Will Debt Signs Be Springing Up?

When I entered the DC Metro today, I walked under a banner asking me if I could spare some change to defeat the debt. It had a huge number attached. This looks to be it. All I could think of is, when are they coming after far more than change for that. Because they are, my friends. They are going to have to, soon. Simply walking under that banner and trying to comprehend the number was an unsettling experience. Trust me on that.

Funny how that national debt clock isn't something we've heard much about lately. I assume the banner is from this group here. The Hot Sheet at CBS reports the current amount of the national debt. We are so screwed.

It's another record-high for the U.S. National Debt which today topped the $12-trillion mark. Divided evenly among the U.S. population, it amounts to $38,974.34 for every man, woman and child.

Technically, the debt hit the new high yesterday, but it was posted on the Treasury Department website just after 3:00 p.m. ET today. The exact calculation of the debt is a 16-digit tongue-twister and red-ink tsunami: $12,031,299,186,290.07

Comments

[MarkJ]

I'm surprised they haven't hung this banner next to the one you saw in the DC Metro:

ARBEIT MACHT FREI

[steveegg]

I believe that they'll use the Russian "Работа освобождает", or perhaps the Chinese "工作釋放".

Seriously, we have crossed a rubicon more significant than the $12 trillion mark - by the time the 4th quarter ends (and probably already done), the national debt will have exceeded the entire personal income amount.

[lurker9876]

Sounds like war bonds for World War II!

[bobopapal]

Can anyone explain to me how the economy imploded with all of Bush's tax reductions still in place?

[steveegg]

Funny you should mention that, lurker. That was the last time the debt was this high in relation to GDP. Unfortunately, we don't have a war (or more properly, a successful end to a maximum-effort war) to pull the economy out.

[SteveP]

bobopapal | Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 10:58 PM

It's the spending stoopid.

[bobopapal]

Ok, SteveP. So less spending by Bush would have prevented the downturn?

[Rick]

Another reason I live in the west and avoid the east. Yes, the problems are the same but the attitudes are different. The east is depondent and the west is "what the hell? leave me alone, I'll take care of myself."

[david r]

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea for Bush to repeal the estate tax and lose $80 billion per year.

[lurker9876]

Maybe we will see peace bonds?

[mark l.]

"Can anyone explain to me how the economy imploded with all of Bush's tax reductions still in place?"

beats me...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

"Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since
2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available.
CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of
analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth."

[Elmo]

Lessee ... talk on duh street is commercial real estate has yet to do its anticipated/predicted further downward spiral. Unemployment is significantly higher than Obamedia's current stated/touted. And is expected to climb yet ever higher. The money supply has been turned into a trip to Toys 'R Us [picking up a fresh blister pack of pink, yellow, gold, and blue bills (ooh ... look at the pretty money)]. For dispensation to imaginary Congressional districts. For building large lemon meringue pies (in the sky).

Gold is off the charts, the once premium denim rag dollar. Is now made of lead (and sinking). Upside ... domestic small arms manufacturers reporting for the last quarter: surge in sales, ranging from 30-70% (elmo, eyes peeled ... always scouting the cloudy horizon, for that silver lining).

As big, and rough and tough as the economy generally is. The uncertainty of having an idiot savant, Muslim traitor, commie/socialist libturd fruitcake (in the shape of a dildo). As faux, supra-constitutional president?

I'd tend ta think may contribute a smidge to the market's uncertainty. But mebbe that's just me? [Im giving a high recommendation for seatbelts (buckle up)].

[Neo]

After that bow in Tokyo, the President must have been "teabagging" by the time he got to Beijing.

[SteveP]

bobopapal | Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 11:16 PM

As has been shown repeatedly, reducing tax rates increases government revenue because it spurs economic activity. Contrary to the apparent belief of the nitwits in charge now, increased government spending is not economic growth.
In addition to federal spending increasing faster than revenue, government policy requiring banks to lend money to people who were unable to pay it back created a bubble in both the housing and financial sectors that inevitably burst, causing the meltdown we're going through now.

Can anyone explain to me how the economy imploded with all of Bush's tax reductions still in place?

Posted by: bobopapal | Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Ok, SteveP. So less spending by Bush would have prevented the downturn?

Posted by: bobopapal | Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 11:16 PM

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea for Bush to repeal the estate tax and lose $80 billion per year.

Posted by: david r | Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 11:52 PM

You should familiarize yourselves with a little document called the US Constitution, specifically Article I, Sections 1,7 and 8 and Article II, Section 2.
You will see that the President has no power to cut taxes. He can propose anything he wants but it is Congress that actually does it. There is a saying that "the President proposes and the Congress disposes".

[david r]

stevie pee, I didn't mean that he personally cut the estate tax. It was one of his very first initiatives as President. You should go to work for the MSM fact checkers who attack Palin. Congrats on passing first year Con Law. I'm sure you will do well.

[philwynk]

Can anyone explain to me why they're still paying attention to leftist trolls tasked with diverting discussion away from the destructive policies of the Democrats?

[x11b1p]

Why dont those who want the government to spend more volunteer to pay more in taxes instead of expecting everyone to pay for policy(s) that do nothing but instantly gratify one group's desires at the expense of the whole. If you support the ideal of welfare then you should not object to emptying out your pockets once a week and sending it to Obama. Since statists have no care for negative long term economic consequences because the cost is spread among everyone and they don't feel the actual sticker price, why not start voluntarily coughing up cash to cover the all the costs of the bailouts, the Stimulus Bill, HCR, Cap and Trade, etc. Just think, you could balance Obama's budget overnight ensuring him another 4 years, it should not be a problem given that Obam raised 600 million while campaigning. Its not a new ideal, millions of Americans who want to give more to their country do so by joining the military during war and peace (and just think many of them pay the ultimate price). So what says you liberal? Are you willing to volunteer to pay more of the fruits of your labor so we can stay at war for another 10 years? Especially, if its okay for me to have to be required to pay the Government more for HCR, Cap and Trade Stimulus and Bailouts-none of these bills do anything for me instantly and I doubt will do anything for me in the long run other than cost me more money?

[djn]

Here is the National Debt Clock:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[steveegg]

X11b1p, the reason why the Left won't spend more of their money is because charity for them involves spending other peoples' money.

[Dave H]

I wonder if people who think raising taxes automatically raises revenue,and cutting taxes automatically cuts revenue, think that retailers have sales so they can make less money, and can automaticially make more just by raising prices.

[x11b1p]

i would gladly check the box on my W2 each year where I cold indicate what percentage of my tax money went to what part of the budget - now thats democracy!

[debts]

I think we will see some collapse, significant regulation, significant cuts to our military, a loophole free progressive tax code, and perhaps a few public options are the way to stabilize our national budget.