Democrats To Seek Stunning $1.9 Trillion Increase In Debt Ceiling To $14.3 Trillion
From Dow Jones:
Senate Democrats are to seek an increase to the federal government's borrowing limit by $1.9 trillion lifting the total amount the U.S. government can owe to $14.294 trillion, several congressional aides said Wednesday.
The increase is forecast to support the federal government's borrowing needs the end of 2010, one Senate Democratic aide said.
The borrowing hike comes fast on the heels of a $290 billion increase to the debt ceiling agreed to by lawmakers at the end of 2009.
Update: Reader Steak points out the following piece of debt ceiling management insight from Politico:
President Barack Obama is expected to appoint a special deficit reduction commission as part of a tentative agreement between Democrats and the White House—each trying to find the votes to raise the federal debt ceiling in the coming weeks.
With the Massachusetts loss facing them, Senate leaders appeared to back-pedal Tuesday from a pre-Christmas agreement that anticipated a rapid-fire set of roll calls beginning Wednesday on a debt ceiling bill and accompanying amendments. Instead, Democrats signaled that key votes could be postponed until next week, as the administration tries to get a final sign-off from two of the major players, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D—Cal) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D—N.D.)Obama’s problem is that one person’s process can be another’s poison. In this case, Conrad’s scheme usurps the power of the two top Democrats in Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and even more, Pelosi.
The challenge for the White House has been to find an alternative path that offends fewer people but still holds some promise of forcing action in the future.
The lunacy continues
(9 votes)
»
-
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:39
#199828
That's pretty close to 100% of GDP.
I'm surprised they disclosed it, considering it's probably not an "accurate representation".
LOL. I just had to laugh at that.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:02
#199883
It's unreal. They didn't wait for a terrorist attack - it is a terror attack!
They figured the proles were going to pick a fight months ago - so either they are trying provoke a response from the USA corpse...or are they hoping sovereign creditors don't call their bluff?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:19
#199920
+11
Their Dec 25 plot failed. What happens when you hire a dupe patsy. They continue onward as planned.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:15
#199995
<foil> Who says it failed? Seems like a great success - terror attack foiled in mid-attempt, real enough to scare people, but didn't have to kill any Americans... </foil>
I'm not a truther, nor do I think "we're" behind these attacks, but if we were, this would seem to be a great way to do it. Gets another country in the Axis (Yemen), renews the threat, gives the TSA something else to hassle us about, allows the corporations who make body scanning equipment a shot at a juicy federal contract (did they give to Obama?), and otherwise allows the drums of war (not War, but war, since War requires a Congressional Declaration, and we can't have one of THOSE) to keep beating...
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:24
#200007
Who says they do not like to kill Americans?
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:40
#200434
love ya Don right on keep the mind clear
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:48
#200435
love ya Don right on keep the mind clear
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 04:20
#200473
the recent airplane bomber attempt to me, was a staged event by this crooked administration to do exactly what Don describes. I mean, if he went into the lavatory to put the bomb together why no blow it up in the lav, instead of walking back to your seat to do it? A hole in an airplane 10000 feet up, is gonna send the plane down, no matter where you put the hole.
Second, how many terrorists do you know just spill their guts outright when they are captured? I mean within hours they claim this guy is from Yemen working for Al-Qaida blah blah blah. Yea right.
Third, keep the people in fear!! This was the Bush admin policy for years to dupe people behind their backs while they are terrified. It has to stop.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:05
#200132
This reminds me of the video game Daggerfall. It has an enchanment system in it and fur thongs. So I made an enchanted thong of stinking cloud and called it Dirty Underwear.
My guess is the little insignificant people keep fucking up thier plan to create a monster unbeatable foe that requires power out the wazoo to even THINK about fighting it. When all it takes is a few ORDINARY FUCKING PEOPLE paying attention.
Be right back. Gotta go visit yahoo muslim chat and act civilly so that in case I ever get pissed off and kill people they can say I met with powerful muslim clerics all the time.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:32
#199941
Laugh? Maybe at the stupidity of our democratic representatives who I vote for (I still simply because the other options are even worse), but puking is more the reaction that I found myself contemplating as I read this post. Is our government fucking insane? Oh, right....nevermind. Its like a trust fund kid with a no-limit credit card, absolutely reprehensible, it's like they are so out of touch with reality that they think they are immune to taking this country into its downfall.....sick.....
Anyone want to start a new third party with me? Everyone hates the Dems and Republicans, now is the time!!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:30
#200015
There are plenty of third parties, but not enough people to back them. The only reasonable way out seems to be "an anti-corruption party to unify Americans who want a cleaner government..." http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive
I've no affiliation with the site, but he nails this one.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:37
#200398
I think that many third parties are too hardline for people to support them.
I love the Libertarian party, but they take the stance that the government should do pretty much nothing. Of course, the government is necessary for some things and some regulations are necessary. Yet, they do not compromise their positions enough to make them viable in the mainstream.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 02:16
#200449
Perhaps they should.
I think it's a little silly to not compromise their "pure" positions, because doing so undermines their relevancy. It's more than silly... it's idiotic.
Given our political system's flirtation with facism and totalitarianism over the last decade, the Libertarians could provide a very compelling alternative message if they were more moderate and pragmatic on what are essential government functions.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 13:33
#200919
the Libertarians could provide a very compelling alternative message if they were more moderate and pragmatic on what are essential government functions.
So the libertarians could be viable if they compromised their principles?
What are the extreme (as opposed to moderate) and unworkable (as opposed to pragmatic) positions they take wrt what the government should be doing?
Damned extremists! If they weren't so "idiotic" they'd learn to compromise their rights, property, economic freedom, and the lives of their children much more readily.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:44
#201173
Read my post again, SW. Try to comprehend what I'm saying. Where in God's Green Earth did I say ANYTHING about Libertarians compromising their core principles????
The focus here is on "essential goverment functions". Since you are looking for an example, I'll give you one-- unemployment insurance. An extreme position for a Libertarian to take on Unemployment Insurance is that it isn't the role of goverment to provide safety nets to those who are out of work and can't find work. The pragmatic and more moderate response to that is, sure that may well be the case, but social stability and order is maintained when you have programs that have the ability to keep your population clothed and fed during the bad times.
