Debt Ceiling Raised Seven Times Under Obama, Costing $43,000 Per Household

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Interesting comparison and how the national debt is so out of control.

Especially in the last 4 or 5 years.

Any bonehead knows you can't survive long when you keep spending more than you make.

Sure the U.S. Treasury can keep on selling interest bearing securities.

But as we are seeing before our very eyes, it now takes the Federal Reserve ( our central bank ) to buy up much of the 'marketed' Treasury securities.

What will happen when demand falls off and we can't sell enough to pay the bills ?

And how do we know for sure the tricky Federal Reserve isn't selling those securities (at a deep discount) to foreign organizations that may have a bigger idea in mind ?

Hmmm.



Did you know that since President Obama came into office, the debt limit has been raised seven times?

With those increases, Congress has added $43,000 in debt for every American household in just the last four years.

And now the debt limit deadline is looming again. Treasury will run out of tricks to keep paying the bills on October 17, Secretary Jack Lew announced yesterday.




Dis-info here ??


Instead of pursuing significant spending cuts and entitlement reforms that are desperately needed to get spending under control, House Republicans reportedly are proposing to suspend the debt ceiling for more than a year, which would add $1.1 trillion to the debt.

"" reportedly are proposing "" Hmmm.
Confirmation ?
Republican policies have actually reduced some deficit spending (ever so slightly however)



Debt Ceiling Raised Seven Times Under Obama, Costing $43,000 Per Household


How 'Bout we just limit any and all spending to no more than we take in ?

That sounds like the best 'Debt Ceiling'



High Level Theft and Corruption = High 'Spending'




posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Not sure why "households" would be paying this. I would think that subsidies, ventures and expenditures initiated by the wealthy, big business and corporate America would incur the largest amount of debt. They should be paying it.

The fuel industry alone receives trillions in subsidies yearly. We support Corporate America's business in China and other countries, we give tax breaks we can no longer afford to the wealthiest 1%. Waltons cost the country billions, in their own personal tax breaks, by not paying their full time workers enough to put a roof over their head AND feed themselves. These workers turn to government programs so they can survive.

A person CAN work just so many hours without collapsing and so wages have to keep up with profits, as industry promised when they were allowed to create virtual monopolies and organize years ago. Why should the same households who were screwed by corporate America defaulting on a promise to match wages with profits (ie cost of living) be the ones to pay a debt ceiling Corporate America has incurred?
edit on 26-9-2013 by Loveaduck because: To improve it.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Start learning Arabic and the Koran.

I've a feeling the Saudis will be buying up your debt.

But at a price.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Interestingly -



And a chart from OMB



Failure of leadership? Duh! $$$$$$$$$$ that's what they want.
edit on 27-9-2013 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Maybe it's possible that there is a plan in the works. A sort of transfer of wealth, leading to a financial collapse the likes of which have not been seen before.

The plan? manipulate the economy, the debt, the market to enable a bulk transfer of currency to a certain direction, while causing a massive collapse in the current system. When this occurs, the planers can buy up huge assets for pennies on the dollar, multiplying their wealth ten fold.

They then set up a new system completely under their control and ability to manipulate any way they see fit. And it will certainly benefit only them in the end. They being of course the owners of the federal reserve. The "to big to fail" banking cartel.

It's no big surprise Obama got his election in 08, he was placed there by Goldman sachs. He has had ties to them from way back. He is a banking cartel puppet. His predecessor W. Was as well. They, the bankers own both of our esteemed parties at this point. They both take their orders, and serve up the dish of poverty to the American people.

Our next president will be selected by the money as well, if we have another one. That system is becoming tiresome to our masters and they will no doubt make a serious move soon to change the way things are done here, to further their plan.

We can only fight this by eliminating the federal reserve, term limits in congress, and massive campaign finance reform to get money, and it's influence out of our government.

If we don't. Game over.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Loveaduck
 


They say the corporate subsidies don't add up to the debts incurred by Congress.

Corporate subsidies (all inclusive) in 2012 were about $100 Billion.

Federal deficit spending in 2012 was a little north of $1 Trillion.
{ 10x more than the 'corporate welfare' }

Perhaps the 'Federal Spending Thefts' are somewhere else.



Subsidies to businesses in the federal budget in Fiscal Year 2012 cost taxpayers almost $100 billion, according to a new report from the Cato Institute.

“That includes direct and indirect subsidies to small businesses, large corporations, and industry organizations,” the libertarian think-tank said in its latest policy analysis.

'Corporate Welfare' Costs Taxpayers Almost $100 Billion in FY 2012, Cato Report Finds




posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
And that chart a previous poster shows is depressing. That should be a serious wake up call to everyone. What in the bloody hell are we doing??? Madness. sheer freakin madness. I'm just sick at what is happening to this country.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by caterpillage
 


Or maybe they should just have a bake sale...


By bake sale, I am implying the legalization & heavy taxation of marijuana - with a strict 'Grown in the USA' policy with zero imports.

