This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

It's Official: $16,015,769,788,215.80

Tyler Durden's picture




 

A week ago, following the unsettled auction of the just concluded 2 Year bond issue, we calculated that the total US debt just crossed a psychological boundary that it will never cross to the downside ever again. Today, we just got the official confirmation courtesy of all auctions from last week finally settling. Sure enough, as of Friday, the official debt tally is now $16,015,769,788,215.80.

And for those who care about such things, the total debt/GDP is now, assuming the same GDP growth in Q3 as in Q2, at 102%, up from 76.5% when President Obama took office.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:21 | 2761664 kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

YES WE CAN

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:23 | 2761675 t_kAyk
t_kAyk's picture

Upward and onward!!  Up is good, right? 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:33 | 2761730 redpill
redpill's picture

You didn't borrow that.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:35 | 2761743 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I think he meant:

 

Forward!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:44 | 2761778 Stackers
Stackers's picture

And we dont even get a Sweet 16 party :(

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:48 | 2761798 SilverTree
SilverTree's picture

CHUMP CHANGE!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:50 | 2761803 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Debt is meaningless when money is made for free and lent for free - right?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:06 | 2761855 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

And yet the 10 year yield is at a phenomenal 1.58%, which indicates that investors do NOT see the debt as “out of control” or “unsustainable” like doomer libertarians keep saying. And this is after Ben S. Bernanke has explicitly confirmed that there will be no treasury purchases as part of a quantitative easing program, so nerdy libertarians can’t cry about “manipulation” anymore either. If the debt is unsustainable then how come our treasury yields keep falling? Doomer libertarians need to answer this fundamental question, or they risk losing what's left of their credibility.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:11 | 2761875 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