I don't think any candidate-- no matter which party-- would win many votes if they had a campaign slogan of "I'm Mr. XXX and I want to take your unemployment insurance away". A weaker case could be made for a program like Medicare, but I'm overdosed on the subject to even discuss.
Again, I'm not discussing "core principles", but Libertarians need to make clear what government is committed to do for their constituencies. For many, especially those who are dependent on government assistance... it will never be enough.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:04
#201192
Read mine again, and try to comprehend what I'm saying. Unemployment insurance, paid by taxpayers (as is everything) is stealing from me to give money to other people. This IS a core principle. Unmployment insurance makes theft an essential government function. Clearly, you know nothing of libertarians or what they really believe, so maybe you shouldn't deign to tell them what they should or shouldn't do.
The pragmatic and more moderate response to that is, sure that may well be the case, but social stability and order is maintained when you have programs that have the ability to keep your population clothed and fed during the bad times.
That statement advocates libertarians compromising their core principles. Providing a safety net encourages the use of the safety net, and over time actually robs people of their will to be self-sufficient. Why save money for bad times when the government will step in and provide for me if I lose my job? No savings = no capital = borrow from those silly foreigners who actually save against bad times. Voila! You call it "pragmatism", but it is abandonment of a core belief. The fact that you don't know it is a core principle is very revealing.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 23:59
#201897
I know very well what extreme libertarians believe, which makes me that much more confident of their irrelevancy. You really made my point for me. I encourage you to run for office following such core beliefs. That fact that you don't realize how un-electable your party really is, well... is equally revealing.
on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 06:03
#202020
Once the principle is admitted that I have a legally-enforceable duty to my fellow man, not merely a moral obligation, the rest of my liberty is up for grabs, and has in fact been grabbed as is plainly evident. All that remains is a bidding war by others and with each other for control of the things I produce. How so many can tolerate this in America, even advocate it, is completely beyond my comprehension.
By advocating this system you advocate dependency for all. Either we are genuinely free, or we are not. These ideas seem "extreme" to you because they are so different from what you've been taught to believe. If everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. Continue to vote R and see what you get. Continue to vote D and see what you get. Vote for the party of war, or the party of more war. Vote for the party of taxes, or for the party of more taxes. Vote for the party of bailouts, or for the party of bailouts. Unemployment insurance is a bailout, isn't it? I oppose bailouts, period. I advocate personal responsibility; personal responsibility requires thinking long term. Is the government thinking long term? Is business thinking long term? Are the voters? Why or why not?
I know very well what extreme libertarians believe,
So, do you advocate some kind of "genuine liberty-light"? What's your plan?
Since the habit of patterned thinking has already been established in you, even if you do `revolt' it is within the pattern. It is like prisoners revolting in order to have better food, more conveniences - but always within the prison. - J. Krishnamurti
on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 10:41
#202162
Don't get me wrong, I really do admire that you take such a strong stand on your principles. I actually think it's refreshing to hear such thinking, despite our differences in opinion.
The reality is we are living in a system that is far from being "genuinely free". On the other hand, name me one society on this earth that enjoys the genuine freedoms you seek. I'm afraid you may find that search frustratingly futile.
I advocate placing people in power who believe as you do-- but who also recognize that the political structure for what it currently is. The key for your party is getting people elected. If that means working within the political system and making gradual changes-- so be it. If it means getting elected under the Republican party ticket-- so be it. If it means having to accept several years of "genuine liberty light", so be it.
The reality is that over half of the population is dependent on government services in one form or another. You will not win over a majority of the population overnight with an extremist agenda.
In order to break the habit of patterned thinking, sometimes you have to work within the prision while finding other means to get to your objectives. It's like getting prisoners to revolt for better food-- while you're digging an escape route to get everyone out of the prision while the revolt takes place. Sometimes you have to do it day by day, brick by brick. -- The Assetman.
on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 11:48
#202259
A system that is a monopoly on the use of force will always be corrupt; there is no other possibility, given imperfect humans. The great objective, then, is simple: minimize the size of government, limit it to protecting us from force and fraud, and in so doing minimize the impact of corruption in one's life while maximizing personal liberty.
I am already working, trying to get out of the prison constructed for me by others, and in which others, using their "democratic" power, insist I remain. I have read that some prominent libertarians believe that the system cannot be reformed, but must instead collapse of its own weight to demonstrate to all that command economies do not work, and that only then can a Constitutional society be built. Those libertarians are probably correct.
Here in Virginia, and elsewhere, libertarian-thinking "conservatives" have been thrown out of republican gatherings. They, like you, are happy to have us pulling in the direction of greater economic freedom, but they are (perhaps unlike you) unwilling to embrace the things that genuine liberty mean. Genuine liberty means we don't care who marries who (as long as they're consenting adults), what substances you choose to ingest (as long as you're a consenting adult and can be held completely responsibility for your actions while under their influence, and have no legally enforceable claim on anyone else when you're lying in the gutter), etc.
The reality is that over half of the population is dependent on government services in one form or another.
As far as I know this is correct, especially when you add in bloated government bureacracies employing tens of thousands of self-important worker drones in useless make-work jobs at inflated salaries; it is the reason why I believe hyperinflation is inevitable. There is no chance of a political majority emerging that advocates fiscal restraint.
on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 12:11
#202296
If one were to read The Constitution, believe it to need only gradual, reasonable tuning according to the will of the People, but within the strict limits, checks, and balances inherent to the document, then you are a Libertarian.
If you tend to like to justify warmongering and big business as reasons to overstep constitutional limits you would likely call yourself a Republican.
If you tend to like to justify socialism and big business as reasons to overstep constitutional limits you would likely call yourself a Democrat.
With the advent of O, the lines between the two parties have become so blurred that I would have voted for a Democrat if it had been Ron Paul - who cares what ticket he has to run on to get the attention of braindead Americans anyway. At what point do we "reset"?