Control it like some of the states control it - have camera's in grow-houses that the govt can access at any time, no notice inspections, etc.

Let those GM hungry fools get to work on a more potent strain too. That Monsato Corp would also profit - their patents on GM Pot would bake billions.

A 'Win-Win' situation.
edit on 27-9-2013 by chucknasty because: spelling



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Maluhia
 


I love the blatant anti-obama propaganda you throw out there..



firstly, this graph is meant to fool you into thinking the red is all OBAMA's evil doing.. but look at the dates..

2022? are you for real?

Lets compare Bush's BLUE Rise
2000 5-6
2008 9-10

Lets compare Obama's RED Rise
2009 12-13
2013 17-18

Pretty close huh?

Also, is there a stat anywhere that takes into account how much the debt level was increased due to

1. Bush's illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? $2-$6 Trillion
2. The Banker Bailout TARP

But things like that wouldn't be wise to talk about.. after all, its not ANTI-OBAMA BS!

Blame it all on Obama if you want, but the truth of the matter is that much of the debt Obama inherited from Bush's acts!



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

ROFLOL

Obama *OWNS* this economy.

Obama has had plenty of time.

He painted himself into the corner now he can watch it dry.

The big "Bush" problems surfaced under a full progressive Democrat Congress started in 2007.

Da Bigggggg crash came under Democrat watch dogs.




posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Obama needs to stop lowering taxes. It didn't help the first time and it sure isn't going to help a second time.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

links234
Obama needs to stop lowering taxes. It didn't help the first time and it sure isn't going to help a second time.


Ludicrous.

They would have to raise total revenues by 50% in order to make up for the deficit spending.

Payroll tax and income tax makes up the majority of revenues.

Socialist progressive deficit spending is a failure.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

links234
Obama needs to stop lowering taxes. It didn't help the first time and it sure isn't going to help a second time.


I love it when a certain sort of voter insists that allowing people to keep more of their very own money is equal to Government Spending.

A foundation of false premises allows a convenient conclusion to suit any opinion.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




Obama has had plenty of time.

And you can make that statement when Republicans vowed to make him a one term President? He's in his second term and the ceiling has only gone up seven times? That's pretty good seeing how it went up nineteen times under Bush.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

links234
Obama needs to stop lowering taxes. It didn't help the first time and it sure isn't going to help a second time.


I love it when a certain sort of voter insists that allowing people to keep more of their very own money is equal to Government Spending.

A foundation of false premises allows a convenient conclusion to suit any opinion.


What he is saying is the truth. Cutting taxes while wars are going on is a very stupid idea.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

buster2010
reply to post by xuenchen
 




Obama has had plenty of time.

And you can make that statement when Republicans vowed to make him a one term President? He's in his second term and the ceiling has only gone up seven times? That's pretty good seeing how it went up nineteen times under Bush.


Ah yes.

But those increases added much smaller amounts to the national debt.

The largest increase was in Sept 2007, when Congress was dominated by a Democrat majority.

Obama's average additions to the national debt by way of deficit spending is already 5x more than Bush !!!!
And Obama's total deficit binge spending is already 2.5x ( 250% ) more !!!!
{ and he ain't done yet !! }

You've analyzed THIS ... right ?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010



What he is saying is the truth. Cutting taxes while wars are going on is a very stupid idea.

 


Yep.

Worked wonders for Bush.....

Look at the unemployment rates !!!!!
And look what happened when the Democrats took control of Congress after Jan 2007 !!
Wuups !



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


So many conservatives insist we should be going back to the 'founding principles' when completely ignoring one major principle was the ability to make war. It's too easy to go to war in this country. What am I saying? We're in a war right now! Literally, we are at war at this very moment. When was the last time any of us contributed to the war effort? Who here has been saving potatoes and aluminum to send to the front lines?

Many, many conservatives want their wars and their low taxes. Low taxes and war should not and do not go hand-in-hand. The founders knew this and dozens of presidents knew this as well. The nation has abandoned the Abrahams doctrine and we're worse off for it. Instead of scaling back our military might, we've increased our numbers and are eagerly looking for any reason to use what we've paid for. Syria, Libya, Yemen...we spent hundreds of billions of dollars, we can't let that go to waste!

Raise taxes until our military spending is back to what it was pre-9/11. Until then, keep your hands off my Obamacare.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by buster2010



What he is saying is the truth. Cutting taxes while wars are going on is a very stupid idea.

 


Yep.

Worked wonders for Bush.....

Look at the unemployment rates !!!!!
And look what happened when the Democrats took control of Congress after Jan 2007 !!
Wuups !


Worked wonders when you borrow like crazy from the fed to cover bad policies. And you can't include 09 on Obama because all of Bush's policies are still in affect. And seeing how he was the rubber stamp president so Bush's policies kept going after Obama took office. And the Dems were willing to work with Bush unlike the Reps and Obama.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




But those increases added much smaller amounts to the national debt.

4 trillion dollars is hardly a small amount.





top topics
 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join