US Debt And The Presidents Responsible

Tyler Durden's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 22:29 | 1297351 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

also Medicare expansion and NCLB.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 22:46 | 1297394 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

All of his friends?

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 23:54 | 1297490 Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

Yes, looting of the USofA is now common place.

As for me, I don't have progeny so I don't give a fuck anymore.

I'm about to relocate to the outskirts of a third or fourth tier metro area and buy a secured piece of property to watch the rest of you tards burn it all to the fucking ground!

I no longer give a fuck about all you mongoloid trash voting for the (D) & (R) Free Crap Empire™, I hope you enjoy the whirlwind.

Piss off and die,

Quixotic_Not  out!

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 00:40 | 1297599 rocker
rocker's picture

+100  My point exactly.  You Rule the Night.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 03:26 | 1297784 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

LMAO! +divide by zero

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 03:01 | 1297771 Keri at Bankste...
Keri at Bankster Report's picture

What I really meant was that it is no coincidence that after JFK was assasinated in 1963---the same JFK who was fighting the Fed and Treasury at least nominally on behalf of maintaining monetary silver---there has been a series of very pro-Fed, pro-spend, pro-paper presidents, and as a result, you can see what has happened.

So, silver was taken out in '64, gold in '71, and copper in '82.  Sort of on-topic and sort of off-topic, I got an email from Gainesville today that they are selling 1-avp oz copper rounds for "only $1.48 over spot!"  Of course, copper is under $4.00 a avp-pound, so its spot price per avp-oz is about $0.25.  But here's Gainesville selling 1 avp-oz copper rounds for $1.73; that's a record-setting 592% premium!  (Uh, yeah---no, thanks.)

http://www.gainesvillecoins.com/products/157766/NewAmericanDrapedBust1AV...(MadeIntheUSA)ThisisonlyastockphotoshippingJune3rd.aspx

I'm all for sequestering copper---but by simply pulling copper pennies out of circulation, you can get a whole pound of copper by collecting just 154 pennies (which only costs $1.54).  And there are tons and tons of copper pennies out there.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 09:32 | 1297975 Triggernometry
Triggernometry's picture

I've been "sequestering" copper pennies since 2006, and have several hundred pounds. In the process I've turned my son into a coin collector who ironically had me order him some copper rounds from gainesville earlier this week.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 14:52 | 1298417 Keri at Bankste...
Keri at Bankster Report's picture

Well, a few Gainesville rounds as a reward for your son's good behaviour I think is fine--just don't buy 7000 of them! :)  But if you've been sequestering since '06, you already know that.  I expect that the practice is on the rise, and I'm all for it.

You might interested in these tables I put together a couple of years ago on the topic of penny arbitrage which will let you gauge the changing value on a per-pound or face-value basis:

http://banksterreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/penny-arbitrage-us-dollar-and...

It is also an easy way to explain (unideal) arbitrage to your son.  How long do you think the Congress keeps the restriction on melting them?  The silver coin melting restriction didn't last very long, did it?  I think all of our coins will be aluminium (currently $1.15/lb) soon, anyway, and then they'll take our aluminium as well.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 22:37 | 1297374 aldousd
aldousd's picture

I know you actually meant 'the [first] derivative.' the second derivative is scratching at straws to extract a meaning from it. i.e. you meant the function that represents the rate of change in slope of a tangent line to the curve at any given point.  You've been taking cues from those bastards on CNBC who say 'second derivative' all the time when they mean 'the derivative' too.  Same with everyone who keeps saying 'that begs the question' when they really mean 'I feel like I'm being begged to ask this question' which is totally not the same thing.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 22:58 | 1297424 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Thank you, you are correct.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 04:56 | 1297829 falak pema
falak pema's picture

well there is administration slant and then there is media slant. Which is the slant on the administration slant. That's a double slant, like a second derivative. As for begging, whether its for a question or for an answer...its always a way of spinning the story where you want to take it.

Media is what media does... as media is the message...if you don't believe that you're out of a job pronto fast in MSM.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 01:40 | 1297705 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

also thank you.  clarity is an increasingly rare virtue.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 13:39 | 1298311 Clampit
Clampit's picture

Put another way, if this is a function of how far the train is from a cliff, the first derivative tells how fast the train is speeding towards the edge, while the second indicates if someone is slamming on the gas or the brakes.

I'm not convinced the "second derivative" was in error.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 09:38 | 1297984 Printfaster
Printfaster's picture

I want to see someone who actually plotted the average maturity of government debt.

That tells you more about what is going on in money printing.  Total debt can be masked by a trend to shortened maturities.

Remember:  zero maturity is money printing.  Longer means that debt is supporting infrastructure development.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:31 | 1298061 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

hey ist, I like a little math dirty talk as much as the next guy but WTF is looking at the first or second or third derivative going to reveal?