...the 10 year yield is at a phenomenal 1.58%, which indicates that investors do NOT see the debt as “out of control” or “unsustainable” like doomer libertarians keep saying...

~~~

Yeah ~ Instead it means they're within a hairs breath of stuffing it all under the mattress (if they could only find the time between running lil Justin & Kaitlin to soccer practice)...

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 18:16 | 2762093 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The debt was an alleged "mere" 10 trillion when Obama took office, but he "pledged" to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. If it wasn't real, it'd be insanely funny. As is, it's just insane.

 

Video of Speech where Obama PLEDGES he will cut deficit in half in February of 2009 - YouTube

---

President Barack Obama: "I Am Pledging To Cut The Deficit We Inherited By Half By The End of My First Term"

"We can not and will not sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we can not simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.

 

That's why today, I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy - it will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we have long neglected but i refuse to leave our children with a debt they can not repay. And that means taking responsibility right now in this administration, for getting our spending under control."

 

President Barack Obama
February of 2009

 

"We are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

 

Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill)
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 18:35 | 2762212 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Now I'm sure most folks are sick of hearing it, but it remains TRUE: Presidents CANNOT fix the deficit problem.

But just for hoots, it's interesting to consider what the current debt total would be if Obama *had* succeeded in "cutting the deficit in half."

Let's see...2009 was a $3.5T budget with about $2.1T revenue, for a $1.4T deficit.  Divide it up and we'd have seen 4 years of about a 700 billion dollar deficit, add that there and carry the decimal point over...the debt total in early '09 was around $10.8T, add it up...and...

The "contrafactual" debt today in a fantasy-world of "Fiscal Conservative Obama" would be about $13.6T.

So really.  $13.6T vs. $16T?

What's anyone got to complain about? 

Heh.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 19:36 | 2762505 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Nice strawman.

If and had.

If I had hit "lifes public service lottery" I wouldn't have to spend my money going to work tomorrow. It's much easier to spend other peoples money isn't it? Just hop on a plane paid for by the taxpayer and burn up their tax/gas money flying around the country and have them feed me while trying to keep my "public service job" after being caught breaking another campaign pledge.

What's anyone got to complain about?

Heh.

That ones a little closer to reality isn't it? ;-)

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 19:43 | 2762544 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Forward!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 19:54 | 2762597 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The simple bit, which I know bugs you, is that Obama isn't the guy who spent the $5T. 

It was Congress.

What probably bugs you even MORE is that it was a REPUBLICAN Congress.

(PS: I don't think you know what a strawman is.)

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 20:18 | 2762681 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Ummm, his first two years he had a democratic congress...he now has a democratic Senate where Reid blocks everything coming over from a republican House. With those two (collectively called the legislative branch, ie Congress) no one could stop the spending except themselves and him.

I schooled you once on the difference between a presidents budget proposal/request the last time we went down this road, so I guess now you're ready for Civics 102.

CONGRESS is a term used to describe BOTH the House and the Senate...the Legislative branch of government...not just the republican House.

Class dismissed and you might want to do something about that burning strawman of yours...lol.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 20:40 | 2762759 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You SCHOOLED me?  When exactly was this?

I have certainly never said anything to suggest the Democrats were fiscal conservatives--I said it was the Republicans who blew the deficit into the stratosphere.  It happened way back in '03, when they passed the Medicare-D extension right after a huge tax cut.

Have you read any of the articles around here about our spending?  Where's most of the money going?  What has CHANGED in the past few years that's resulted in such high entitlement expenses?

Of any of today's candidates, who voted FOR Medicare D?  Who voted against?

Facts, son.  They're worth looking into.  You may disagree with me about many things, but the factual stuff should be easy enough to check, even for a moron like you.

These are matters of public record.  If you ever bring a *single* verifiable piece of historical information to our little chats, I'll doff my hat.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 21:42 | 2762865 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"You SCHOOLED me? When exactly was this?"

Just now, for one.

I don't see any refutation of what I just said versus what you claimed Congress is. There was and has never been a republican Congress while Obama was president...its pretty well documented...lol...its a lie and I'm not afraid to call you a liar for saying it.

Now, if you want me to go back and research your on-line history where you argued with me that the budget comes from the president I will. As I said then, it is a budget request to spend from the president, not the actual budget, he's not a king, which you have now adopted yourself as a truth...because it is.

So, now, tell me...in your own words, would you like to revise this?...

""It was Congress.

What probably bugs you even MORE is that it was a REPUBLICAN Congress."

Yes or no?

//////////////////////////

Fucking crickets...good night BD, sweet dreams ;-)

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:30 | 2763039 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I can't parse that, I'm sorry.  I'll just say what I know.

  -------

Congress (Senate and House) in '03 passed Medicare-D extension.  Congress (Senate and House) in '01 and '03 passed significant tax-cuts, reducing potential future revenues.

Assorted spending events occurred during the Bush II term that were never part of any budget, and thus were part of the Federal deficit, but not part of any BUDGET DEFICIT during Dubya's administration.

In '06, the last of the Medicare-D programs went into effect.  This caused a small jump in spending at the time which grew VERY rapidly because of the demographics of the Baby-boom generation, which just started "officially" retiring at the same time a major new entitlement came online.

In '09, Obama helped convince Congress to blow $800 billion on some bullshit programs.  He didn't ever try to get them to revoke any of the legislation that was passed 6 years earlier and was ENORMOUSLY POPULAR with the elderly demographic.

One should take Obama to task for every bit of spending he ever tried to justify.  The "stimulus"?  Bullshit.  The bombings in Libya?  Bullshit.  The Solyndra loan?  Bullshit.

One should NOT pretend the President has some duty to prevent our laws from being carried out.  Carrying out the laws of the land is the President's job, even when the laws are total bullshit. Who created those laws?  Congress.

