Official US Debt passes the $16tn mark

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://action.freedomworks.org/7830/its-official-16-trillion-in-debt/

US Debt (official) passes the $16tn mark


http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001913729/4720366866_dollar_sign_US_flag_obama_xlarge.jpeg
Change you can't believe in: Obama has increased reckless spending since taking office in 2008


On Tuesday, September 4th the U.S. debt officially passed the $16 trillion mark. President Obama and Congress have been promising us fiscal sanity for over three years now, but what we’ve gotten is a doubling of the national debt.

Our debt is now greater than 100% of GDP, and Congress will spend MORE money this year than they did last year. Congress must know now more than ever: We the People demand a STOP to the spending!

Here's a short article penned by Ron Paul today as to why this matters and the longer term implications; http://www.randpaulreview.com/2012/09/ron-paul-the-world-will-abandon-the-dollar-as-the-global-reserve-currency/

..so, no cuts in the United States or even over here. Even with what Obama/Romney and Cameron/Miliband call 'stimulus' or 'QE' (aka printing money out of thin air) they still can't balance the books because they're either inept or fiscally insane - and the real figures are much much worse than this as most of social security and welfare payments are kept off the books.

The march to bankruptcy continues as well as an eventual Dollar crisis, but hey it's all cool right? because this guy can make cool sounding speeches with a teleprompter!

Thoughts?

[nvrspk4]

Blaming this on Obama without looking at nuances is disingenuous at best - but that's politics for you.

Obama isn't innocent on the debt - my strong support for Obama is partially based on aligned beliefs. Though his actions aren't always the best, they're a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Blaming this on Obama without looking at nuances is disingenuous at best - but that's politics for you.

Oh I don't blame solely Obama - the Republican Party is equally as guilty with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan both supporting more spending and debt ceiling increases.

..and that's why you shouldn't support either of them as voting for the lesser of two evils means you're still picking evil.


Obama isn't innocent on the debt - my strong support for Obama is partially based on aligned beliefs. Though his actions aren't always the best, they're a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

I don't see it, most of the charges levelled at George W Bush apply just the same to Obama - yet Obama supporters seem to ignore this, despite claiming to loathe the policies of Bush.

[Grig]

Many of Obama's actions aren't even actions. They're being stalled by Congress. Economy is issue number 1 and if you ask yourself whether you were better than 4 years ago, for most Americans the answer is a resounding no.

Yet if Romney and Ryan are elected, it's taking a risk for no-one knows what you can expect and how much they'll flip-flop around. I like that Obama has been cautious, but that's also a bad thing for he's not done enough. The fact that the debt ceiling is still rising means that there is still gross mismanagement of many economic issues. We've not seen a stock market crash yet, but we haven't seen an improvement either. It's going nowhere and there are and have been all this time fears that the US could indeed slide back into a recession and those fears have people on edge.

Hence why many who were Obama supporters in '08 are just fed up and are voting for Romney this time. Although Obama will most likely shift policies if he is re-elected this time, just like Clinton did and he had a lot of success. With Romney, you have more business expertise.

Which is the better side? You pick. But it's extremely hard to decide and really it's far from an ideal situation on both sides.

[efq]

Who will they come begging for money I wonder ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Niall!]

Who will they come begging for money I wonder ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well it's not going to be the UK which you're insinuating with your smiley face. The UK is roughly £1,278.2 billion in debt.

[efq]

I meant EU actually :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Niall!]

I meant EU actually :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is 10,421.9 billion euros in debt.

[GommeInc]

The US won't ask for money, they'll just ask for businesses to invest into them - which won't happen as China doesn't particularly like investing at the moment and the EU/EEC are more concerned with trying to make money out of thin air.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Which is the better side? You pick. But it's extremely hard to decide and really it's far from an ideal situation on both sides.

Neither, the idea that Romney and Ryan will be good for business is as much a joke as Obama would be good for business - are either side going to do what they say and lower taxes and deregulate to get the economy moving? no, they'll continue to add on federal regulations, federal taxes, continue the bailouts and continue the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air. They'll also both continue to threaten Iran, continue to plough billions into US-friendly regimes whilst ploughing billions into toppling anti-US regimes, continue programmes such as the NDAA and the Patriot Act, continue the TSA and terrorist fear campaigns, continue supplying weapons to dodgy rebel groups like they did in the 1980s with Al Qaeda and continue spending increases on the military and social security.