It's certainly not something about the future, because that graph could flatline or reverse in a collapse. Why don't you predict what the graph will do if Ron Paul gets elected POTUS?

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 20:02 | 1299148 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

We would probably default on the debt.  It is the only way he could make good on his promises.  I'm fine with that.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 21:12 | 1299269 Guy Fawkes Mulder
Guy Fawkes Mulder's picture

yep.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 21:49 | 1297282 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Q. What's a Republican?

A. 95% of a Democrat.

 

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 00:05 | 1297547 realitybiter
realitybiter's picture

A:  A democrat who is against gay marriage

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 05:14 | 1297832 Id fight Gandhi
Id fight Gandhi's picture

Nobody wants gay marriage.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 09:24 | 1297965 Crisismode
Crisismode's picture

Do you know any gay people?

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:50 | 1298101 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

anyine who thinks about gay as much as him is gay.. closet gay... meth and male escort gay.. but dont blame him.. his manly, fat wife has a bigger dick than he does thusly he is feeling girly all the time..

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:20 | 1298224 rich_wicks
rich_wicks's picture

Nobody wants gay marriage.

While the idiot morons have their clowns fight over gay marriage, flag burning, school prayer, abortion, and other trivial bullshit, the country goes bankrupt.

Kind of puts into perspective what is important.  Hmm, if two men can legally screw one another with the blessing of the government, OR if an economy exists at all and our monetary system exists.  Hmmm.  Golly - which one should be addressed and which one is just a big fat distraction for chucklehead morons?

You idiots that vote based on this crap, should all be hanged as traitors to the nation, because you're the principle reason we have this joke two-party system.  If gay marriage was even an issue, Bush was in power for 8 years with 6 years of a Republican majority with a Republican judicial branch - there could have been an amendment passed at any time for that - if anybody actually gave a crap.  It's just a non issue to get you morons to vote for one of the factions of our one-party system.  Different rhetoric, same actions.

Guantanamo is still open, Patriot is still law, president still going to war skipping congressional approval, Iran and Afgahnistan still on, paid mercenaries still are being paid by our government, still threatening Iran, warrantless wiretapping hasn't stopped.

Hope and change - well the only people that had any hope were the ones that never bothered to check the voting record of Obama, when he was a junior senator.  Can't wait until the US dollar collapses so I never have to hear about bullshit issues again.  All you idiots will be spending all your time trying to find food, and won't have time to decide if we should have skool prayer or not - finally you won't give a crap either.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 13:40 | 1298316 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

Bravo!!

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 22:15 | 1297325 Pepe
Pepe's picture

yup, equal parts in the same plot. Time to drop the old paradigm conservative/liberal/republican/democrat/socialist/fascist. It all amounts to powerful seeking and getting more power vs powerless loosing more power mostly unconscious and unaware of reality and entertained with useless rhetoric. Time to wake up

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 22:41 | 1297377 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Yup. Those who claimed to be 'conservative' actually accelerated the end-point by being the most radical spenders with the most radical monetary policies. 

Both parties are nothing more than trading cards to make the public believe that there is really free choice. Like having Coke and Pepsi competing for consumers with a rule that you can't drink anything else. 

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 01:13 | 1297669 PD Quig
PD Quig's picture

"Presented without thought."

Let's see: does it matter which party was in charge of Congress when a president was increasing the debt? Clearly not to pea-brained simpletons.

But on the other hand, do any of the fuckheads elected to either the legislative or executive branch give a shit about the fools that pay the bills?

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:11 | 1298030 LauraB
LauraB's picture

Exactly -- CONgress is responsible for originating and passing the spending bills.  How about a chart showing US Debt and the party-affiliations of the CONgresses responsible (especially the House since that is where spending bills are supposed to originate).  The Democrats like to blame Bush for the bailouts, but if you go back and look at the actual votes, you will see that it was mostly Democrats with the help of a few Republicans that passed it.  And, Democrats controlled both houses of CONgress and the presidency during this latest bout of spending lunacy.

Not that it matters much because both parties are ultimately responsible.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 13:08 | 1298280 I am more equal...
I am more equal than others's picture

While the presidents are equally culpable the task of creating the budget falls at the feet of Congress.  A useless lot that adopted baseline budgeting.  I'd like to see the real books using GAP.  The horrors are hidden in the details.  If congress had errors and omission insurance it would be time to make a big fricking claim.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 14:27 | 1298375 Tail Dogging The Wag
Tail Dogging The Wag's picture

It seems there is no difference... these politicians are merely marionettes with whips and guns and they've enslaved the whole world.

In times of change you need new alternatives and new ideas.

Land in Panama is one of the most undervalued assets in 2011.