The US President's job is to faithfully execute total bullshit. 

If you fault him for doing the job, what do you really believe the President is supposed to do?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 07:11 | 2763766 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I realize you can't parse that, it would be suicidal ;-)

Now that we're somewhat on the same wave length, if you think I'm going to defend W allowing Congress to spend like a drunken progressive you're wrong. I'm on the record (already, here on ZH) as saying Bush campaigning on Pills for Seniors (Medicare-D) was a BLATANT BRIBE to seniors for their vote.

You will note I highlighted allowing above. Part of our process is, Bills do not become Law until the President signs them. In essence, the peoples last line of defense to insane spending and taxing levels is the President. He can veto any bill thus preventing it from becoming law. This puts the burden back on Congress to over ride his veto.

"One should NOT pretend the President has some duty to prevent our laws from being carried out. Carrying out the laws of the land is the President's job, even when the laws are total bullshit. Who created those laws? Congress."

The presidents job is to enforce the law once he signs off on it. The law is not "created" until he signs off on it. Congress, Executive and Judicial are equal branches of government.

"In '09, Obama helped convince Congress to blow $800 billion on some bullshit programs."

You forgot the $400 billion continuing resolution from the previous year that was blocked from passing out of Congress, that was then crammed through in 2009 because it could no longer be blocked by a veto threat, the one that Rahm famously said, "We just need to move on. Get over it, you lost."

I have not. It may seem like a rounding error now but 400 billion is a lot of scratch.

But I believe we're talking past each other here, as a general rule, I want what is called divided government. I want them at each others throats so they stay away from mine...so to speak.

We may be making some head way here (you and I) so I'll return to this after work, if you want.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 09:08 | 2764078 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    You forgot the $400 billion continuing resolution from the previous year that was blocked from passing out of Congress, that was then crammed through in 2009 because it could no longer be blocked by a veto threat,

If you have a real fact hiding in there somewhere, let's hear it.  What are you referring to?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 19:05 | 2766167 nmewn
nmewn's picture

You suspect me of lying?

Fair enough, I always suspect progs of lying so what the hell...it was 410 billion...not 400 billion...lol. You should know better by now though, I can be proven wrong but I don't lie...and do note, when he took office...410 billion was thought of as "massive".

So in a span of a month and a half upon assuming office he (and the democratic Congress) indebted the federal government to the tune of ONE POINT TWO TRILLION DOLLARS...remember, he had already signed "shovel ready jobs" just the month before...here ya go...

By Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 8:52 AM

President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised to resist.

White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama wouldn't be the first president to sign legislation that he viewed as less than ideal. Asked whether Obama had second thoughts about signing the bill, Gibbs' reply was curt: "No."

"This is necessary to continue funding government," Gibbs said. "It represents last year's business. Although it's not perfect, the president will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better."

It's that process that administration official planned to focus on Wednesday, not a bill signing that might take place in private"

"The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.

The measure was a top priority for Democratic leaders, who praised it for numerous increases denied by Bush. It once enjoyed support from Republicans.

But the bill ran into an unexpected political hailstorm in Congress after Obama's spending-heavy economic stimulus bill and his 2010 budget plan, which forecast a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/president-obama-plans-sign-410-billion-spending-bill-earmarks-article-1.369932?pgno=1#ixzz25dqTGteu

I can pull up the vote totals if you like.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 19:33 | 2766276 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Right, OK, a bill that had been stalled in Congress for months before the election occurred passed after Obama took office.

You're saying that's "Obama's spending"?  Really?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 20:36 | 2766496 nmewn
nmewn's picture

It was stalled because of all the pork in it, Bush said he would veto it...so the porkers just waited and "Hoped". The democrat comtrolled Senate (Reid) and the democrat controlled House (Pelosi) then passed it after the election...knowing he (O'Barry) would not veto it...just give some mealy mouth bullshit about reform and pork barrel spending.

So yes, if Bush can be blamed for signing legislation into law so can your One.

It was all DEMOCRAT then, HOUSE, SENATE AND PRESIDENT...1.2 trillion in less than a month and a half.

What part of this are you not getting or are you just being obtuse?...this is why people want to abort all progressives...you can shove their ugly face into a fucking mirror and they'll say they're looking at Kate Upton.

You're fucking Hopeless...the sad part is I knew it this morning.

My bad.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 21:12 | 2766576 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

When did I blame Dubya for "signing legislation into law"?  You're confusing your arguments, I think, and I suspect that's why I'm always so confused when you try to "come at me" with bullshit.  You're talking about stuff I've never SAID.  Just like when you falsely claimed I'm not opposed to Bloomberg's ban on large sodas--it never happened.

I never blamed Dubya for Medicare-D.  I think it's absurd to blame the President for stuff like that.

The ONLY spending I ever blamed Dubya for was the Iraq War.  He did a lot of grandstanding for those tax-cuts, too, so he deserves some credit there, but only *true* fiscal hawks complain about tax-cuts.

Since I'm finally beginning to understand what you were on about: do you blame Dubya for the Medicare-D extension?

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 22:18 | 2766762 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The ONLY reason I have given you so much of my time is you occasionaly have something interesting to say.

Now its, not a, OK, thanks nmewn. I didn't know that about that 410 billion added to 870 billion when I started this ridiculous thread with you. Or even, gee thanks for enlightening me on the actual process of how law is enacted, I thought all we needed was some weird OWS con-fab with an up twinkles vote and we were all good to go. It never occured to me to have real checks and balances built into the system.

You're welcome BD...but this distresses me more than even that...

"Just like when you falsely claimed I'm not opposed to Bloomberg's ban on large sodas--it never happened."

You said...and I paraphrase (or I will look it up for you because you have convient short & long term memory loss) Bloomberg's meddling in peoples eating and drinking habits in NYC wasn't one of your chief concerns. You may not be "opposed" to it but you should be and yet turned a blind eye to it...which is the same as accepting a boot on the throat.

Well, it is a "big fucking deal" to me.

