This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Democrats To Seek Stunning $1.9 Trillion Increase In Debt Ceiling To $14.3 Trillion

Tyler Durden's picture





 

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.

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

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:39 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

 

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:02 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

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?

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:19 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

+11

Their Dec 25 plot failed.  What happens when you hire a dupe patsy.  They continue onward as planned.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:15 | Link to Comment Don Smith
Don Smith's picture

<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...

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:24 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Who says they do not like to kill Americans? 

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 02:40 | Link to Comment Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

love ya Don right on keep the mind clear

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 02:48 | Link to Comment Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

love ya Don right on keep the mind clear

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 05:20 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:05 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:32 | Link to Comment Let them all fail
Let them all fail's picture

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!!

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:30 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:37 | Link to Comment Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 03:16 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 14:33 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

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?

  1. Government should be protecting my rights, not trampling on them.
  2. Government should be protecting my property, not stealing from me.
  3. Government intervention is a last resort, not a first choice.
  4. War is a last resort, not a first choice.

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:44 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:04 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

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.

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 00:59 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

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.

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 07:03 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

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

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 11:41 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 12:48 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

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.

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 13:11 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

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.

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 00:04 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 01/22/2010 - 01:07 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

 

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 15:16 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

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!"

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 08:52 | Link to Comment Daedal
Daedal's picture

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.

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 11:52 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:20 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 21:26 | Link to Comment Daedal
Daedal's picture

Okay folks... though eloquent in your commentary, name me one Libertarian who could be elected today, based on the principles you hold so dear.

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.

 

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 01:31 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

Fri, 01/22/2010 - 15:13 | Link to Comment Daedal
Daedal's picture

Where are the Libertarians?

I think you answered that question with:

 "Still, you see a Socialist now and again grab a seat in Vermont or Wisconsin, for example."

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:09 | Link to Comment Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Vote: None Of The Above

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 02:53 | Link to Comment Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 04:04 | Link to Comment Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

and then everyone gets a pony?

 

The names will change, but the game will still be the game

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:40 | Link to Comment Tahoe
Tahoe's picture

Crank uo QE201000000000 ..... simply amazing.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:40 | Link to Comment Tahoe
Tahoe's picture

Crank up QE201000000000 ..... simply amazing.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:43 | Link to Comment Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

Well, if yesterday did not seal the Democrats' fate ahead of the mid-term election, this proposal, if passed, certainly should.

One certain can hope, but we've seen where hope gets us.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:45 | Link to Comment Cheeky Bastard
Cheeky Bastard's picture

Fucking A; another win for this administration .... Goddammit, the USA will burn through its "money" more quickly than Mike Tyson ...

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:49 | Link to Comment Steak
Steak's picture

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"

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:03 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

if they were only as intelligent as Tyson

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:13 | Link to Comment callistenes
callistenes's picture

We've missed ya Cheeky.

Glad you back for the endgame.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:49 | Link to Comment Rainman
Rainman's picture

This is like the used car selling for $ 9,999 .

They have no balls. Make it an even $ 2 trillion .

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:59 | Link to Comment drbill
drbill's picture

Agreed, why did they pick a number like 1.9? Maybe they just wanted to keep it under 2?

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:09 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:14 | Link to Comment drbill
drbill's picture

That's Dr. Bill... ;-)

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:26 | Link to Comment David449420
David449420's picture

Mr Hand supports you, DR Bill.  Come right this way.

 

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:55 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! ;)

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:22 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

+11

I wonder can they get the cieling to $3.3 trill by the next election?  haha.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:11 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

To infinity and beyond!!!!!!!

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:10 | Link to Comment Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Lightyears of Buzz

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:53 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

I think they should shoot for 3.5 trillion. The loch ness monster is going to need about tree fiddy next year.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:06 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"when we need that extra push over the cliff....we turn it up to eleven 

     -  Nigel Tuffnel

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:13 | Link to Comment Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

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?"

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:57 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

Thank you Fish and Davey... that's exactly the response I was looking for! LOL!

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 02:06 | Link to Comment Stink_Pickle
Stink_Pickle's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:14 | Link to Comment Landrew
Landrew's picture

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?

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:28 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:49 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:50 | Link to Comment economessed
economessed's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:36 | Link to Comment strike for retu...
strike for return to reality's picture

It is only an intergenerational theft if it is going to be repaid.  It won't be.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:11 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:00 | Link to Comment madRazor
madRazor's picture

Wow, a phone call AND an email?!?

That'll show 'em.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 04:08 | Link to Comment Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

but its with lots of capitalization and !!!!!'s

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:50 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:01 | Link to Comment economessed
economessed's picture

Why can't anyone see that Democrats and Republicans are complete opposites?