The argument is the same one we had back in 2010 in the United Kingdom - we've replaced Labour with the Conservatives and what has changed? absolutely nothing. Indeed, the one thing that was supposed to change (people had the illusion that the Conservatives, who supported Labours spending plans until two years before the election, would at least be fiscally sane) was state spending - yet it's at exactly the same levels as it was two years ago .. and still rising just as it would have done under Labour.

I heard Gerald Celente describe this as the Presidential Reality Show, and it is .. "my guy isn't as bad as your guy" ..so why do we even play along with it and back one sociopath over the other?

[nvrspk4]

Oh I don't blame solely Obama - the Republican Party is equally as guilty with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan both supporting more spending and debt ceiling increases.

..and that's why you shouldn't support either of them as voting for the lesser of two evils means you're still picking evil.

Do you suggest voting for a third party? Also while I present the lesser evils to other people, I support a lot of what Obama has done. The auto bailout was brilliant, the stimulus was right-minded but poorly done, the sequester actually wasn't a bad idea, his record on social issues is pretty good. You're right, it shouldn't be looked at as "who is less bad" but instead as "I'm never going to completely agree with someone. Who do I trust to lead the country and who do I agree with most?"


I don't see it, most of the charges levelled at George W Bush apply just the same to Obama - yet Obama supporters seem to ignore this, despite claiming to loathe the policies of Bush.

Such as?


Many of Obama's actions aren't even actions. They're being stalled by Congress. Economy is issue number 1 and if you ask yourself whether you were better than 4 years ago, for most Americans the answer is a resounding no.

The honest truth is that the situation is better than it was four years ago. Sure it's not good enough, but it is better, and there are quite a few successful economic policies. This provides a good overview: http://www.economist.com/node/21561909. I think at times the writer was too lenient, especially on the housing market, but it does showcase the successes of the administration which are quite often overlooked in the diatribes as its nearly impossible to convey nuance in a political campaign.


Yet if Romney and Ryan are elected, it's taking a risk for no-one knows what you can expect and how much they'll flip-flop around. I like that Obama has been cautious, but that's also a bad thing for he's not done enough. The fact that the debt ceiling is still rising means that there is still gross mismanagement of many economic issues. We've not seen a stock market crash yet, but we haven't seen an improvement either. It's going nowhere and there are and have been all this time fears that the US could indeed slide back into a recession and those fears have people on edge.

Hence why many who were Obama supporters in '08 are just fed up and are voting for Romney this time. Although Obama will most likely shift policies if he is re-elected this time, just like Clinton did and he had a lot of success. With Romney, you have more business expertise.

Which is the better side? You pick. But it's extremely hard to decide and really it's far from an ideal situation on both sides.

I don't know - Obama has been cautious on some issues (housing etc) but aggressive on others (Chrysler, banks, even on making social cuts to right the ship). I do know that if Republicans win the Senate, Romney isn't likely to move to the left and the right wing of the Republican party worries me greatly.

I also don't think its wrong that the debt ceiling is rising. A recession while fighting two wars (now one) is not the time for fiscal belt-tightening.


The argument is the same one we had back in 2010 in the United Kingdom - we've replaced Labour with the Conservatives and what has changed? absolutely nothing. Indeed, the one thing that was supposed to change (people had the illusion that the Conservatives, who supported Labours spending plans until two years before the election, would at least be fiscally sane) was state spending - yet it's at exactly the same levels as it was two years ago .. and still rising just as it would have done under Labour.

That's because the way our countries work, its extremely rare for a party to completely lose power and "radical change" to occur. While this can be frustrating (especially when the party you think is "right" takes charge) it's important to a stable nation. I took a couple of classes on South American governments and one of the biggest problems they faced was every leader came on and tried to undo the work of the former leader and remake the country in his own image. For this reason, it was very difficult for those nations to make progress. The fact that it is difficult and change is incremental (but not entirely absent - an important distinction to make) is actually an advantage. It's how the system (at least the US system) was designed to work. The US Senate was specifically designed to stall legislation and provide a bit of a stumbling block that the minority could use to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you suggest voting for a third party?

I don't really suggest voting for anybody in the US election, although i'd probably myself either write in Ron Paul or put a tick next to Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. The same in the United Kingdom, if UKIP did not exist and there was nobody suitable then i'd simply spoil my ballot or not vote. If you vote for one of the establishment parties, you only prolong their lifespan.

But yes, Gary Johnson for 2012 would probably be my pick - he's actually offering something different and a return to basic constitutional principles.