That was >>>the essence<<< of where we will always part and you were to blind to see, you are perfectly happy to overlook the indignities imposed by government on the people, while I am not and never will...no matter how large or small.

I'm confusing nothing, you're the one confused or brain dead and I'm perfectly happy for you to remain so, forever, you're clearly not worth salvaging.

You and I are done here.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 22:31 | 2766783 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

     You said...and I paraphrase (or I will look it up for you because you have convient short & long term memory loss) Bloomberg's meddling in peoples eating and drinking habits in NYC wasn't one of your chief concerns.

You're ALMOST correct, which of course means you're wrong again.

I said (also paraphrasing): the *menu* legislation wasn't one of my big priorities, and I wouldn't offer to join you in revolution if you wanted to start shooting over it.  That's because we are different people and we can have different opinions and goals.

I've never accused you of anything other than being an idiot.  It's these long drawn-out bullshit sessions where you carry on like such an infant that led me to that conclusion.  This is all about emotions for you--it's about ideas for me.

I get it--I make you really mad and you just want to call me names and express your anger/hate/disagreement/whatever.  A common use of the Internet.

Do you feel better now?  Great, glad I could help.  Next time, save yourself your precious time, because it ain't worth shit to me.  I'd rather you played dominoes with your friends.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 22:37 | 2766802 nmewn
nmewn's picture

See you at the wall, friend ;-)

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 07:15 | 2763775 Watauga
Watauga's picture

blunder--you pretend to take Obama to task for his failures, but underneath it, you are licking his boots from your knees.  It is sickening.  Under GWB, and under a Congress controlled by either the Republicans or Democrats, the national govt partied like it was 1999.  We nosedived into two major wars and, essentially, tried The Great Society II.  GWB may as well have been LBJ.  However, ON TOP OF ALL OF GWB's blunders, Obama DOUBLES DOWN.  Literally.  There isn't a government program, a budget line, a regulation, a power grab that Obama doesn't like.  From 2009-2011, Obama and a SUPERMAJORITY Democrat Congress (BOTH houses) locked in spending that will destroy the U.S. in a matter of years if not stopped.  The gridlock from 2011-present only keeps it going "forward." 

You actually wrote this: "One should NOT pretend the President has some duty to prevent our laws from being carried out.  Carrying out the laws of the land is the President's job, even when the laws are total bullshit. Who created those laws?  Congress."  Serioulsly?  You imply that THIS President faithfully executes the laws of the United States?  Try Fast&Furious.  Try immigration.  Try environmental laws.  Try the War Power.  When Obama does not like the law, like a spoiled little child he kicks and screams and cries all the way home, then refuses to carry it out.  He should be impeached for it.  But the do-nothing Congress lets him get away with it.  He carries out only those laws that expand the State and enhance collectivism. 

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 09:19 | 2764115 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    From 2009-2011, Obama and a SUPERMAJORITY Democrat Congress (BOTH houses) locked in spending

Can you name any of these big spending initiatives you think exist?  Whatever I'm missing, I'd like to know about it. 

I'd have no problem with impeaching Obama, but you need to have a specific idea about what you want to charge the guy with. A list of vague complaints isn't really going to do it.  You sound like you read a list of headlines off Drudge.  Those details you can't bother with are important. The best idea I can come up with for impeachment would be the Solyndra loans, but it's small beer by most standards. 

(In practice, I don't think they can really impeach Presidents anymore.  After the Clinton disaster, everyone got concerned about the process looking like a partisan witchhunt.)

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 10:11 | 2764279 Watauga
Watauga's picture

Are you kidding me? 

Spending initiatives?  Seriously?  The "Stimulus Plan" ring any bells?  Obamacare ring any bells?  Ever exploding annual deficits (because in Obamaworld, real budgets simply don't exist)--ring a bell?  What planet have you been on for the past four years?

Impeachment grounds?  Seriously?  YOU are the one who claimed Obama had carried out the laws.  He flat out refused to enforce U.S. immigration law.  He flat out refused to abide by environmental laws.  He does by E.O. anything he wants, whether laws exist or not.  His Justice Department is so corrupt it not only allowed guns to "walk," (which were then used to kill scores, if not hundreds of Mexican citizens, but also U.S. law enforcement personnel), it then covered up the scandal and later lied about it all, and yet the Chief Executive stands by his corrupt Chief Law Enforcement Officer (who was held in contempt of Congress).  Are you serious that you cannot find impeachable offenses in this abbreviated litany of wrongs?  Please.

Stop licking Obama's boots.  You sicken me.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 12:54 | 2764864 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I asked some pretty simple questions there.  You obviously cannot answer them, so now you're wasting your time with personal attacks.  Such things just don't bug me, little guy.   

    YOU are the one who claimed Obama had carried out the laws.

I didn't say that. 

   Are you serious that you cannot find impeachable offenses in this abbreviated litany of wrongs?

I didn't say that, either.  I asked what you thought.  I think the case of the Solyndra loans would be the easiest to prove wrongdoing, that's all.

You think he should be impeached for the Fast and Furious program?  Good for you!  Write your Congressmen, I'm sure they'll get right on that.  It's not clear to me he was abusing the office in that case, but who cares? 

I won't miss the guy no matter what happens to him.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:41 | 2763081 earnyermoney
earnyermoney's picture

So your party, the Democrats ran up the deficits under Reagan, and the shrubs? And it was the Republicans that cut the deficit under Clinton?

You're a good little sheeple.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 13:04 | 2764893 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The Democrats are certainly not welcome at "my party."

Basically YES to the first question, but no to the second.  The primary reason the deficit fell during the Clinton administration is because of increased revenue, not decreased spending. 

Any fiscal restraint that may have been exercised in the '90s was Republican, though.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 07:04 | 2763750 Watauga
Watauga's picture

You poor, poor fool.  Your name speaks volumes.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 21:21 | 2762886 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

That's a freakin Bullls....eye dude. 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 21:17 | 2762869 TeMpTeK
TeMpTeK's picture

He did it.. the 16 trillion can only buy 8 trillion now... Poof!

 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:28 | 2763054 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Dude, that's the funniest thing I've seen in some time.  Bravo!  :)

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:34 | 2761912 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

