Check out the National Debt for the last few months

[Little-Acorn]

Here's a quickie chart of the National Debt, from about Jan 1, 2012 to the present. Numbers are in $trillions. Data is from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current .

On Jan. 1, 2012, the Debt was a little more than $15.2 trillion. Now it's a little more than $16.7 trillion. The National Debt is constantly rising, and has been doing that year after year, for as long as I can remember.

But look what's happened since about April 1, 2013. Do my eyes deceive me? Or has the Debt actually gone DOWN very slightly in the last three months?

Why?

Usually this only happens when the TEA party Republicans dig in their heels and resist the latest attempts to increase the Debt Limit, so borrowing stops for a while and this line goes flat, until they cave and Congress borrows enough (usually in just one day) to blow away all the savings.

Is something like that happening now?

What's going on? Sequester? Congress that is seeing the light and realizing we can't keep borrowing more and more?

[aboutime]

Here's a quickie chart of the National Debt, from about Jan 1, 2012 to the present. Numbers are in $trillions. Data is from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current .

On Jan. 1, 2012, the Debt was a little more than $15.2 trillion. Now it's a little more than $16.7 trillion. The National Debt is constantly rising, and has been doing that year after year, for as long as I can remember.

But look what's happened since about April 1, 2013. Do my eyes deceive me? Or has the Debt actually gone DOWN very slightly in the last three months?

Why?

Usually this only happens when the TEA party Republicans dig in their heels and resist the latest attempts to increase the Debt Limit, so borrowing stops for a while and this line goes flat, until they cave and Congress borrows enough (usually in just one day) to blow away all the savings.

Is something like that happening now?

What's going on? Sequester? Congress that is seeing the light and realizing we can't keep borrowing more and more?


Agreed. It does look like sequester is almost working to bring it down. Problem is. As Obama and the Dems planned. The sequester is only hurting the most where it will hurt the most people, and cause them to believe Obama, and the Dems that it's all because of Republicans Cutting things.
Thinking, Logical, Honest people KNOW...that isn't the case. But then. You have to remember how many DUMB people voted for Obama. And THEY WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING.

[Robert A Whit]

Here's a quickie chart of the National Debt, from about Jan 1, 2012 to the present. Numbers are in $trillions. Data is from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current .

On Jan. 1, 2012, the Debt was a little more than $15.2 trillion. Now it's a little more than $16.7 trillion. The National Debt is constantly rising, and has been doing that year after year, for as long as I can remember.

But look what's happened since about April 1, 2013. Do my eyes deceive me? Or has the Debt actually gone DOWN very slightly in the last three months?

Why?

Usually this only happens when the TEA party Republicans dig in their heels and resist the latest attempts to increase the Debt Limit, so borrowing stops for a while and this line goes flat, until they cave and Congress borrows enough (usually in just one day) to blow away all the savings.

Is something like that happening now?

What's going on? Sequester? Congress that is seeing the light and realizing we can't keep borrowing more and more?

I think when you said sequester you nailed it.

[glockmail]

At this rate we ought to clear the debt by 3045.

[aboutime]

At the rate we are supposedly going with our DEBT. Nothing we can do to lower it, and take the burden from our children, and grand children.

Here is just ONE TRILLION.....5238 CLICK TO ENLARGE. And multiply this by SIXTEEN.

[fj1200]

Why? ... What's going on?

Just Treasury machinations ahead of the debt ceiling debate.

U.S. to Hit Debt Ceiling, but Has Some Breathing Room (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/05/17/u-s-to-hit-debt-ceiling-but-has-some-breathing-room/)
Mr. Lew said the Treasury would be able to use the same extraordinary measures that the department deployed during the last debt-ceiling standoff at the start of the year. Those include halting investments in government worker retiree funds and drawing down some accounts.

[Little-Acorn]

Just Treasury machinations ahead of the debt ceiling debate.

U.S. to Hit Debt Ceiling, but Has Some Breathing Room (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/05/17/u-s-to-hit-debt-ceiling-but-has-some-breathing-room/)

I think you've come the closest. But it's not "ahead of" the debt ceiling debate. The article you cite here, was written in May!