Assetman, at what point do we realize this parasitic government is killing its host? To imagine change through the Ballot box is delusional.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 23:04
#201827
"make clear what government is committed to do for their constituencies. For many, especially those who are dependent on government assistance... it will never be enough"
Getting out of the way is what would be most helpful. Government looks for opportunities to tax and regulate everything that moves. They have no idea what they are doing and the unintended consequences.
They have trained half of the country to be "dependent" on government assistance. That is how they get votes and get voters to want more government -- which they gladly supply.
on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 00:07
#201901
You make some good points here, and I really don't disagree with you.
But you hit upon the ultimate paradox of libertarianism in modern politics. Because our political system over time has been trained on the dependence for goverment assistance, libertarians have to approach "getting out of the way" with care.
The simple fact of the matter is that an exteme libertarian who tries to convey a "cold turkey" message of taking out goverment's role in everything IS NOT ELECTABLE.
But again, I appreciate the thoughtful insight.
on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 14:16
#202608
Dr. Paul says to his new patient: "My God! I have never seen so much gangrene except for descriptions in ancient medical books! Which doctors have you seen before finally coming to me?"
Patient: "Well, they weren't really doctors. They were my Democrat representatives that promised me all the pain medication I needed and my family would always be fed."
Dr. Paul: "We must amputate immediately to save your life!"
Shocked relative of Patient: "Have you no compassion! How dare you tell her exactly what needs to be done to save her life!"
Dr. Paul: "Well, it won't be easy, but you just might make it."
Patient: "I want my representatives back!"
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 07:52
#200522
Say what now? Libertarian stance is that government does not interfere between market participants and their contractual obligations to each other. This doesn't mean "government does nothing".
Libertarians still maintain that government ought to exist to enforce contractual obligations and protect market participants from each other (punish/imprison you/Madoff if you steal for me, for instance).
Instead, our current government actively manipulates market forces. Arbitrarily favors some participants over others, allows and encourages violations contractual obligations, sets up 'regulations' that cause further distortions and moral hazards with risks being taken on by the general public instead of the party that ought to be the bearer of risk, etc.
Mainstream political theory is so insane (repeatedly stomping the Constitution with each action) that the sanity and adherence to the consitution that is offered by Libertarianism is treated as unrealistically fringe. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 10:52
#200691
+1
The constant equation of Libertarianism with Anarchism has been a pervavise and deliberate misrepresentation, pushed largely by people who couldn't wipe their own ass unless the government provided them with a roll of toilet paper and an instruction manual.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:20
#201124
Okay folks... though eloquent in your commentary, name me one Libertarian who could be elected today, based on the principles you hold so dear.
Conservative/liberal candidates that park their asses behind the DNC/RNC structure compromise their principles on a daily basis. Why? Because the overriding goal is to GET ELECTED. In reality, there are very few "pure" liberals or "pure" conservatives.
I love Ann Rynd just as much as the next Libertarian, but give me a freaking break. If you want to remain irrelevant, go right ahead.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 20:26
#201626
If you want to discuss why Libertarians can't get elected, let's do so. They can't primarily for 2 reasons, though really it's one reason. And that is, our 2 party system is set up to prevent any third party from winning. The obstacles that are levied against third parties just to get on the ballot are obsene and far more stringent than for the 2 parties that dominate.
The second reason is an extention of the first. And that is the misinformation that is perpetuated about Libertarians, lead by the mainstream media, is similar to the original comment about "libertarians being far too radical' mentioned above.
The only reason Ron Paul got as far as he did was b/c he ran under Republican banner. Third parties can't even participate in most of the debates, and when they do, their air time is zilch.
This is also a testament that voters look at labels without even diving into the content of the person's agenda. Real change will come about when a third party is elected, whether that person is elected as a third party or manages to sneak into office under one of the 2 main political jerseys.
on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 00:31
#201915
Fair enough... you make some relevant points about significant advantages of the two party apparatus. And I do agree that national scene makes it almost imposssible for 3rd parties the make much of a dent.
But back the to original question. There are 3rd party candidates that win at the local and state levels, though they are still uphill battles. Still, you see a Socialist now and again grab a seat in Verrmont or Wisconsin, for example.
Where are the Libertarians? Perhaps you answered that with the Ron Paul reference. Anymore likely to infiltrate the Republican Party?
BTW, I consider what Ron Paul has done is the definiton of pragmatic. Other Libertarians who have political aspirations may want to pick this guy's brain for a few hours.
on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 14:13
#202561
I think you answered that question with:
If we look at the overall picture of American politics the person the populace votes for, or against, hinges on one basic contention: "What will I get?"
Socialists simply promise more of what Democrats promise; gifts of material goods and services. The Republican Party is just known for 'tax breaks for rich' and supporting a 'christian base' while equivocating on the same issues Democrats promote; carbon taxes, social welfare programs, etc.
Don't forget, Bush, McCain, and Obama all supported the bailouts, the stimulus packages, and various interventionist policies that promised people "jobs", "health care", "preservation of house values", "economic growth", etc.
While none of that ever works out, people like the idea of someone taking care of them, so they vote on promises of "higher wages" and "better standards of living" even though Government can only achieve the exact opposite.
Libertarians represent a government that will promote an environment where people can help themselves, instead of one that favors certain groups of people over others -- which is what Democrats and Republicans inevitably do.
There are 3 primary reasons why people don't vote Libertarian:
1) Because they refuse to take responsibility for their own life.
2) A large amount of people are guided by game theory, which dictates that since 3rd party has a minimal chance of winning, then vote for the "lesser of 2 evils."
3) They prefer to vote for someone who promises them gifts upon being elected.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:09
#200342
Vote: None Of The Above
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:53
#200437
Take down the Democratic Party. Or, take down the Republican Party. It doesn't matter which one, just take down one or the other. The ensuing power vacuum will allow power for us independents. The remaining party will implode. Then we'll live in peace minus the demagogues.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 03:04
#200459
and then everyone gets a pony?
The names will change, but the game will still be the game
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:40
#199834
Crank uo QE201000000000 ..... simply amazing.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:40
#199835
Crank up QE201000000000 ..... simply amazing.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:43
#199838
One certain can hope, but we've seen where hope gets us.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:45
#199843
Fucking A; another win for this administration .... Goddammit, the USA will burn through its "money" more quickly than Mike Tyson ...