If the debt is unsustainable then how come our treasury yields keep falling? Doomer libertarians need to answer this fundamental question, or they risk losing what's left of their credibility.

 Because the Fed is still buying treasuries, directly or by proxy.  No one else is buying the shit to any significant degree.

It doesn't matter what Bernanke says.  QE is going right along.  It never stopped.  It just went underground so to speak.

Actually they went "off balance sheet" with it.  Yea, they keep two sets of books now.  One for the public to see and one the public never can see.

And yes the Fed can go right on printing without the public knowing about it.  The currency keeps losing value but nobody can prove why.

The answers are in that other set of books the public isn't allowed to see.  The set of books showing $40 - $50 trillion money supply, not $10 trillion in the public set of books.

If the Fed really stopped printing and buying treasuries, then yes, you would see the market collapse and yields skyrocket.

Bernanke is the most powerful man in the world. With one policy decision he could bring down the US government.  Simply decide no more buying treasuries.

But someone else could make a decision that would be more devastating.   Simply introduce a truly gold-redeemable currency, guaranteed to maintain a set exchange rate, guaranteeing it won't lose value.

That would bring the entire US monetary system down, including the Fed, US government, US financial system, banks, all of it. It would also bring down the EU monetary system, ECB, Euro, all of it.  It would all come crashing down.

I never said the debt is unsustainable.  It's quite sustainable with more and more printing ...and hyperinflation ...right up to the point the currency collapses.  Then it won't matter anymore.  But America won't matter anymore either.

 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:51 | 2762037 q99x2
q99x2's picture

I heard Hammy Wanger started a site that you can post on. Why don't you go find it.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:52 | 2762048 HpDeskjet
HpDeskjet's picture

You are a troll right? But suppose the thing you put is not a joke. The reason the 10y yield is 1,58% is because fixed income investors know that US growth AND inflation will be very low in the next few years. It has nothing to do with QE (in fact QE makes rates increase as long as markets believe it is continued, when QE drops, rates drop again). And yes, it will take at least a few years before market start to price in default risk

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 18:48 | 2762196 OneTinSoldier66
OneTinSoldier66's picture

@MDB

 

A few fundamental questions the collectivist keynesians need to answer before they lose all credibility, since they've lost a considerable amount already.

 

1) Since the Banker Million Dollar Bonuses and Golden Parachutes for politicians continue on as business as usual, and the Stock Market and the price I have to pay for necessities keeps going up, why haven't household incomes gone up with them?

 

2) Where's all the jobs for the recent college graduates? We were told that the gargantuan $787 Billion stimulus injection would bring unemployment down.

 

3) Why hasn't the Gold and Silver bubble popped?

 

4) Why is my house still underwater? We were told the price of homes would never come down!

 

5) Why is it that only an elite select few get access to BS Bernanke's newly printed money, first? Where's my bailout!?

 

6) When will Freddie and Fannie be brought out of 'conservatorship'?

 

7) When will the Federal Budget be balanced? When will the National Debt that I never consented to be paid off and when will the debt slaves be freed?

 

8) How long before the next Solyndra and FaceBook?

 

9) Is there anything that a Banker isn't allowed to co-mingle, rehypothecate, synthesize, or alter at will?

 

Cheers

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 20:48 | 2762790 Carp Flounderson
Carp Flounderson's picture

You confuse your rage and limited market knowledge for keynesianism.  Next question.

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 10:38 | 2764313 OneTinSoldier66
OneTinSoldier66's picture

I'm not confusing anything. I'm really just trying to give MDB a hard time. ;)

 

For instance, my home isn't underwater. I'm not even in any debt.

I don't want a bailout. I don't want anything from those vampires!

Etc, etc...

 

Yes, my market knowledge is limited. Do you know someone who's market knowledge is not limited? Ben Bernanke with all of his 'models'? Lol.

 

Regards

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 19:18 | 2762423 syntaxterror
syntaxterror's picture

When the Bank of Bernanke buys 66% of the tripe, of course the rates are near zero.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 21:55 | 2762983 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

No, no, no...Paul Krugman strenuously insists interest rates are where they are as a result of efficient markets.

 

 

/s

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 20:58 | 2762815 NickiBoy03
NickiBoy03's picture

Interest Rate Swaps is the percieved flight to safety

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:47 | 2761792 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Give the man credit... He KILLED Osama Bin Laden & closed Guantanamo... Oh wait!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:05 | 2761831 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

some credit (what more debt?) is due to Timmahaya

his admission his budgets are "fiscally unsustainable" is at least one projection he got right even if his entire career as a public sector toad is a testament to always getting it wrong (essential for Govt employ)

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:12 | 2761879 goldfreak
goldfreak's picture

Obama Bin Lying

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:12 | 2761881 mick68
mick68's picture

The hard work of borrowing is over now, interest will do the heavy lifting from here on.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 18:26 | 2762176 Chief_Illiniwek
Chief_Illiniwek's picture

Has any one person ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize AND the Nobel (...The Sveriges Riksbank) Prize for Economics?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 19:20 | 2762432 syntaxterror
syntaxterror's picture

Owebamunism needs a Nobel. Bullish!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:00 | 2761837 ultimate warrior
ultimate warrior's picture

 

at 102%, up from 76.5% when President Obama took office.

But But But Obama inherited this economy! Obama saved the world with bailouts and bigger government!

/sarc/


Tue, 09/04/2012 - 21:29 | 2762917 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!   I think I just tasted some puke in my mouth.  I'ld love to put that $5T in pennies ....... and drop them on the WHSE.  Right freakin now.  Then I know my dough would be doin something productive.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:37 | 2763072 dbomb12
dbomb12's picture

Happy Days are here again

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:24 | 2761683 HoofHearted
HoofHearted's picture

The day that the big Zero is talking about how much better off we are because Osama is dead and GM is alive, we get this gem. Now why didn't the Obaminator tell his Yahoo audience about this portion of his "success"? And why didn't he say, "You're better off, but your kids and grandkids are completely fucked."?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:34 | 2761736 Blasé Faire
Blasé Faire's picture

No, no, no.  We're working on environmental reform for future generations.  It'll all be fine.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:41 | 2761769 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture

 

 