I just did a little research and was astonished to find WE HIT THE DEBT CEILING TWO MONTHS AGO, and once again TEA Party Republicans have refused to yield. And that's why the debt has suddenly leveled out as the chart shows.

The astonishing part isn't so much that we hit the debt ceiling. The astonishing part is that Republicans, Democrats, and the press (but I repeat myself) have remained absolutely quiet about it.

Remember the screaming, caterwauling, dire predictions of doom, credit downgrades, and everythin else that happened in 2011 the last time we hit the debt ceiling?

This time, not a word.

And what is the real meaning of it all?

REPUBLICANS ARE WINNING. At least, the ones who want to bring government spending under control.

(Or does anybody think the big-government Democrats are the ones pushing to keep the Debt Ceiling from rising any higher? :D )

Spending is certainly not "under control", yet. But this is a firm step in the right direction, a great start. And this time, both parties have a nameless bogeyman they can blame, to avoid admitting the Democrats are getting their clocks cleaned: IT'S THE SEQUESTER.

---------------------------------------
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2013 :

On March 1st, the sequester, cutting 1.2 trillion dollars over the next decade, went into effect due to Congress's failure to reach a deal to avoid it.

On March 21st, the house passed a FY 2014 budget that would balance the united states budget in 2023. This was a large improvement over their 2013 budget, which balanced in 2035, and especially over their 2012 budget, which balanced in 2063. It passed the house on a mostly party-line 221-207 vote. However, later that day, the Senate voted 59-40 to reject the house republican budget, so the budget did not become law.[14]

On March 23rd, the senate passed its own 2014 budget on a 50-49 vote. While the senate budget did include deficit reduction, it was projected to never result in a balanced budget, and was therefore criticized by republicans and even a few democrats. The House refused to hold a vote on the Senate Budget, and criticized both it and the president's budget (which was also projected to never result in a balanced budget), released in mid-april and never voted on by either house of congress, for failing to really address America's debt problem.[15]

Throughout March and April, there were several developments that reduced the sequester's impact. The bill that extended the government's continuing resolution to September 30 lessened the sequester's effect on defense, and later bills removed furloughs for air traffic control and food service industries.

Debt Ceiling Reached Again

On May 19th, the debt ceiling was reinstated at just under 16.7 trillion to accommodate borrowing during the suspension period and the treasury began applying extraordinary measures once again. Despite earlier estimates of late July, the treasury announced that default would not happen until sometime after labor day. Other organizations, including the CBO, projected default in October or possibly even November.[16]

Obama has repeatedly stated that he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. House Republicans believe he is bluffing, but fear he will wait until the last minute and then strike a deal with the Senate that the House will be forced to agree to. In Early July of 2013, House Republicans provided the president with a 'menu' of different deals he can strike in order to get a debt ceiling increase.[16]

The 'menu' is as follows:

Long Term Debt Ceiling Increase (Allows Treasury to borrow for the rest of Obama's term): Privatize Medicare and/or Social Security.

Medium Term Debt Ceiling Increase (Allows Treasury to borrow until sometime in 2015): Cut food stamps OR tinker with chained CPI OR tax reform OR agree to enact block-grant Medicaid OR a large raise in the retirement age.

Short Term Debt Ceiling Increase (Postpones default until sometime in the first half of 2014): Means testing of social security OR a small raise in the retirement age OR ending agricultural subsidies.

[fj1200]

I think you've come the closest. But it's not "ahead of" the debt ceiling debate.

I just did a little research and was astonished to find WE HIT THE DEBT CEILING TWO MONTHS AGO, and once again TEA Part Republicans have refuse to yield. And that's why the debt has suddenly leveled out as the chart shows.

...

REPUBLICANS ARE WINNING. At least, the ones who want to bring government spending under control.

It's ahead of it because we haven't had it yet. What Treasury is doing is allowing the debate to be delayed until we HAVE to act; the volume of the debate is a non-issue thus far.

Even if the Rs are winning the success is only as valid as the last action. The slash-spending part of the TP will not win in the long run. Conservatives, IMO, need to win the educate-the-masses battle if they wish for long-term success.

[Little-Acorn]

It's ahead of it because we haven't had it yet.

I strongly doubt that. The media just hasn't talked about the debate yet.