PROTECT YOUR CAPITAL. INVEST. SAVE. OWN. LAND.

http://www.thorssoncapital.com/land-portfolio.html

In the event of a sale of land from any of the Thorsson Capital properties to any Zero Hedge reader, the vendor (Thorsson Capital) hereby pledges a donation of 1% of the total sale to Zero Hedge, said donation is to be made within 30 working days of settlement.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:05 | 1297047 The Disappointed
The Disappointed's picture

Looks like a bubble to me.

My only question is: Can you eat it?

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:28 | 1297107 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

debt only costs $5 to dig out of the ground

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:55 | 1297179 Keri at Bankste...
Keri at Bankster Report's picture

"and the stuff is literally everywhere!"

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 01:30 | 1297698 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

"grows on trees!"

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 13:21 | 1298296 akak
akak's picture

"Brawk!"

"Trollie wants a cracker, Trollie wants a cracker!"

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 13:45 | 1298320 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

i hear.. that the comex has sooooooooooooooo much that they are having some kind of fire sale!!!

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 22:04 | 1297311 Re-Discovery
Re-Discovery's picture

No commentary necessary, TD.  No comentary necessary.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:04 | 1297052 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The last veto pen factory shut down in the 60's ;-)

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:11 | 1297064 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

The point is important: Congress spends money, not the president.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:18 | 1297075 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Not true, Congress makes the money available, the president puts it to use.  The republican presidents seem to consistanly spend more than is available.  The last true conservative was Eisenhauer, but we all knew that.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:23 | 1297094 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Where does Congress get the money?...not lately, every one knows we're flat ass broke...but theoretically, where is Congress supposed to get the money?

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:32 | 1297117 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

It's been debt expansion since Reagan.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:45 | 1297150 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The president cannot levy a tax...that takes Congress to pass a law...Congress passes laws & budgets on to the president to sign off on or to veto.

Period. End of story.

If the government had more veto and less law (including spiraling upward budgets based on base line budgeting) the government would be in better shape than it is.

You will note, I said its the governments problem, not mine.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 20:49 | 1297159 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Or- if they were forced to levy taxes to pay as they go...

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 21:04 | 1297195 nmewn
nmewn's picture

What are you talking about now?...you've gone from Congress "manufacturing" money to give to the president to spend on what he wants (apparently they don't need to tax anyone or anything)...to the pay go?

What party championed pay go and what did they actually do when they had a majority in the senate, house & executive branch of government?

And on this force business...what or who will be doing the forcing?

Is that anything like a debt ceiling law without the dentures in?

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 21:27 | 1297244 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I think we agree that the government spends too much, I think we agree that the budget should be balanced.  I think we also agree that both parties cannot be trusted.

Fri, 05/20/2011 - 21:48 | 1297281 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I agree with all of that.

But how it is balanced & who to trust to balance it, is the debate.

I've pretty much withdrawn from it all for now...if it collapses in my lifetime fine, if it doesn't I've prepared my children for it...as any father should.

The simple fact remains...you could seize all the earnings over 300k and run the country for six months...that's how large the debt it is. You could gut the 600-700 billion for defense and not even get close.

"Entitlements" (the word itself turns my stomach) will have to be dealt with or there is no chance...this "thing" has been built over decades and no one anywhere on the globe can afford this...only the existence of the "black hole" of the central banks makes it possible for war & welfare...you will have to decide for yourself...I already have.

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 05:10 | 1297831 falak pema
falak pema's picture

why does "entitlements" turn your stomach?

Is a man's pay check earning, that is used to create a future nest egg for retirement pension or for health care. Is that not a valid reason for that person to receive something in return down the road? He's contributed to it from his earned salary. Its not money made out of thin air...like government spending on 'prestige', sabre ratting wars...what's your problem with that???

Its part of the social contract. If there were no social contract we'd be back to the age of forced labour, feudal or slavery style...Don't want to go there...right??

Sat, 05/21/2011 - 08:16 | 1297915 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

OK, I'll say it, it needs saying:

Is a man's pay check earning, that is used to create a future nest egg for retirement pension or for health care.

Except that it wasn't really insurance or an annuity or a nest egg, it was a tax.  The tax money has been spent.  The "Greatest Generation" fell for the "Trust Fund" canard like a sack of potatoes.  They saw it instituted, they saw it expanded, they believed in it, they failed to adequately oversee it.  The failure is theirs.  They trusted the government and the government stole their money.  It was a Ponzi scheme with guns behind it.  Now they want to steal from me to make up for their error, socializing their losses.

Nope.

Its part of the social contract. If there were no social contract we'd be back to the age of forced labour, feudal or slavery style...Don't want to go there...right??

This conflation is so wide you could drive a truck through it.  Obviously it could be used to justify anything.  Fail.

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