Just think that figure doesn't even include the $6.3 Trillion in GSE's left off the budget or future GM losses

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:40 | 2763079 dbomb12
dbomb12's picture

It also doesn't include the other 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, hyperinflation and collapse here we come

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:40 | 2763080 dbomb12
dbomb12's picture

It also doesn't include the other 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, hyperinflation and collapse here we come

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 21:32 | 2762925 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

Your kids and grandkids will be living in that trailer next to your house.  And if they find out you voted for the Obaminator ..... well, you better hide all the weapons or you'll be ........ in a bad way.  That's right ... you're better off (dead).

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 19:23 | 2762444 ForTheWorld
ForTheWorld's picture

Can you kick it? Yes! The Can!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 21:34 | 2762933 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

I would not recommend kicking the can ..... until it's flushed, or you'll get poooooh all over the place.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 22:21 | 2763035 cjbosk
cjbosk's picture

"Forward"

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 23:44 | 2763241 Mr. Lucky
Mr. Lucky's picture

To the abyss.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:21 | 2761667 New Revenue
New Revenue's picture

Eh...what's a few trillions between friends?????

 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:08 | 2761860 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Timmahaya: "Mr President, our budgets are eating the country alive!"

President Obummy: "Let Them Eat Peas"

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:22 | 2761672 insanelysane
insanelysane's picture

This would be awesome if GDP was $160T or higher.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:29 | 2761720 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

when the weapon industry kicks into high gear when the middle eastern, azian war starts, GDP will be in rhe quadrillions.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:34 | 2761731 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, and we will all be trillionaires!!!

 

Say it with me SD, "where is my jubilee!!!"

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:22 | 2761673 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

To the Moon, Alice.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:55 | 2761816 SilverTree
SilverTree's picture

16,015,769,788,215 TURDS FLOATING IN THE SKY.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:23 | 2761674 Dick Darlington
Dick Darlington's picture

ding ding ding!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:26 | 2761676 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

People in the future will shake their head in wonderment, asking how the masses could have been complacent about this.

 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:39 | 2761762 kito
kito's picture

the masses are definitely not complacent about it!!! they are voting for OBAMNEY so that he can fix their problems!!!! the voters are all adamant that their man can steer the country back on course!!!! all it takes is CUTTING the deficit over the next 40 years, and ADDING more programs now to fix the problems that the current programs caused!!!!! we the people!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:45 | 2761784 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Yes Kito Amen Brutha!!!!! (Standing at attention and as my helmet falls off and I spill my whole bowl of rice pudding) OBAMNEY OBAMNEY

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:15 | 2761884 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

i wouldn't describe the publics mood as being "complacent" during this period of fiscal (not to mention military) insanity

'comatose' is nearer the mark and probably 'brain dead' hits the spot even better 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:28 | 2761949 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

If it's the same Obamney I'm thinking of, clearly the solution will be tax cuts and stimulus spending.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:23 | 2761677 Jason T
Jason T's picture

Foreigners own a good chunk if it.  http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBFIN

 

the public ..shit

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:34 | 2761739 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

not surprising, there are slaves everywhere.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:36 | 2761749 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

5'000 billions, or 5 million millions, or roughly half of the "held by the public"

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:45 | 2761783 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture

 

 

So do American's and when you add it up, most debt is actually domestically held, just like in Japan.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:07 | 2761851 Glasnost
Glasnost's picture

Which if you think about it...why not just run up the debt to the moon so long as it's mostly owned by the public?  Then when you're really desparate, instead of pissing off your foreign creditors just tell the citizens of the United States that all their U.S. government debt no longer has any value.

 

Brilliant, isn't it?  I just wonder how many institutions in the U.S. share the debt...not too many though it looks like.

One could just annihilate Social Security and The Fed and American Households and remove a fairly good chunk.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:06 | 2761856 SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

"Foreigners own a good chunk if it. "

but through the miracle of debt-for-nature swaps 
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31286.pdf

they will write down the debt if we promise not to destroy our forests 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scriptingnews/3116706556/

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:24 | 2761680 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

don't worry... we're still in control... Ben is working on the sorcerers stone and it will rain gold real soon!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:37 | 2761757 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

you wish. he will unleash the rainbow unicorns that will shit silver on us

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:23 | 2761682 HaroldWang
HaroldWang's picture

Don't worry, you'll read a dozen articles and hear everyone on CNBC telling us why this doesn't matter.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:24 | 2761686 Deep79
Deep79's picture

should be good for 10-15 SP points

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:25 | 2761689 mr. mirbach
mr. mirbach's picture

$350,000,000,000 to go before the election! 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:31 | 2761699 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

just enough to cover the presidential commercials on television... let the presidential chileish insults begin!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:34 | 2761735 Poetic injustice
Poetic injustice's picture

What Chile has done to USA president? Sent bad tasting coffee?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:25 | 2761690 VonManstein
VonManstein's picture

bullish

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:25 | 2761691 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Yes he can... yes he did...

