthinkable before 9/11.

I'd hope that we could come to our senses before that happens, but who knows?

[CosmicCowboy]

The Tea Party was formed in 2009 (before Obama completed 1 year in office). They sure reacted very promptly to his projected spending increases following a recession, considering that they calmly sat through a $200 billion spending increase by Bush in 2005 when there were no comparable economic conditions to justify such spending.

The Tea Party is a bunch of partisan hypocrites.

The original Tea Party unease with the way our government was headed was really more unorganized and bipartisan IMHO. The TP "label" then got co-opted by Republican religious extremists.

There is still a huge number of "original TP" folks out there who share the sentiment that our government by both parties has betrayed us.

[coyotes_geek]

The Tea Party is a bunch of partisan hypocrites.

It ended up that way, but I don't think that's how it started. I do think it started as an honest grass roots movement of rational people who were genuinely concerned about the fiscal tract we are on. But it didn't take long for the republican establishment, desparate for any kind of an image makeover to disassociate themselves from Bush, to move in and take it over. Once that happened it was all about being anti-Obama.

[mavs>spurs]

Yeah, and that's with interest rates at almost 0%. Just wait till interest rates normalize and we start paying a couple trillion a year in interest on top of the 40% deficit spending.

that's not the way it works. first of all, the central banks control interest rates so they can do what they want there. secondly, the coupon payment on those bonds is going to be the same regardless of the interest rate. the only thing that fluctuates is the amount that investors will pay for the bonds, and that determines the interest rate on the bond. but the coupon rate is constant. if we owe 500,000 coupon payments semiannually on each bond for example, then were still going to pay that same coupon payment regardless of the interest rate.

[FromWayDowntown]

there's a number of things we've gotten used to in the last ten years that were basically unthinkable before 9/11.

+1.

[mavs>spurs]

could become the new normal. there's a number of things we've gotten used to in the last ten years that were basically unthinkable before 9/11.

yep, we've become domesticated and castrated pussies who put up with all kinds of bullshit

[mavs>spurs]

that's not the way it works. first of all, the central banks control interest rates so they can do what they want there. secondly, the coupon payment on those bonds is going to be the same regardless of the interest rate. the only thing that fluctuates is the amount that investors will pay for the bonds, and that determines the interest rate on the bond. but the coupon rate is constant. if we owe 500,000 coupon payments semiannually on each bond for example, then were still going to pay that same coupon payment regardless of the interest rate.

the only thing that changing interest rates could affect is future borrowings basically.

[CosmicCowboy]

that's not the way it works. first of all, the central banks control interest rates so they can do what they want there. secondly, the coupon payment on those bonds is going to be the same regardless of the interest rate. the only thing that fluctuates is the amount that investors will pay for the bonds, and that determines the interest rate on the bond. but the coupon rate is constant. if we owe 500,000 coupon payments semiannually on each bond for example, then were still going to pay that same coupon payment regardless of the interest rate.

That is the way it works. As bonds mature and get paid off new bonds are issued at the current going rate, so new bonds will carry higher interest rates and gradually the "old" low interest bonds get phased out.

[mavs>spurs]

That is the way it works. As bonds mature and get paid off new bonds are issued at the current going rate, so new bonds will carry higher interest rates and gradually the "old" low interest bonds get phased out.

yeah but you are worried about money we haven't even borrowed yet. we just flat won't be able to borrow this kind of money at high interest rates unless we are interested in crashing our country.

[coyotes_geek]

the only thing that changing interest rates could affect is future borrowings basically.

While true, there is the small detail about how we're constantly borrowing money. Thus interest rates going up will affect us.

[mavs>spurs]

While true, there is the small detail about how we're constantly borrowing money. Thus interest rates going up will affect us.

yeah that is going to change, like it or not. one way or another, some day it'll be time to pay the piper. and that's when i flee this bitch and run far, far away. the crash will be devastating.

[boutons_deux]

our government by both parties has betrayed us.

It's a free market, the govt was sold to the highest bidders.

and in the tea world, those bidders are NEVER mentioned, which totally betrays TBs as fakes.

[coyotes_geek]

yeah that is going to change, like it or not. one way or another, some day it'll be time to pay the piper. and that's when i flee this bitch and run far, far away. the crash will be devastating.