Do you think the government (or at least the Democrats) would let all borrowing come to a complete stop (as it has for months now) without reading the Riot Act to Republicans and debating to High Heaven?

As I said, the astonishing part is that We The People haven't heard about such a debate. (Notice that we haven't heard much about Benghazi or the IRS for the last few weeks either.) Everything recently has been about Snowden, Zimmerman, and Honey Boo Boo.

But such talks must be going on, obviously behind closed doors. We could no more NOT have such talks after actually hitting the Debt Ceiling and stopping all borrowing, than we could NOT have talks about going to war after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

From Republicans, such public silence is somewhat understandable, since they don't want to be savaged by the media as they always are when they try to talk fiscal sanity.

But it's completely out of character for Democrats and the media (here again I repeat myself). Such publicity is their main (and in fact only) weapon for getting the votes they need to remain in power and keep doling out the goodies.

And the only reason there could possibly be, is because THEY ARE LOSING in their attempts to vilify and demonize the people who say we can't spend money we don't have. The American people don't believe them any more, and so the Dems have hastily decided to shut up, at least for now.

This could be the biggest development in American fiscal politics since Reagan's lowering of income tax rates from 75% to 28% (done in several strokes), and the huge increases in revenue that followed.

There's a LOT left to find out here. But the silence about something as important as the COMPLETE cessation of borrowing we've had for more than 1/4 year, speaks volumes.

The WTC was destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001. And every politician, every media channel, indeed every American citizen, screamed his head off about it for weeks if not months... exactly as they should.

All Federal borrowing was stopped on May 19, 2013. That's not horrible and deadly, unlike the WTC attacks. But it is almost as shocking, and to big-spending politicians (including most of the media), almost as important in its own way. And not one of them has said a word in public about it.

This silence is more than perplexing: It's astounding. And there must be a MAJOR reason behind it.

[fj1200]

I strongly doubt that. The media just hasn't talked about the debate yet.

Do you think the government (or at least the Democrats) would let all borrowing come to a complete stop (as it has for months now) without reading the Riot Act to Republicans and debating to High Heaven?

As I said, the astonishing part is that We The People haven't heard about such a debate. (Notice that we haven't heard much about Benghazi or the IRS for the last few weeks either.) Everything recently has been about Snowden, Zimmerman, and Honey Boo Boo.

But such talks must be going on, obviously behind closed doors. We could no more NOT have such talks after actually hitting the Debt Ceiling and stopping all borrowing, than we could NOT have talks about going to war after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

From Republicans, such public silence is somewhat understandable, since they don't want to be savaged by the media as they always are when they try to talk fiscal sanity.

But it's completely out of character for Democrats and the media (here again I repeat myself). Such publicity is their main (and in fact only) weapon for getting the votes they need to remain in power and keep doling out the goodies.

And the only reason there could possibly be, is because THEY ARE LOSING in their attempts to vilify and demonize the people who say we can't spend money we don't have. The American people don't believe them any more, and so the Dems have hastily decided to shut up, at least for now.

This could be the biggest development in American fiscal politics since Reagan's lowering of income tax rates from 75% to 28% (done in several strokes), and the huge increases in revenue that followed.

There's a LOT left to find out here. But the silence about something as important as the COMPLETE cessation of borrowing we've had for more than 1/4 year, speaks volumes.

The WTC was destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001. And every politician, every media channel, indeed every American citizen, screamed his head off about it for weeks if not months... exactly as they should.

All Federal borrowing was stopped on May 19, 2013. That's not horrible and deadly, unlike the WTC attacks. But it is almost as shocking, and to big-spending politicians (including most of the media), almost as important in its own way. And not one of them has said a word in public about it.

This silence is more than perplexing: It's astounding. And there must be a MAJOR reason behind it.

The only major reason is because the masses don't really care right now. There has been no threat to their checks rolling out on schedule and there is no threat to having a government office be closed when they happen to need a passport or some such thing. If they are losing then that would be all right with me but how many times have we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory; to many times if you ask me and some TP candidates have helped that along on occasion.

I also think you're making too much about this cessation of borrowing because it's not unprecedented; they are just moving from here to there and delaying pension payments, etc. just as they did two? years ago.