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:42 | 2761773 Coldsun
Coldsun's picture

Oh no he di'int! <SNAP SNAP SNAP>

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:26 | 2761697 willien1derland
willien1derland's picture

Please append this bill to Barack Obama's hotel suite in Charlotte, North Carolina & list it as room service - I would love to see Howard Dean's face when he hands over his credit card....

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:26 | 2761698 BrigstockBoy
BrigstockBoy's picture

Forward!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:26 | 2761701 Vincent Vega
Vincent Vega's picture

Let me guess....wealth effect?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:26 | 2761702 LightWalker
LightWalker's picture

 What do they mean by public debt?I don't remember authorizing 16-kajillion on crap

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:28 | 2761711 Vincent Vega
Vincent Vega's picture

Ever voted?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:33 | 2761733 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

aren't you breathing the FED's air?
aren't you walking into the FED's sunlight?
aren't you drinking the FED's water?
aren't you walking and living in the land of the FED?

you own them everything!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:35 | 2761745 Poetic injustice
Poetic injustice's picture

It's not FED's, technically appropriate ministries (anybody with cheap badge) can confiscate anything they like.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:27 | 2761941 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

 

 

I done believe brother, i believe ..obama done gwanna deliver us frum bondage.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 18:11 | 2762113 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

You didn't authorize all that debt. Someone else authorized it for you.

You just have to pay.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:27 | 2761709 Wm the Shrubber
Wm the Shrubber's picture

It took over 200 years for this country to accumulate it's first $1TR in debt.  It has taken less than 300 days to tack on the most recent $1TR.  Ain't progress grand?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:25 | 2761928 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

 

 

None of obamas people think it's a problem. They have a script they all read from that tells them so. They all say we are better off today than we were in 1932.,,, four years ago.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:28 | 2761710 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

not even close to a Quadrillion !

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:29 | 2761714 SaveTheGreenback
SaveTheGreenback's picture

Nah, inflation isn't coming...

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:30 | 2761715 william shatner
william shatner's picture

Better get me a 17 trillion hat fast before we hit 18 trillion.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:36 | 2761752 Poetic injustice
Poetic injustice's picture

Sorry, but hat price has risen from 50,000 last week to 800,000 this week. Please send remaining part of payment and we will send you a hat.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:29 | 2761718 fuu
fuu's picture

The checks are in the mail, ain't stability grand?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:30 | 2761721 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

I don't see any of the politicians sweating it so it must not be a big deal.

I'm guessing that the CME will raise silver margins and silver will be slammed down $2 within the next day or so to convince me that a $16 trillion debt load (and growing fast) isn't such a big deal.

 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:40 | 2761765 TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

Not a big deal when you have Daddy Bernanke printing money. Actually, this is a sweet deal. You borrow $16 trillion and pay back 161 billion in 2012 dollars.

Fudd the people who loaned the money based on the good faith and credit of the USA government. By the way, all USA pensions get fudded! 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:32 | 2761725 BlueCollaredOne
BlueCollaredOne's picture

Tyler's,

Thank you for all you do. Your articles have really awoken me to how the world really operates, like how one president isn't the reason why our financial shituation is the way it is.

This has been a long time coming, and Obama is just a pawn.

The only reason I'm saying this is because the last sentence of this article leaves one to believe that this is the great puppet in chiefs fault, which I believe only distracts us from truly seeing who is at fault.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:43 | 2761779 Metalredneck
Metalredneck's picture

Reading a teleprompter helps ease the discomfort of the puppeteer's arm up your hoop.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:51 | 2761805 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Teleprompters are really catching on. The Republicans used one to script a vote on rule changes at their convention. The screen said "the ayes have it," despite what really happened on the floor. Then folks chanted "USA! USA!"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_ylYNbAlY

 

 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:44 | 2761782 FiatGold
FiatGold's picture

It is obvious when we are arguing over gay men's vaginas for Jesus should be burned at the stake

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:45 | 2761788 william shatner
william shatner's picture

Welcome to reality, not so warm and fuzzy as Lala-land where you came from though.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:50 | 2761802 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

If you come in and tell me to stop spraying water on my burning house because you can save it and instead it burns to the ground taking the neighbors house as well, who am I going to blame? Obama said he could fix this and he has not. He sure as hell would have claimed credit if the economy had truely turned around, wouldn't he? And it isn't about obstructionism from republicans. He has had to bride the shit out of the democrats to get anything passed. Remember Obamacare? It took him a year to get it passed with a democratic majority and then only with back door last minute deals. The only place he has taken action is where he ignores the constitution and the intent and enforcement of laws with his signing orders and directives to homeland security, immigration, bankruptcy law, and the EPA to name a few. This guy is a failure to conservatives and liberals alike. But go ahead. Its really not his fault. He's black afterall. Can't blame him.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:05 | 2761853 BlueCollaredOne
BlueCollaredOne's picture

LOL, you believed what a career politician told you. Of course Obama said "he could fix this," as are every other politician that is thrown in front of us in the future will do. We've crossed the turning point.

There is no fixing our "economy.". A small group of people have planned this for a long time now. Politics are here to distract us who actually give a shit. They are a firewall of sorts. Once you get pissed off about what is going on, you start getting political. The funny part about that is, POLITICIANS ARE THE FUCKING ENEMY, and once you buy into the false left/right paradigm you are lost.

You are a case in point.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:25 | 2761934 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So what is your plan? Just bitch?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:41 | 2761999 BlueCollaredOne
BlueCollaredOne's picture