 

They are two turds in the same bowl.  It's time to wipe and flush.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:07 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:12 | Link to Comment Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

Classic!

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:28 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:29 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:33 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

you understand exponential growth, don't you?

The debt is merely doubling every 8-9 years on average.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:25 | Link to Comment George the baby...
George the baby crusher's picture

Right on Trav7777, exponential, that's the mathematical term for we're all really f....cked.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:52 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

Paging Mr. Minsky.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:18 | Link to Comment Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

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

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:56 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

Grand Theft Nation 1

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:57 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

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!

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:46 | Link to Comment Mr Shush
Mr Shush's picture

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?

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:12 | Link to Comment Bear_Cub
Bear_Cub's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:57 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:20 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:55 | Link to Comment iRidiculous
iRidiculous's picture

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...

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:21 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

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

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:41 | Link to Comment andy55
andy55's picture

D The Fed uses shadow channels to buy US debt and rates stay low

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:15 | Link to Comment Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Id have to agree with this one.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 04:12 | Link to Comment Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:36 | Link to Comment andy55
andy55's picture

dupe

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 06:11 | Link to Comment Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Why a republican landslide?  After all, the position of the republican party is that deficits don't matter.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 17:59 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:01 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:03 | Link to Comment john_connor
john_connor's picture

Debt increasing and Cash flows decreasing.

Epic fail to commence shortly. 

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:03 | Link to Comment carbonmutant
carbonmutant's picture

I'm stunned.

That's better than a baggie of green shoots.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:03 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:15 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:22 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:46 | Link to Comment economessed
economessed's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:48 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:03 | Link to Comment madRazor
madRazor's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:03 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:04 | Link to Comment A Man without Q...
A Man without Qualities's picture

They are just taking advantage of the cheap borrowing costs....  

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:05 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:06 | Link to Comment Gold_Buggery
Gold_Buggery's picture

I vote for the other party ... no, the other party. Oh, they're the same?

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:35 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:54 | Link to Comment Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

+100.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 12:06 | Link to Comment viahj
viahj's picture

John Jackson or Jack Johnson, hmmm? 

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:08 | Link to Comment waterdog
waterdog's picture

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.

 

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:31 | Link to Comment Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:01 | Link to Comment Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:04 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:11 | Link to Comment snakeboat
snakeboat's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:42 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:44 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:08 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:12 | Link to Comment doggis
doggis's picture

oh those 'silly' democrats and their 'back of the napkin' numbers! i am dialing kashkari now to teach them how its really done....

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:21 | Link to Comment Gold_Buggery
Gold_Buggery's picture

you mean Cashcowi, right?

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:12 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:15 | Link to Comment 10044
10044's picture

I mean seriously, why do they call it ceiling? Jokes aside really... Ceiling is ceiling for a reason, FCKING MORONS

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:36 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Maybe we could call it the "Debt Stratosphere"?  Thought at current rates it really should be more like the Debt Exosphere...

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:58 | Link to Comment DiverCity
DiverCity's picture

Good one!

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:40 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:36 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

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.)

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:31 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:12 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

The Willy Wonka ceiling. Now have some chocolate while we stretch you.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:10 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

I'll be watching the Federal Register to see if the IRS has any pronouncements regarding a "juicer."

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:19 | Link to Comment SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

I think of it more as a retractable roof.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 22:33 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:17 | Link to Comment Mongo
Mongo's picture

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!

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:25 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:21 | Link to Comment primus
primus's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:23 | Link to Comment jblack010
jblack010's picture

This should not be a problem to market...just combine with a good dose of deflation, stir and watch it grow

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:24 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:37 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 03:29 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:31 | Link to Comment chet
chet's picture

$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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:39 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

That's what Wall Street execs stuff down their pants for a quick trip to the Caymans.

Not a pretty picture.  Now I'm going to refuse any FRN over $1000 that hasn't been sanitized in my presence.

All the human political parties will get so corrupt and incompetent that electing chimps will actually become the best of the bad choices.

Why are you using the future tense?  Are you the man from 1962 coming to warn us of the future?

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:39 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:25 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

$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.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 00:22 | Link to Comment Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

I like the way the Europeans discuss these numbers. 1,900 billion in additional debt capacity.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 08:11 | Link to Comment THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

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

 

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:32 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:34 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:34 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:36 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:50 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

It is about to get ugly.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:52 | Link to Comment Instant Karma
Instant Karma's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:52 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:26 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Piano wire is more fun and you don't have to boil it first.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 20:19 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

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.

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:56 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:57 | Link to Comment Hustler Elite
Hustler Elite's picture

Question now becomes, how many times can they raise the ceiling before the roof finally collapses?

Wed, 01/20/2010 - 19:03 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

It's time to start planting the banana trees.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!