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:49
#199964
Its not a win until it passes. And if the debt ceiling is not raised by the time the President releases his budget things will get pretty hairy.
ps: CB, tell the scantily clad ladies i say "wassup ladies"
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:03
#199980
if they were only as intelligent as Tyson
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:13
#199993
We've missed ya Cheeky.
Glad you back for the endgame.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:49
#199853
This is like the used car selling for $ 9,999 .
They have no balls. Make it an even $ 2 trillion .
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:59
#199873
Agreed, why did they pick a number like 1.9? Maybe they just wanted to keep it under 2?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:09
#199900
Oh... it's even more clever than that, mr. bill.
When you add the almost $300 billion that was added to the celiling at the very last minute in 2009, the total actualy come out to $2.2 trillion.
Which is really not a bad number, given that its a multiple of eleven.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:14
#199914
That's Dr. Bill... ;-)
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:26
#200008
Mr Hand supports you, DR Bill. Come right this way.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:55
#200329
Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! ;)
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:22
#199923
+11
I wonder can they get the cieling to $3.3 trill by the next election? haha.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:11
#200065
To infinity and beyond!!!!!!!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:10
#200345
Lightyears of Buzz
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:53
#200407
I think they should shoot for 3.5 trillion. The loch ness monster is going to need about tree fiddy next year.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:06
#199984
"when we need that extra push over the cliff....we turn it up to eleven
- Nigel Tuffnel
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:13
#200277
In homage to Nigel Tufnel Marshall Amplifiers released a version of the classic JCM 900 amplifier head with controls from 1 to 20. The advertising material featured Christopher Guest as Nigel Tufnel saying "That's nine more, innit?"
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:57
#200331
Thank you Fish and Davey... that's exactly the response I was looking for! LOL!
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:06
#200419
For what it's worth, there is a difference in consumer perception between "higher" prices ending in 00 ($2.0) and "lower" prices (marginally) ending in 99 or 95 ($1.99 or $1.95). In retail, this is played across the board, and there is a definite subconscious perception difference. I'd assume that the douchebag 'representatives' are taking a similar approach.
In the retail business, I've heard other pricing hypotheses as well, including that of Wal-Mart varying ending price points to "prove" that they're providing the lowest price ('roll-back' pricing) for particular products (assuming that consumers will take for granted that since the ending digit is non-conforming to other retailer prices or the set retailer norms that it is the lowest price), though I have never confirmed this.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:14
#199913
It is over 2 TRILLION! They added the .29 in two parts. Maybe they will start a monthly increase in debt ceiling since simple math eludes them?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:28
#200013
2 Trillion? Thats nothing.
Less than one fiftieth of our total obligations.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:49
#199857
deflation or inflation? my, my....what to do, what to do. does that mean PM will go back to 600 /oz? ha ha ha
zimbabwe or weimar here we come....
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:50
#199858
This is the greatest intergenerational theft ever proposed. These guys had better hope effective forms of time travel are never invented, as there are a whole lot of people who won't be born for 10 years that are going to suffer a significantly reduced standard of living, and they are going to be pissed.
I'm pissed now (and have been for years!) Both my Senators are going to get a phone call and an email today, reminding them that we can't tax or borrow our way to prosperity, and I will hold them accountable for trying.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:36
#200024
It is only an intergenerational theft if it is going to be repaid. It won't be.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:11
#200063
...or if our children survive.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:00
#200260
Wow, a phone call AND an email?!?
That'll show 'em.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 03:08
#200460
but its with lots of capitalization and !!!!!'s
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:50
#199859
Yeah, the Repubs would never raise the debt ceiling. Man, Bush really cut those deficits didn't he? And thank the sweet Lord baby Jesus that not one single Republican voted for any of these outrageous bailouts either. Why can't anyone see that Democrats and Republicans are complete opposites?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:01
#199879
They are two turds in the same bowl. It's time to wipe and flush.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:07
#199896
Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154575/?searchterm=Douche+and+Turd
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:12
#199909
Classic!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:28
#199933
The Democrat-Republican dichotomy is a sideshow designed to fool the vast majority of Americans into believing that they are in control of ideology. In reality, Democrats and Republicans are on the same team and are laughing at those who think there is a difference. Get with the program, buddy. You're a tool.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:29
#199934
Look, a**hole, nobody is claiming that GWB and the Republicans were a paragon of virtue in matters financial. The debt ceiling bumped from 5T to 11T during Bush's eight years, for about $750B/year. In one year Obama and the Dems have bumped from $11T to $14T, or $3T/year. That's about 4X the run rate. On a relative scale the Bush years look downright frugal.
We're effin' doomed.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:33
#200096
you understand exponential growth, don't you?
The debt is merely doubling every 8-9 years on average.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:25
#200387
Right on Trav7777, exponential, that's the mathematical term for we're all really f....cked.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:52
#199862
Paging Mr. Minsky.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:18
#200347
I f*^king dealt with that issue through rendition. After all, I say which f*^king laws and models apply to us. I am the only f*^king law you need to concern yourself with.
- Love Rahm
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:56
#199866
Grand Theft Nation 1
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:57
#199868
Oh lord....but am I surprised? No. Tell the world the truth Dems. You want no ceiling. You want it to rain paper. Call the Pacman, he will know what to do...make it rain!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:46
#200186
Hey, be fair to Mr. Jones - he at least made a concerted effort to "withdraw the stimulus", which is more than the central bankers are likely to manage. What's the analogue for sending one of his home boys back to take out the bouncer? Troops on the streets?
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:12
#200378
Tell the world the truth Dems. You want no ceiling. You want it to rain paper
Haven't you heard? Its the latest strategy to stop global warming.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:57
#199869
1.9 trillion, to most americans it is nothing more than a number, one they can't put into context of their everyday life. For the person taking home $100,000, they would need 19 million years to burn through that. They could buy 7.6 years worth of the national auto sales (10Mil/yr). You could fund the US Department of Defense for nearly 4 years, slightly more than 3 years if you count the overseas expenses.