Yea, I fucking bitched in public for all to see.

I Volunteered for Ron Paul on my own accord at Trader Joes and managed to educate many "democrats" on how Obama isn't who he claims to be. The romney crowd was much more headstrong, but most of them were old.

Now,I just prepare for my family. I stack food and things that protect me. I feel as if I've tried, and have no regrets. I've learned that people like routing for a team, so now I'm routing for mine.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 18:03 | 2762091 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

I'm doing the same...but i'm still voting, and not a write in protest that does nothing. Its the only potentially proactive, legal thing i can do, short of bailing and hiding under a rock.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:33 | 2761728 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

bullish

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:35 | 2761746 Parousia
Parousia's picture

When I was 4 years old, the US Debt hit 1T.  It took me several years (and basic math lessons courtesy of Dear Old Dad - who is now 92, a WWII vet and son of a widow with 8 children during the Great Depression) to figure out that this was not a good thing.  31 years and 15 Trillion later it's no wonder our Government Education Math scores are at an all-time low.  The lesson I will pass on to my now 7 month-old son?  "We did this to ourselves."  

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 05:59 | 2763684 MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

What you mean "we," Kemosabe?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:36 | 2761753 wandstrasse
wandstrasse's picture

Next stop: blatant totalitarianism

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:57 | 2761822 Poetic injustice
Poetic injustice's picture

You mean they will finally anounce it officially?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:09 | 2761865 respect the cock
respect the cock's picture

To infinity and beyond!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:42 | 2761754 Racer
Racer's picture

ALL of your money belongs to US sukkas......... HA HA HA HA HA HA

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:41 | 2761767 Snakeeyes
Snakeeyes's picture

Way to go DC! Federal debt up 50% under Obama in less than 4 years.

http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/obamas-record-on-the-...

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:41 | 2761768 singsing
singsing's picture

It's a small price to pay to keep the mobs from rampaging down the streets of murika.  This investment keeps you safer than all the enforcement agencies combined.  This is only possible through the various easing programs of the Fed.  What was it:  some 60% of treasuries auctioned this year now on the balance sheet of the fed.

Thank you Ben Bernanke, you're my hero.  Actually, now that I think of it, I can look after myself.  Fuck you Ben.

p.s.  You also made my labor worthless.  You want only food eaters and ipad junkies.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:41 | 2761770 entropos
entropos's picture

In case you didn't know (I didn't).

Intragovernmental holdings From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ineconomics,intragovernmental holdings(also known asintragovernmental debtorintragovernmental obligations) are Government Account Series (GAS) securities held by governmenttrust funds,revolving fundsand special funds.[1]

Intragovernmental debt is incurred when the government borrows from federal trust funds to help fund current operations.[2]

Contents

  [hide

[edit]United States

In the United States, intragovernmental holdings are primarily composed of the Medicare Trust Fund, the Social Security Trust Fund, and Federal Financing Bank securities. A small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts. [1][3]

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:53 | 2761813 Agent P
Agent P's picture

Ever hear a politician claim Social Security is funded?  This is what they're talking about...lots and lots of IOUs (or is it IOMEs?).

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:03 | 2761845 TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

'''and after Daddy Bernanke unleashes QEn, $16 trillion will be worth 116 Billion 2012 dollars by the time you retire, so who was the FOOL!

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:42 | 2761771 e-man
e-man's picture

The really sad thing is that at some point in the future, we'll look back and wish we could return to the days of when the debt was only $16 T. 

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:55 | 2761821 Agent P
Agent P's picture

And the really really sad thing is that day will come before the next olympics.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:43 | 2761777 Catullus
Catullus's picture

% of GDP was always a flawed measurement anyway. It was from the "this may be the largest budget and deficit ever, but in terms of GDP" caveat. It was the heart of Reaganomics. It how the war department got more and more money while republicans claimed they were cutting the budget.

Better to say: the government leaches 40% of what the private economy produces on an annual basis.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:43 | 2761780 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Bring back Bubba, America's first true black Prezident ! He knew how to cook those books. That deficit would have simply disappeared with a pen stroke.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:17 | 2761904 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

 

 

Will Monica be stroking that pen?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:45 | 2761787 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

My maths tells me that the debt ceiling will be broken around March 16 2013.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:55 | 2761819 Poetic injustice
Poetic injustice's picture

Were your math skills taught as minor addition to French 18th century arhitects?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:02 | 2761844 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

LOL. I'll remind you the debt ceiling is 16.694 trillion...

Current pace of spending :

Debt for fiscal year starting October 1 2011 till August 31 2012: 1.225 trillion or 3.647 billion/day

Debt for calendar year 2012 till August 31 2012 : 792.83 billion or 3.249 billion/day

At the average spending rate of 3.44 billion a day, 679 billion to go, that puts us to March 2013. And of course then that rascal Geithner can play his games so the debt ceiling ain't broken for another few months.

/that of course only is right if a war with Iran doesn't happen

//or the world economy/stock market craters and the tax income plummet

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 16:13 | 2765668 Jlmadyson
Jlmadyson's picture

Uh no it's not.

It is $16.394T

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:46 | 2761790 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Few trillion here, few trillion there....meh, all just a bunch of lies anyway.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:51 | 2761804 death_to_fed_tyranny
death_to_fed_tyranny's picture

sarc on HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN! sarc off

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:05 | 2761852 jowenchrist
Tue, 09/04/2012 - 16:58 | 2761811 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

And no one apart from ZH even seems to care.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:12 | 2761880 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

 

 

You are so right ..our national collective ignorance is ( fit in big word here )

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