It's quite a stretch to compare your dream scenario to Reagan's lowering of rates. The more unfortunate occurrence is that it would be actual austerity that will put the screws to the economy; lowering spending AND increasing rates/regulations will destroy any weak recovery that we're suffering through. Reagan got lower rates and regulations with no decrease in Federal spending just as the Republicans did in the 90's; lower rates on cap gains with restraining spending growth.

[Little-Acorn]

The only major reason is because the masses don't really care right now.
They wouldn't have cared about 9/11 if nobody had ever told them it had happened. (Not likely because people all over Manhattan, New Jersey and Connecticut could see it with their own eyes, but you see my point.)

There has been no threat to their checks rolling out on schedule
And there never was, except Obama announcing that if they couldn't borrow money they couldn't send out Social Security checks. But that couldn't have true because there's a nice big trust fund that the politicians told us wouldn't go bankrupt for 20 or 30 years.


I also think you're making too much about this cessation of borrowing because it's not unprecedented;
But it was a very major thing on every prior occasion, and this one is just as major.


It's quite a stretch to compare your dream scenario to Reagan's lowering of rates.
Tell it to the liberal politicians and press, who screamed just as loud and long on both occasions.

My point here is that the SILENCE of the liberals and press (redundant) speaks volumes. Here is a huge opportunity for them to scream about how vile and heartless and eeeeevil the Republicans are, just as they have done every previous time this has happened... yet this time they aren't letting out a peep.

Is it because they know their previous lies won't work any more, and they have found that once their lies are gone, there's nothing else they can say?

[fj1200]

They wouldn't have cared about 9/11 if nobody had ever told them it had happened. (Not likely because people all over Manhattan, New Jersey and Connecticut could see it with their own eyes, but you see my point.)

:confused: No. I don't.


And there never was, except Obama announcing that if they couldn't borrow money they couldn't send out Social Security checks. But that couldn't have true because there's a nice big trust fund that the politicians told us wouldn't go bankrupt for 20 or 30 years.

The shocking there to me here is that you accept the idea of a Trust Fund and that it adds any sort of liquidity to SS.


But it was a very major thing on every prior occasion, and this one is just as major.

The big thing was the debate on the debt limit. The Treasury shenanigans was mere sideshow; it has no significance.


Tell it to the liberal politicians and press, who screamed just as loud and long on both occasions.

My point here is that the SILENCE of the liberals and press (redundant) speaks volumes. Here is a huge opportunity for them to scream about how vile and heartless and eeeeevil the Republicans are, just as they have done every previous time this has happened... yet this time they aren't letting out a peep.

Is it because they know their previous lies won't work any more, and they have found that once their lies are gone, there's nothing else they can say?

OK. Wishful thinking IMO. I don't think it productive to yell about the media and make every issue about them; they are what they are.

[Little-Acorn]

The shocking there to me here is that you accept the idea of a Trust Fund and that it adds any sort of liquidity to SS.


It was a joke.

See my other 1,000,000,000 posts about the SS Trust Fund.

[Little-Acorn]

Here's a slightly more readable chart of the National Debt.

[fj1200]

It was a joke.

See my other 1,000,000,000 posts about the SS Trust Fund.

Phew. I was worried. Then you see why old people don't like it when someone messes around with their entitlement.

[Little-Acorn]

Here's a slightly more readable chart of the National Debt.

It's now 70 days since we hit the Debt Ceiling on May 18, and the National Debt has not increased a penny since then.

The govt is still spending like crazy, of course. But instead of borrowing new money as they usually do, they are now draining various pension fund of their money, and spending that to keep the votes coming in. This would be illegal for any private company, of course, and the CFO and other senior officers of any company that did this, would be thrown in jail for fraud an embezzlement. Only in the U.S. government is it considered OK.

The big-govt advocates (in both parties) apparently figure that the Debt Ceiling will be voted upward soon, and they will be able to borrow enough after that, to pay back all the money they've taken from the retirement etc. accounts. No blood, no foul. They're even referring to this practice as "the standard extraordinary measures", without even bothering to grin at the inherent contradiction in the name.

Of course, the government is routinely paying off $billions in bonds and other debt... and re-borrowing exactly enough to make up for it, every day. That's part of the "normal business" that's been going on every day for a century. But for once, they are not borrowing MORE than they pay off.