Finally, 1.9 trillion only pays the interest on the national debt for 4.9 years. Can you say Republican Landslide?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:20
#199921
They'll be able to put it in context just fine when a loaf of bread is $249.99 and a tank of gas is $1,365.79.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:55
#199971
Is that correct, $1.9 trillion only pays the interest on the national debt for 4.9 years? How did you figure that one out?
It sounds insane is why I ask...
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:21
#200080
Now that would depend on the rate of interest my friend would it not?
Finance 101: As the creditworthiness of the borrower declines as the expectation of inflation pressures rises the rate of interest the borrower would pay.
A Decreases
B Increases
C Stays the same
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:41
#200309
D The Fed uses shadow channels to buy US debt and rates stay low
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:15
#200382
Id have to agree with this one.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 03:12
#200462
and leases gold to primary dealers, like say JPM, who then sell into the market to keep the gold price from exploding, and this has the added benefit of helping keep the dollar at a higher value than it would otherwise be.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:36
#200310
dupe
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 05:11
#200483
Why a republican landslide? After all, the position of the republican party is that deficits don't matter.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 16:59
#199874
"In other news, after being spanked yesterday, Democrats were heard to say, 'Oh, yes! May I please have another, Daddy?'"
Lather, rinse, repeat.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:01
#199880
where is everett dirkson when you need him?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:02
#199882
quick....raise the ceiling before scotty brown shows up and spoils the frat party....
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:03
#199885
Debt increasing and Cash flows decreasing.
Epic fail to commence shortly.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:03
#199886
I'm stunned.
That's better than a baggie of green shoots.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:03
#199888
"I'm pissed now (and have been for years!) Both my Senators are going to get a phone call and an email today, reminding them that we can't tax or borrow our way to prosperity, and I will hold them accountable for trying"
i'm pissed...i will hold them accountable....grow up what do you think this is and WHO ARE U? you are naive enough to believe this is a democracy and what u say matters??? blaaablaa
thats whats wrong with this country...naive people like u
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:15
#199915
sure they can...you and others are on the hook for the borrowing and their friends(Goldman,jpm, blackrock, et al) prosper...see how that works
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:22
#199926
Sonny, I'm your Senator and I don't care what you think. I've got a couple of investment bankers coming by with some coke in a little while and then tonight...HOOKERS! I don't have time to deal with your phone calls. Run along now. Have some cake.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:46
#199961
How is that cynicism strategy of doing nothing working out for you?
--> I'm not tryint to engage in a flame war here -- we both have too much to lose, but if you feel saying nothing, applying no heat to your elected representatives is an effective way of changing the process, then good for you. I just find that being on a first name basis with staffers in their offices and making them squirm has some marginal effect -- if enough people did that, perhaps we could achieve a true representative democracy.
Cheers.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:48
#199963
It's been long past time to for writing letters and being pissed.
Your next move must follow the good majority of Mass. and vote out any incumBENT. ANY incumBENT! They all must lose their jobs in the next cycle. No matter who they are.
Get rid of them, en masse, and see if that does any good.
It's worth a try to see if that will wake up the public service gene they say they possess and stop being in it solely to make their own deal with the devil.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:03
#200262
If voting worked, don't you think it would've worked by now? How is it any better or worse than writing a letter? At least you can keep a copy of your letter to show your grandkids, unlike this mysterious 'vote' you're talking about.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:03
#199889
I'm guessing they are looking at Massachusetts and saying "hey, we are at rock bottom, and we've got a lot of shovels! So let's get to work!" And seriously saying they will take even greater political pain now in the small hope that voters will have forgotten in November. My prediction: a pitchfork in every mailbox.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:04
#199891
They are just taking advantage of the cheap borrowing costs....
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:05
#199892
Mr. Brown of Ma - YOU can stop this now.
Default and cut NOW.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:06
#199894
I vote for the other party ... no, the other party. Oh, they're the same?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:35
#199945
NO! The Fingerlicans are far superior to the Tastycrats! Or, umm, maybe I have that backwards. But they're different, I swear! One is our savior and the other is the antichrist! I just can't remember which one is which.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:54
#199970
+100.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 11:06
#200704
John Jackson or Jack Johnson, hmmm?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:08
#199899
This will not cover a third of what Geithner needs. He told them back in August he needed 4.6 trillion more to cover the undisclosed bank liabilities and the CRE defaults and the drop in tax revenues. It blew their minds. Look for an additional 1.5 trillion in July.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:31
#199936
Agreed. So who didn't see this coming? And what does this mean? Damn if I know. I just hope there's popcorn during the finale.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:01
#200126
He also asked for a blank check last fall, so that he could by-pass Congress for this funding.
The fact that he tried to push this shows the thinking of this Administration, and how desparate they are. And how very serious he is with this death march. I also believe that they'll try to give him this money the next time the stock market takes a serious hit. It worked for Paulson, and nothing has changed.
The only thing keeping these jokers in line is the bond markets, and when (not if) we have a bond market dislocation, it's game over.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:04
#200340
Geithner got his blank check for the Fraudey Macs back on X-mas eve. That's a big chunk of the requirement.
The blank check is only limited to what the Dems in Congress approve via the debt ceiling. If they wanna lose control of the Senate in November, let them go ahead and raise it.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:10
#199903
the democrats are starting to believe their own lies. they way they probably look at it is, hey, healthcare is going to save us 1.9 trillion over 10 years so the net effect is zero.
one other thing, move along, nothing to see here.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:11
#199906
Do they not understand? Do they not have children nor grandchildren? Native americans made decisions based on their effect upon the 7th generation in the future. These puppets can only decide to not decide now (pay later).
Get ropes. Lots of ropes.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:42
#199956
The Senior committee guys ALL have their bribery fortunes for several generations safely tucked away. The rest can go to hell for all they care.
Their ch. and gd ch. will be just fine. And so will theirs.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:44
#199957
'cept Barney Frank. He doesn't have any ch. or gr. ch. to worry about for obvious reasons.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:08
#200058
You never know those things. Larry Craig has kids and is probably about 98% as gay as Frank. Of course a lot of them obviously don't care about the next generation, whether or not they have kids.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:12
#199908
oh those 'silly' democrats and their 'back of the napkin' numbers! i am dialing kashkari now to teach them how its really done....