Also while I present the lesser evils to other people, I support a lot of what Obama has done. The auto bailout was brilliant, the stimulus was right-minded but poorly done, the sequester actually wasn't a bad idea, his record on social issues is pretty good. You're right, it shouldn't be looked at as "who is less bad" but instead as "I'm never going to completely agree with someone. Who do I trust to lead the country and who do I agree with most?"

If you really think the bailout of General Motors and the stimulus (printing money) was a good thing then i'm at a loss of what to say. You said how the debt was a problem earlier, and yet now you've just turned and said to me that you support measures such as bailouts which increase the debt and create monopolies in the market. Printing money and state spending does not ever create economic growth.


Such as?

Both agree on a strong federal government and do not adhere to the notion of states rights, as seen in their retention of the Federal Departments of Education, Healthcare and others. Both of them support the continuation of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of them support Guantamano Bay, just one of them says he doesn't in order to earn votes. Both of them have continued to push anti-freedom measures as the Patriot Act under Bush (retained by Obama) and the NDAA under Obama. Both of them believe in a fiat monetary system where the Federal Reserve debases the US Dollar to finance ridiculous state spending. Both of them support meddling in the likes of Libya asnd Syria which the US has effectively declared war on. Both of them support government involvement in healthcare and education when a) its a state issue & b) creates monopolies which enrich corporate medical companies. Both of them support the array of US bases around the world. Both of them support the slide towards war with Iran. Both of them support sending arms and cash to US-friendly regimes whilst pretending to be the defender of democracy around the world. Both of them are eager supporters of drone bombings in the likes of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia.

I mean there's probably a whole lot more, but thats just off the top of my head.


I don't know - Obama has been cautious on some issues (housing etc) but aggressive on others (Chrysler, banks, even on making social cuts to right the ship). I do know that if Republicans win the Senate, Romney isn't likely to move to the left and the right wing of the Republican party worries me greatly.

What cuts? even the Paul Ryan budget (ooohh big scary fiscal conservative say the media) doesn't make any dent into US debt as it doesn't make any actual cuts, just as Obama hasn't made any.


I also don't think its wrong that the debt ceiling is rising. A recession while fighting two wars (now one) is not the time for fiscal belt-tightening.

Then you face a Greek style crisis and bankruptcy on a scale that the British Empire faced at the end of World War II - you too will no doubt believe that your place at the top of world affairs and economics will not come to an end, but then we did only a few decades ago. Even at the level of $16tn, I think its passing the point of no return - the United States faces defaulting and an eventual Dollar crisis.

If it takes a total economic and monetary collapse to wake people up though, then a total collapse is what will happen.


That's because the way our countries work, its extremely rare for a party to completely lose power and "radical change" to occur. While this can be frustrating (especially when the party you think is "right" takes charge) it's important to a stable nation. I took a couple of classes on South American governments and one of the biggest problems they faced was every leader came on and tried to undo the work of the former leader and remake the country in his own image. For this reason, it was very difficult for those nations to make progress. The fact that it is difficult and change is incremental (but not entirely absent - an important distinction to make) is actually an advantage. It's how the system (at least the US system) was designed to work. The US Senate was specifically designed to stall legislation and provide a bit of a stumbling block that the minority could use to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

It is only so often that you have a leader who actually makes sweeping changes for the good by breaking the stale political consensus, we've only had one since 1945 and that was Margaret Thatcher. There is nothing to be afraid of, i'm more afraid of the people in office now who think starting multiple wars, printing the currency into worthlessness and who have racked up a $16tn debt are the ones to be scared of.

[jam666]

The election will be decided on your personal opinion of Obama, Romney has little to play in the grand equation. Are you better off now than four years ago?. The answer to that for most Americans will be No.

The situation is similar both sides of the Atlantic, you cant stimulate growth by spending alone and you cant stimulate growth by cuts alone. The problem is the government is saying they are making "cuts" but the big lie of the decade is that THERE ARE NO CUTS!, Public spending will CONTINUE to INCREASE until 2016/2017 (On the current Osborne plan) which will no doubt change and therefore result in the UK not paying back one single penny of debt to any of its creditors until /beyond then. The most simple analogy to this is at the moment they are simply not spending as much on the credit card, but they are still spending on it, and there in lies the problem.

CUTS are needed so that we run a surplus, which on its own will not be enough to stimulate economic growth. This is why TAX needs to be absolutely decimated as the lower your taxes, the more the treasury takes in.

