Every day of his first term, Barack Obama has overseen $3 billion per day in borrowing, which has added at least $5 trillion to the national debt — with trillions more still to be borrowed. The extraordinary figure is largely a result of unprecedented federal spending. The first 42 presidents ran up about one-third of the present $16 trillion in aggregate debt; George W. Bush in eight years nearly matched their total; and Barack Obama, before his first term is even completed, has already trumped Bush’s total and accounted for the final third of the national debt.-Victor Davis Hanson
Friday, April 12, 2013
Quote du jour
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
.
ReplyDeleteImpressive.
While you have fixated on this one minor (and one can clearly state the national debt in and of itself is unimportant) statistic would you be able to pompously pontificate on comparison of unemployment rate at the beginning of the two periods? While you are about it, how about giving the world a rundown on the status of Wall Street?
Beside the cwy-babies of the RepublicanT Party, who cares and why should any one care, about USA national debt?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema: When you're right, you're right...is what I'd say if you ever stumbled over the truth, but I'll save that for a comment of yours where you actually get something right.
Delete"While you have fixated..." Fixated? Is that the word your Word of the Day calendar has for today, Ema? Do you have any idea what the word means? First of all, you do realize that I did not pen the words you read and so cavalierly misinterpreted? That was one of over 1800 quotes I have posted over the last few years. Am I, in what passes for your mind, similarly "fixated" with all of them?
"who cares and why should any one care, about USA national debt?" Perhaps you could come visit me (shudder) in Stockton, CA? You could see first hand, on a smaller scale, the results of spending far more than you take in. (One of the biggest offenders being the public employee unions, good friends with the profligate liberal Democrats like you, who have no compulsion against racking up obscene amounts of debt that someone else will have to deal with.)
Stockton, the largest populated city in America to declare bankruptcy (so far), and its bankruptcy judge will soon face a dilemma: reduce the obligation and payments to municipal bond holders or reduce the retirement benefits of retirees (or both).
And before you can say. "Screw the fat cat bond holders", remember that there are many people who invested in the lower rate muni bonds, because of the supposed security of the investment. If you say, 'screw the bond holders, they should have known better', you are undoubtedly screwing many retirees.
But, what about the "poor" retired city worker, who put in twenty years of his or her life, perhaps turning down more lucrative oportunities, against the promise of compensation and benefits, including retirement. Should the city break its promise to those retirees simply because it can?
The lesson to take away from this, dear Ema, is that someone is going to get screwed. A lot of someones. Vendors and contractors who delivered goods and services to the city will be short changed. People whom the government promised retirement income could be devastated. (Any other words like "Social Security" come to mind?)
If the bond holders are severely impacted, this could affect the ability of every municipality in the country to raise money for necessary projects. If a bond from Stockton and a bond from Greece have the same expectation of being paid back, then investors will opt for a higher rate of return, in other words, 'screw the city'.
Since the federal government borrows about 40% of every dollar they spend, the possibility of default or reduced payments (foreshadowed by extremely high national debt) will effect their ability to borrow and meet their current and ever growing obligations.
Not to mention the fact that profligate borrowing by the gov't reduces the amount of money available to be borrowed, which could keep them from maintaining or growing businesses which might actually pay tax revenue into the treasury.
Plus, multiple "quantitative easings" are a regressive tax on the poor. Whatever dollars you have are worth less because of government actions and inaction.
So, if by "who cares about the national debt", you mean, who cares if the idiotically profligate liberal Democrats (but I repeat myself) destroy our economy and burden our children and grandchildren for generations, then I guess you'd say any reasonable or sane human being.
Please let us know if you ever run into one.
And it ain't over yet because Mooshell hasn't sung yet.
ReplyDeleteI think Ema and Mooshelle would get along famously! We should take up a collection to send her to Washington, if she can ever get a day pass from the asylum!
DeleteProof, do you think she'll be back?
DeleteEma, your party's solution to this problem is to raise taxes on the top 1% of the economic ladder. You know them ... they are the ones that do the hiring. If you and your friends taxed them at 100% of their net worth (you could only do it one time, right?) the grand total to the IRS would be 863 billion dollars. That is a little over half of one of Obama's yearly deficits. QUESTION: where do we go from there?
Like a bad penny!
DeleteLet's hope Shelley doesn't pass gas, Woodsterman! It would give Kim Jong Un an excuse to launch his nukes.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry! We'll just send our "A-team" diplomat Dennis Rodman over there to straighten things out!
DeleteCan I sign you up as my mouthpiece?
ReplyDeleteCertainly! And so long as you're not married to a ketchup heiress, I can adjust my fees and retainer down to the 'friends and family' rate!
DeleteI asked>
ReplyDeleteGS says she isn't a ketchup heiress, But that once each quarter she does get 59 cents in royalties from a gas well in West (by God) Virginia.