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:21
#200150
you mean Cashcowi, right?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:12
#199910
I think this is just a ploy. They will only raise it 900 billion, then they can say how how frugal they are, that they knocked off a trillion.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:15
#199916
I mean seriously, why do they call it ceiling? Jokes aside really... Ceiling is ceiling for a reason, FCKING MORONS
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:36
#199947
Maybe we could call it the "Debt Stratosphere"? Thought at current rates it really should be more like the Debt Exosphere...
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:58
#199977
Good one!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:40
#200027
This is deep space debt Mad Max
100 trillion dollars is about 62,137,000 miles
high. No kidding.....
Average distance from the Earth to the sun is
93 million miles.
I say we raise the debt ceiling to 93 million miles,
just in case we need to start burning money!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:36
#200169
I guess exosphere was right.
Let me know when the debt gets to the asteroid belt. (If it gets to the Kuiper Belt, we're in real trouble.)
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:31
#200230
Saturn may get a new ring when this is over....
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:12
#199990
The Willy Wonka ceiling. Now have some chocolate while we stretch you.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:10
#200059
I'll be watching the Federal Register to see if the IRS has any pronouncements regarding a "juicer."
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:19
#200148
I think of it more as a retractable roof.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:33
#200233
The fed should contach Disney and see how they
engineered the entry way in the Haunted mansion.
Thats what we need, only much faster...
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:17
#199917
Well, as soon as one gets accustomed to the last steps of fraud and manipulation they figure out something new. What is more disturbing is that the world community (what-a-fucking community) doesn't even blink at these headlines. Not that they ever cared. It's all part of the controlled demolition of the financial system. No way this isn't engineered. Stupidity goes to a certain level then pure evil takes over!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:25
#199930
Of course it's engineered.
Illuminati, CFR, NWO, Baby blue helmets and troops coming to a city near you.
The only thing that can stop them now is Greece. Boy, what a major fuck up the Euro turned out to be. Kicking Greece out will set the NWO back 25 years. That's why it can't happen. Watch closely. Today, we are all Greek! Pass the Ouzo.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:21
#199924
Raise the roof!!! Woot-Woot!!!
At least the war on the USD and the realities of compounding interest on debt seems to be going well.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:23
#199928
This should not be a problem to market...just combine with a good dose of deflation, stir and watch it grow
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:24
#199929
Looks like they want to get it thru before Brown takes his seat in the Senate.
That way the Fed can keep the Market up.
Amazing this comes after Brown Election and as the Dollar Ralled and Comodities really sold off today.
The FED really wants to keep this Market in its place. At least where the FED wants it.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:37
#199949
Anyone think they want the Money for an impressive Market Pump ahead of the 2010 Mid Term Elections? After Brown they need everything they get to try and hold their Seats in the Senate.
Is interesting that this Debt Ceiling raise is after Brown won.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 02:29
#200452
It's possible, but we had a +70% pump in this market before Brown took away the Mass seat from the Democrats-- so it really did make a damn's worth of difference.
Makes you wonder if the Dems really are that stupid... you know, by repeating the same mistakes, but expecting a different outcome.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:31
#199937
$1.9 in new debt is enough to cover 2010? Jesus.
I remember in the Fall of 2008 a few hundred billion sounded like an impossibly large sum. Now that's nothing. That's what Wall Street execs stuff down their pants for a quick trip to the Caymans.
We are all fizzucked. Now I understand the Planet of the Apes. All the human political parties will get so corrupt and incompetent that electing chimps will actually become the best of the bad choices.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:39
#199950
Not a pretty picture. Now I'm going to refuse any FRN over $1000 that hasn't been sanitized in my presence.
Why are you using the future tense? Are you the man from 1962 coming to warn us of the future?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:39
#199951
I wouldn't want to sleep with an ape (Donna Shalalalalala, Janet Napolitano, Abby Cohen), I don't care how innocent she is.
I'll take a corrupt K.Heigl, or criminally seedy Doutzen Kroes anyday.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:25
#200086
$1.9 in new debt is enough to cover 2010? Jesus.
Yours is the correct takeaway IMO. They projected a deficit of $1.4 Trillion for 2010, and if they can stay under the $1.9 Trillion number they won't have to do it again before the mid terms. Take one public affairs issue as far off the table as they can get it.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:22
#200351
I like the way the Europeans discuss these numbers. 1,900 billion in additional debt capacity.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 07:11
#200507
Welcome to the Politics of the future.... now if they could only train these guys to string a sentence together
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4Z0xn4pYSY
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:32
#199940
What happens to the inflation/deflation debate if the debt ceiling does not get raised? Wouldn't that be extremely deflationary? I'm not saying its likely, but three weeks ago no one thought a republican would win the senate seat in Mass. I agree Repubs on their own accord would do the same thing, but part of the reason Brown won was people are pissed off about government spending. Congressmen may get spooked and reconsider this if they think it means their job in November.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:34
#199944
It just amazing. These people are completely clueless about everything. Just a bunch of idiots!
I guess, stop paying taxes is only one message that they might be able to take.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:34
#200022
...16th amendment....harumph....ahem.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:36
#199946
Word:
Dick Cheney said Deficits don't matter. I have come be a believer.
These people must know something, there is a huge secret cult out there that I expect Moses handed down from the Mount; maybe it's a third tablet with the real skinny of how to run a whiz bang economy, instead of all those fun things you dare not do on the other two or else wind up in hell.
And it's so damned easy. Really all they have to do is have access to a PayPal account, tap a couple keys tap-tap-tap-tap-tap or hold the zero key down for a count of 10 and viola! it's done. And they can do this faster than you can fart.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:50
#199966
It is about to get ugly.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:52
#199967
Wow. The INCREASE in the national debt by 1.9 trillion dollars is about TWICE the value of all the gold in all the central banks in the world (about 1 trillion dollars, per recent ZH post). Either that's a lot of extra debt, or gold is undervalued, or both.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:52
#199968
Send lawyers, guns and money. The shit has hit the fan.