The government will just erase the publicly held portion of the debt by having the SSA agree to "forgive" Treasury from paying them back. They'll keep SS going, but there will be massive benefit cuts and massive payroll tax increases. Medicare will also become a voucher program.

Once the public portion of the debt is erased things will be manageable for the time being with the one huge drastic crash averted. Instead we'll just be treated to a cycle of every generation paying more taxes for less benefits than the one before it.

[mavs>spurs]

if you loot SS there will be consequences. the current generation ain't even paying shit in..it's going to be a mess and not nearly that easily avoidable.

[Wild Cobra]

if you loot SS there will be consequences. the current generation ain't even paying shit in..it's going to be a mess and not nearly that easily avoidable.
SS has already been looted. there is no lockbox.

[coyotes_geek]

if you loot SS there will be consequences. the current generation ain't even paying shit in..it's going to be a mess and not nearly that easily avoidable.

Oh people will definitely get pissed, but given the alternative of absolute financial collapse our politicians will relent. Given how little we hold our politicians accountable, most of them will probably keep their jobs. Both sides will come together to do the deal, shake on it and then head for the nearest television camera to tell the upset public that "it had to be done and it's all the other team's fault".

[mavs>spurs]

and when all the retirees starve? the problem is, they need MORE to be able to survive..it's like time to increase benefits and we're going to have to go the opposite direction. shit won't be good.

how do you tell someone who paid into the damn thing for 50 years that they don't even get enough money to survive on? people ought to be tried for treason and hanged for this shit.

[coyotes_geek]

and when all the retirees starve?

Publicly, just evidence of the opposing party's irresponsible policies.

Privately, unfortunate but necessary collateral damage to avert a complete financial collapse.


how do you tell someone who paid into the damn thing for 50 years that they don't even get enough money to survive on?

Simple. You blame it all on the opposing party.

[boutons_deux]

7 Ways to End the Deficit (without Throwing Grandma under the Bus)


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/05-12

uncapping SS, and reinstating the complete estate tax cuts would add a couple $T back.

[Wild Cobra]

Common Dreams?

Someone else tell me if it's a worthwhile read before I open it. It seems only about 1% of their material isn't complete bullshit.

[boutons_deux]

WC is 100% bullshit

[RandomGuy]

We need 32 Trillion in debt, not 16.

Right now.

[DarrinS]

We need 32 Trillion in debt, not 16.

Right now.


Que?

[Borat Sagyidev]

The dollar will collapse and that $16 Trillion will be paid off with a few hundred Yen.

/end thread.

[boutons_deux]

Who Owns US debt?

Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-holders-of-us-gov-t-debt.html

China owns USA? :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

So owing ourselves 6.5 trillion (most which will be needed to pay future social security benefits that have been promised) is a good thing?

What happens when they have to come up with the CASH to pay those benefits? Where is the CASH going to come from?

[boutons_deux]

The greedy, gorging, corrupt vampire-squid health care system and the corrupt MIC will provide the cash.

[Quadzilla99]

One day Republicans will get back in charge and fix this horrible debt crisis which they really really care bout. Deeply and truly care about. Deeply.

[Quadzilla99]

Oh cool, another thread where Republicans pretend they've ALWAYS cared about the national deficit :lol

Was this ever not so?

[DMC]

6 trillion, 60 trillion. Who's going to collect? Has anyone here missed a meal because of it? No.

[Th'Pusher]

6 trillion, 60 trillion. Who's going to collect? Has anyone here missed a meal because of it? No.

Deficits don’t matter

- Dick Cheney

[baseline bum]

What's another $2 trillion so Trump can give himself a tax cut?

[boutons_deux]

The repug deficit is intentional and will be addressed by cutting Medicare Medicaid and Social Security etc and everything else in the safety net helping poor peopleetc

Rubio has admitted it

https://crooksandliars.com/2017/11/rubio-says-it-out-loud-tax-cuts-are-first?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=crooksandliars.com&utm_term=68739&utm_content=2158319

[DMC]

Deficits don’t matter

- Dick Cheney

Are you talking about deficit or debt?

[RandomGuy]

Are you talking about deficit or debt?

deficit + deficit + deficit + deficit = debt


FWIW.