---------------------------------------------------

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/70-straight-days-treasury-says-debt-stuck-exactly-1669939600000000

70 Straight Days: Treasury Says Debt Stuck at Exactly $16,699,396,000,000.00

July 29, 2013 - 5:21 PM
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - According to the Daily Treasury Statement for July 26, which the Treasury released this afternoon, the federal debt has been stuck at exactly $16,699,396,000,000.00 for 70 straight days.

That is approximately $25 million below the legal limit of $16,699,421,095,673.60 that Congress has imposed on the debt.

The portion of the federal debt subject to the legal limit set by Congress first hit $16,699,396,000,000.00 at the close of business on May 17. At the close of every business day since then, it has also been $16,699,396,000,000.00, according to the official accounting published by the Treasury Department.

If the debt had increased by even $30 million at any time during those 70 days, it would have exceeded the statutory limit. But, according to the Treasury, the debt did not do that. Instead, it remained precisely $16,699,396,000,000.00.

(snip)

On May 17, the day the debt began its long stay at $16,699,396,000,000.00, Treasury Secretary Lew sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner. In the letter, Lew said the Treasury would begin implementing what he called “the standard set of extraordinary measures” that allows the Treasury to continue to borrow and spend money even after it has hit the legal debt limit.

[glockmail]

So they are robbing the unions of prior largess. Let's hope this whole thing blows up in their faces. :laugh:

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0731cd20130730083824.jpg

[fj1200]

It's now 70 days since we hit the Debt Ceiling on May 18, and the National Debt has not increased a penny since then.

And it means about as little today as it did after 1 day.

[glockmail]

And it means about as little today as it did after 1 day.Deficits don't matter?

[fj1200]

Deficits don't matter?

Sure, but this is unrelated to that. Our spending habits haven't changed.

[glockmail]

Sure, but this is unrelated to that. Our spending habits haven't changed. So, since deficits don't matter, let's just spend more and put it all on the fucking credit card. Right?

[Gaffer]

What's funny, real giggle material, is the part where the govt is going to "pay back" the money it took from the pensions. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

What's funny, real giggle material, is the part where the govt is going to "pay back" the money it took from the pensions. :laugh2:
I love the fact that The Obama is screwing the very people that helped put him in office: public employees and unions. :laugh:

[Little-Acorn]

Once the big spenders have drained all the retirement accounts in the Federal government (around Sept. 30), then they will start pushing for resuming their usual huge-borrowing ways.

And when the TEA Party Republicans do what the people elected them to do, and refuse to give the big-govt pushers the usual blank check, what will happen then? (Aside from the usual blaming of Republicans for the problem).

The difference between this time and last time, will be that there is no cushion left. Last time, the big-govt pushers could just start borrowing from retirement accounts instead of selling bonds. This time, the retirement accounts have already been emptied (that's what the big-govt pushers are spending NOW).

So, what will they do after they have used up all the money the government has, and the taxpayers refuse them any more?

[fj1200]

So, since deficits don't matter, let's just spend more and put it all on the fucking credit card. Right?

Did you purposely ignore where I stated this issue is unrelated? Nothing has changed regarding our spending.


What's funny, real giggle material, is the part where the govt is going to "pay back" the money it took from the pensions. :laugh2:

I'm pretty sure they paid it back last time.


... then they will start pushing for resuming their usual huge-borrowing ways.

Borrowing is a function of spending vs. revenue, not the other way around.

[glockmail]

Did you purposely ignore where I stated this issue is unrelated? Nothing has changed regarding our spending.That's retarded. Of course spending has changed. Of course its related to the debt.

[fj1200]

That's retarded. Of course spending has changed. Of course its related to the debt.

How has our spending changed, outside of sequester, based on Treasury's actions? The Treasury has only bought time so that Congress can avoid the debate longer than they would have.

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.little-acorn.com/pics/NatlDebtDaily02Jan2001-06Jul2011.jpg

[glockmail]

How has our spending changed, outside of sequester, based on Treasury's actions? The Treasury has only bought time so that Congress can avoid the debate longer than they would have.I was referring in the long term, the last 8 years, where spending has accelerated wildly.

[fj1200]

I was referring in the long term, the last 8 years, where spending has accelerated wildly.

OK.