OK maybe not lawyers... or money. But as previously mentioned, rope... lots of rope.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:26
#200087
Piano wire is more fun and you don't have to boil it first.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:19
#199972
Ok, now that's bs for them to seek that, there is no reason for the gov't to increase the debt limit and hopefully Brown will do his job and block that with the rest of the republicans
Still working on the increase of debt and have $324 bil left to account for but I have to search for NSA (non-seasonally adjusted) commercial bank holdings, SA increase from November to November was $130Bil
Primary dealers had an increase of $41b from November to November.... curious that they went back to outright short right after November.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:56
#199974
Send lawyers, guns and money. The shit has hit the fan.
OK maybe not lawyers... or money. But as previously mentioned, rope... lots of rope.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:57
#199975
Question now becomes, how many times can they raise the ceiling before the roof finally collapses?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:03
#199981
It's time to start planting the banana trees.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:07
#199986
FELLOW ZH READERS...PLEASE, PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY.
"President Barack Obama is expected to appoint a special deficit reduction commission"
Folks:
This is great news! This is fantastic! There is nothing more for you tinfoil, Minsky worshipping assholes to worry about anymore. Our President is going to appoint a "special" commission! Our problems are almost solved, can't you see this??
Happy Days are hear again! Wait til the Sun Shines Nellie!
I am buying the dip first thing in the morning!
This is change that we all can believe in!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:20
#200000
they're not a deficit reduction commission
they're a special deficit reduction commission
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:16
#200072
You have a very keen eye sir! Glad to know that the handi-capable will have an official hand in setting policy.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:27
#200088
I feel special already! It's great to know my government is working on it!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:08
#200341
Are we sure it isn't a special attention deficit reduction commission?
What was I saying, again?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:46
#200036
Yay! Another "czar"! We're saved.
That said, wasn't this supposed to be Biden's job? Or was that just for Spendulus?
We are so totally freaking doomed.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:11
#200066
That said, wasn't this supposed to be Biden's job?
Sorry, Doc, Biden is in charge of the "we have to spend our way out of this recession" department.
He did tell me he would cut the ribbon at my new economy garage sale.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:03
#200129
Yep - 7-layer burrito of awesome, that.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:49
#200044
Dead,
The commission is said to be chaired by Krugman, aka, more spending and higher deficit.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:10
#199988
It's a large number, and it would be better if the recession didn't lead to huge deficits. But what are the alternative to raising the ceiling? A complete shutdown of government? The loss of millions of jobs? Halting all Social Security and Medicare payments (leading to the death of many elderly people, and lost health care jobs)? Dissolving the military? Shutting down of financial regulation? All of these things would happen if the ceiling weren't raised.
Failure to raise the ceiling would cause the complete collapse of the economy, and leave us open to terror attacks. Raising it would lead to increased government costs of an interest rate of 0.5% times 2 trillion = $10 billion, divided by 300 million people = $33 per person. I'm sorry, but $33 is a small price to pay to save millions of jobs, prevent terrorist attacks, save lives, and prevent a massive depression. If you can't cough up the $33, then you're free to move to Greece and see what it's like to have your government default on debt.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:20
#200001
Those are today's reasons we need to run huge deficits.
Yesterday's reason was that no amount was too much to "support the troops" in two wars, while simultaneously expanding Medicare for the poor old folk.
Tomorrow there will be another reason why we simply must run even larger deficits. The year after that there will be a handful of new excuses.
Yes indeed, we "must" run ever larger deficits forever, or some government clerk will lose their job. Heartbreaking indeed.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:20
#200002
And if you don't want your $33, you can send it to me.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:45
#200034
I'd gladly pay you the $33 to prevent the economic collapse. Do you have the power to do so?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:57
#200049
Man, politicians love dupes like you.
"Um, we're sorry Libert, but now we'll need another $50 to save the spotted wood tick. Thanks, Libert! We know you're always there to do your fair share! I said we wouldn't hit you up again for awhile, but this wood tick thing is a real 'crisis'. Must act now and all that. Oh, do you have a $20 for the taxi?"
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:17
#200074
+1
Yes, Obama and Saddam were best buddies, making the boxcutters used on 9/11 in their joint WMD lab.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:27
#200011
Nope, bring on the collapse.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:40
#200029
Denied, now on with the complete collapse.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:49
#200042
Again. If you want the government to default on debt, you can have it: just move to Greece. If you don't, then your desire for economic armageddon seems less than sincere.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:10
#200060
You don't get it. The only path now to improvement is through destruction. We don't want a collapse because we think it'd be fun. It's just that it's the only solution to the charade that has lasted way too long already.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:42
#200318
That's right Faust.
Creative destruction is the only path forward. All other paths are illusion.
A preview of what's to come from WB Yeats -
The gyres! the gyres! Old Rocky Face, look forth;
Things thought too long can be no longer thought,
For beauty dies of beauty, worth of worth,
And ancient lineaments are blotted out.
Irrational streams of blood are staining earth;
Empedocles has thrown all things about;
Hector is dead and there's a light in Troy;
We that look on but laugh in tragic joy.
What matter though numb nightmare ride on top,
And blood and mire the sensitive body stain?
What matter? Heave no sigh, let no tear drop,
A-greater, a more gracious time has gone;
For painted forms or boxes of make-up
In ancient tombs I sighed, but not again;
What matter? Out of cavern comes a voice,
And all it knows is that one word 'Rejoice!'
Conduct and work grow coarse, and coarse the soul,
What matter? Those that Rocky Face holds dear,
Lovers of horses and of women, shall,
From marble of a broken sepulchre,
Or dark betwixt the polecat and the owl,
Or any rich, dark nothing disinter
The workman, noble and saint, and all things run
On that unfashionable gyre again.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:16
#200073
Some of us (a) don't speak greek, and (b) had ancestors in the USA before it was the USA, before the American Revolution, and in fact before the Glorious Revolution (look it up). So maybe we'd rather stay in our homeland and have rationality and government decency restored.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:27
#200352
And to stand for what our ancestors fought and died to provide all of us with.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:55
#200115
With your powerful skills in logic can you anser me this? How in the hell is adding 17% more debt going to prevent a default? Seems to me that if you are paying your credit card bills with credit cards you my friend are fucked.