Back on the subject of the US, Obama has not passed a budget during his entire term in office. that is a FAILURE of leadership. I hear you cry the congress is holding everything up, well you are quite simply WRONG. The real problem lies in Harry Reid's senate where he is like a rolling road-block.

My personal view of the tax situation is an across the board flat tax. Is it radical? yep, but it would simplify the tax system. Oh and one final point is the BoE (Bank of England), as far as I'm concerned Mervin King should be tried for treason. The pound has devalued far too much and printing money should of never occurred and never occur anywhere in the near future. Savings have been crippled and the exchange rate has quite simply collapsed.

[Grig]

Neither, the idea that Romney and Ryan will be good for business is as much a joke as Obama would be good for business - are either side going to do what they say and lower taxes and deregulate to get the economy moving? no, they'll continue to add on federal regulations, federal taxes, continue the bailouts and continue the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air. They'll also both continue to threaten Iran, continue to plough billions into US-friendly regimes whilst ploughing billions into toppling anti-US regimes, continue programmes such as the NDAA and the Patriot Act, continue the TSA and terrorist fear campaigns, continue supplying weapons to dodgy rebel groups like they did in the 1980s with Al Qaeda and continue spending increases on the military and social security.

The argument is the same one we had back in 2010 in the United Kingdom - we've replaced Labour with the Conservatives and what has changed? absolutely nothing. Indeed, the one thing that was supposed to change (people had the illusion that the Conservatives, who supported Labours spending plans until two years before the election, would at least be fiscally sane) was state spending - yet it's at exactly the same levels as it was two years ago .. and still rising just as it would have done under Labour.

I heard Gerald Celente describe this as the Presidential Reality Show, and it is .. "my guy isn't as bad as your guy" ..so why do we even play along with it and back one sociopath over the other?

But sadly it is a bi-partisan system in this country. You won't get other people in with a real fighting chance. Sure, you can vote Gary Johnson, this cycle's Libertarian candidate, whose ideals are similar to Pauls, yet he's got no shot. It's all too similair and this rhetoric sometimes sounds good to the ears, but it's just rhetoric. Obama is the biggest donkey in terms of his blabbing. No results though.






The honest truth is that the situation is better than it was four years ago. Sure it's not good enough, but it is better, and there are quite a few successful economic policies. This provides a good overview: http://www.economist.com/node/21561909. I think at times the writer was too lenient, especially on the housing market, but it does showcase the successes of the administration which are quite often overlooked in the diatribes as its nearly impossible to convey nuance in a political campaign.



I don't know - Obama has been cautious on some issues (housing etc) but aggressive on others (Chrysler, banks, even on making social cuts to right the ship). I do know that if Republicans win the Senate, Romney isn't likely to move to the left and the right wing of the Republican party worries me greatly.

I also don't think its wrong that the debt ceiling is rising. A recession while fighting two wars (now one) is not the time for fiscal belt-tightening.



That's because the way our countries work, its extremely rare for a party to completely lose power and "radical change" to occur. While this can be frustrating (especially when the party you think is "right" takes charge) it's important to a stable nation. I took a couple of classes on South American governments and one of the biggest problems they faced was every leader came on and tried to undo the work of the former leader and remake the country in his own image. For this reason, it was very difficult for those nations to make progress. The fact that it is difficult and change is incremental (but not entirely absent - an important distinction to make) is actually an advantage. It's how the system (at least the US system) was designed to work. The US Senate was specifically designed to stall legislation and provide a bit of a stumbling block that the minority could use to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

The debt ceiling is rising, how can you not think that when we got solid stats that the US has now gone into 16 trillion dollars in debt. The even more worrying thing is how much the country owes to China of all places. They can brand China what they like, yet they know the amount the country owns them.

As for the question of being better off. Sure some things sounds more rosy such as a rebound in property prices. But when looking at the general picture in terms of livelihood issues and the state of the economy- it's still bleak.

Don't get me wrong, Obama has had some policy successes such as on the foreign front, where he was maneuvering well with not stepping into conflict with Iran and that of Al-Queda. This is great and I like the fact that he is avoiding starting a war in Iran, as another war (which is a possibility with the Republicans) will mean even more debt and that will surely get the economy to tank.

However, foreign policy is far from issue number one in this election cycle. People are focusing on jobs and the economy. Obama will defy history if he manages to get re-elected with unemployment this high. But with not much of a better alternative, it is very possible.

Personally, if I was a US citizen, I would be very disappointed with both choices in front of me.

[JerseySafety]

Wow, shame really. Can't fully blame Obama though I guess, won't borrow money - although it's a lot of money they need.