PS your examples above are totally fallacious
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:39
#200100
you're a fking idiot
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:41
#200360
Trav - Back to the; "you can't bankrupt me because I have needs" lunacy. Just imagine what that poster would think if our currency were not the reserve currency and we had to comply with the IMF standards that we have applied to so many others. Forced reduction of the budget deficit from 12%+ to -3%, international audits of our national books, capital controls and all the rest. We now need GDP growth of nearly 3% just to meet our newly acquired interest payment schedule. One way or another folks will realize that our national future will require years of great hardship of increased taxes and decreased spending and everyone will feel this pain. In this effort I am willing to contribute 50% of my total government pension to retiring national debt IF a senior partner at GS would contribute 50% of their total direct & indirect compensation to the same cause. Any takers?
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 03:20
#200464
+1,900,000,000,000
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:56
#200112
2 trillion divided by 300 million = 6,666.66667
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:07
#200133
Terrorists?!?!
Ahhhhhhh!!!!! How much until I can feel safe again?
Here's $100, $200, hell take it all.
Please protect and think for me. I can't bear to.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:15
#200145
What the FUCK are smoking?!? lol
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:26
#200301
Bullsh*t.
Tax revenues will be approx. $2 trillion this year. To have a balanced budget this year, the feds would need to return to the budget of... 2002 (Expenditures equaled $2 trillion)
You really believe that returning to the budget of 2002 would cause complete economic collapse?
Also, you're an ass and a fearmonger for playing the "it would leave us open to terror attacks" card.
And finally, anyone who uses the phrase "$$$ is a small price to pay to prevent unlikely situation X, X, and X" is an ass.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:03
#200339
Whose yield curve (in a vacuum) are you using to get your .5%? And do you think there is infinite demand for USTreasury paper, so that unbridled (wasted) spending carries no cost?
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:31
#200391
I am sorry but that is the worst excuse ever. Its like a fat person making excuses for themselves of why its too hard to eat right, or exercise, or just do the right thing in general. The only thing you will accomplish by continuing support for a dying system is get dragged in and consumed along with every other idiot that does so as well. This system will only perpetually need more support as time goes on and if you find your self trying to prop it up you will only be crushed when the house of cards comes crashing down.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 11:32
#200735
Dear God, he's channeling Hank Paulson, circa 9/2008! Quick, someone call an exorcist!
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:15
#199991
the majority of this bread will eventually find it's way into the coffers of the usual wall street suspects; the rest will be for VOTE STIMULUS. oh hell, I forgot about funding WWIII; I guess the street may have to take a haircut this time around.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:13
#199992
BRING IT ON!!!
I'm not stockpiling Gold, Silver, 9mm, 7.63x39, water, and canned goods for nothing (I hope). The big Solar Panel will arrive next payday to charge my deep cells for the pure sine inverters.
Only those meddling Republicans could mess up Obama's plans for total social collapse and the ultimate emergence of a self-sufficient population.
I will be SO PISSED if my guns are relegated to a role of "conversation pieces"... DAMN YOU REPUBLICANS if you stop the spending spree... I've got more Silver than I can lift and carry that will be worthless if the govern-mint decides to follow fiscal prudence.
SPEND BITCHES!!!
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:34
#200394
LOL, I feel you. You know they are going to anyway right. Government is all about shifting the blame to some external entity which is why they will never do the responsible thing.
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 03:22
#200465
and if it really gets bad they can always start a war with some new country to shift attention.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:18
#199997
President Barack Obama is expected to appoint a special deficit reduction commission as part of a tentative agreement between Democrats and the White House—each trying to find the votes to raise the federal debt ceiling in the coming weeks.
So we should not be concerned about another vote to raise the federal debt ceiling because we have appointed a special ad-hoc deficit reduction committee?
America should get a frontal lobotomy if they give even tacit approval to this nonsense.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:43
#200031
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:21
#200003
"Failure to raise the ceiling would cause the complete collapse of the economy, and leave us open to terror attacks."
Or so you've been told.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:52
#200045
Do you deny that failure to raise the debt ceiling would lead the results mentioned (i.e. loss of millions of jobs, precipitous drop in health care spending, elimination of national security efforts)?
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:12
#200067
The world would not end, no.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:33
#200232
I deny that raising the debt ceiling would fix any of that, other than by indirectly hastening the collapse so the recovery can happen sooner.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:18
#200075
Screwed if we do, screwed if we don't.
We are the proverbial "grandchildren" who inherit the debt and consequences of the previous generations...
It wasn't "hypothetical". Get ready for complete disconnect from the "average American" sense of reality, and get used to how the rest of the world lives.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:19
#200078
I deny that. They would simply keep spending, disregarding the law. But the emperor would be more naked and it would help to get people to realize what crimes are going on in DC.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:31
#200092
"Failure to raise the ceiling would cause the complete collapse of the economy, and leave us open to terror attacks."
Those damned terrorists sure are handy.
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:03
#200127
Please, almighty TVFedGod, protect me from any and all possible harm.
I know that without you, I would most certainly be instantly killed by some crazy muzlim Aye-Rab.
Bestow upon me thy discordant images at such speed as to render linear rational thought impossible.
Forever and ever.
Amen
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:06
#200266
Amen, brother, amen!
on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 10:42
#200680
+1
on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:27
#200009
Heck, why don't the democrats just pull a Tim Geithner and rescind the debt ceiling altogether? They must recognize that the MA revolution means that their days of congressional control are numbered, so they might as well bring their contempt for voter concerns out into the open and pull out all of the stops.
Couldn't they just come up with some suitable 'cry wolf' sophistry along the lines that "The entire future of the US economy depends on the prompt removal of this antiquated and dangerous constraint on Congress' ability to quickly enact the stimulus programs needed to fend off GD 2.0"? Perhaps they could simply cut and paste some of the language used to justify the repeal of Glass-Steagall.