Free Markets, Free People

Debt accumulation for the past 2 years higher than GDP

I’d like to say this is astonishing, and it would be if a Republican was in the White House because our press would make it so.  But with Obama? Meh:

“President Obama said that increasing the debt limit does not increase the debt,” the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee says in a statement. “But when the Treasury department started using so-called extraordinary measures to avoid a breach of the debt ceiling in May, 2011, the debt limit stood at $14,294 billion.

“Today it stands at $16,699 billion, which was reached when Treasury started using extraordinary measures in May of this year.  That’s a $2,405 billion increase in 2 years.

“Meanwhile, the economy, as measured by GDP only increased by $1,199 billion between the second quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of this year.

“So the debt increased twice as much as the economy over the last two years, the very definition of unsustainable.  The growth of a nation’s debt cannot for long exceed the growth of its economy – which is precisely what is happening now.”

Ya think?!

If you need a picture, try this:

And, of course, they’re asking for more.  So here’s the question: If we give them more, what will they want next?   Answer: Why more, of course.

So at some point, you have to say “no” don’t you?

Well common sense says you do, but apparently for this crowd, that sense isn’t at all that common.

So we do the circus thing, year after year after year and we build charts like this?

Hell, that’s the chart of a 3rd world country.

And the word that should be plaster across the top of it is “unsustainable”.

Meanwhile, in DC, they continue to wrangle over more debt.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

64 Responses to Debt accumulation for the past 2 years higher than GDP

  • Now, Speaker John Boehner has to convince his rank-and-file members to get on board, in which case there might be a floor vote on the measure later Thursday. It remains to be seen if the seditious conservatives in the House will agree to make the offer, or whether President Obama, who has insisted on a full solution to the government shutdown, will be tempted to accept it.—The Beastly Day
     
    OK.  Call that bluff.  BRING “sedition” charges against the Conservatives in Congress.
     
    Let’s have a VERY public trial.

  • “Hey, we got to re-inflate the bubble to get the economy moving again, so that lady with the nice hair is going to keep printing money, and the FedGov has got to keep taking it until the wealth effect gets the economy going again! Don’t bring up the last two bubbles that people lost most of their money in because you know the old saying: twice-bitten, third time’s a charm! Did we mention she has nice hair?!”

    • I have been on the sidelines, but actually bought into the market yesterday because of Yellen.
       
      Sad.

    • Thales, thank you for bringing that “hair” article to my attention. It’s just a show of the absolutely unserious idiots on the other side we have to deal with.
      What a disgrace. It would’ve been a better public service to devote that space to printing the output of an angry gorilla pounding on a keyboard….

  • “That which cannot continue, won’t.”
    Unless, of course, you live in a bubble in Maine.

  • “Secretary Lew, you have also publicly stated that only Congress has the power to lift the debt limit,” said Hatch. “Now, while it is ostensibly true that Congress has the power to raise the debt limit, there will be no increase if the president does not agree. At the same time, despite your public statements to the contrary, it is not true that raising the limit has only to do with spending Congress already approved. This line of argument is based on a premise that Congress makes spending decisions unilaterally, and that the Executive Branch plays no role in the process. 

    “That premise is simply false,” Hatch told Lew. “No amount of spending can be enacted without the president signing it into law.”

  • Terrorists!  Arsonists!  Baby smotherers!  Father rapers!  Mother stabbers!   Uh….uh…..um…….(Teleprompter dammit!!!!)   Anarchists!
     
    You people hate the Constitution!  You want to destroy the government because…..uh um….RACISTS!!!!!!!!!

  • Meanwhile would anyone in the Democrat controlled portion of the administration like to answer the question why we are we  using Continuing Resolutions (that handy little full meaning of the term CR when Obamugabe and Dingy Harry say “clean CR”) to fund the government, still, again, all the time…..
     
    No?   Gee……..
     
    Could the answer be a continuing failure to pass a legally mandated budget?

    • I believe the GOP, for some reason, refused to …what’s the word?…do a budget deal with the Senate this year…reconciliation?
      I do not understand why they would gift the Dems with an excuse, but who know.

  • The problem is that the debt is accrued not by Obama, but by spending that passes Congress, and is initiated in – you guessed it – the GOP led House of Representatives.  So if they want to say “no,” they do so by not passing bills to spend so much money.  If they pass the bills (and they have) and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling, they’re essentially stealing.   They are buying things, and then refusing to pay for them.  So sure, say NO – but do it as the Constitution intended, by the House choosing not to pass bills that spend so much.  After all, the President only signs spending bills passed by Congress.

    • Let’s fisks this crock of bullshit…

      The problem is that the debt is accrued not by Obama, but by spending that passes Congress, and is initiated in – you guessed it – the GOP led House of Representatives.

      Some points here…
      1. Collectivists ran the ENTIRE Congress when Obama was elected, and for about two years thereafter.
      2. EVERY Federal dollar spent is under the APPROVAL of Barracula.  He could veto any spending bill passed in reality.
      3. IF memory serves…and that is dicey…the SENATE originated ObamaDoggle.  Which is quite unconstitutional.
      4. No Congress has the power to bind a future Congress.  If Nanny Pelosi passes laws that commit the U.S. to spending levels a future Congress finds onerous, there is NO principle that mandates the future Congress to meet those costs.

      So if they want to say “no,” they do so by not passing bills to spend so much money.

      Did you really say that, stupid?  What is all this about?

      If they pass the bills (and they have) and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling, they’re essentially stealing.   They are buying things, and then refusing to pay for them.

      No, moron.  There is no requirement for GE to deliver stuff for which they are not getting paid.  They CAN deliver, and WILL get paid at some point in time.  That is NOT “stealing”.
      Stealing is when you bind unborn humans to pay debt for goods you are taking, but not paying for.  Like Obama.

      So sure, say NO – but do it as the Constitution intended, by the House choosing not to pass bills that spend so much.  After all, the President only signs spending bills passed by Congress.

      Precisely as we have been doing.  Where have you been…???  Up some moose’s ass?

      • Stealing is when you bind unborn humans to pay debt for goods you are taking, but not paying for.  Like Obama.

        Like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, ….
        Everyone in Washington is guilty of stealing from our grandchildren and their descendants.
        When Boehner and Cantor did their debt ceiling compromise a few years back, the amount of cutbacks was embarrassingly tiny.
        Debt Ceiling skit

        • Discussion of cuts comes about 60 seconds in.

        • I know your absolutist mind will have trouble with this, but…
          I can…and good management policy says I SHOULD…borrow money to increase my business.  It is not just OK, it is GOOD.
          Conversely, I can…and bad management experience shows this is easy…borrow to DESTROY my business.  It is not just BAD, it is FATAL.
          Borrowing is the common denominator.  The difference is DEBT SERVICE capacity.
          Ergo, Reagan officials could say with veracity they were not worried about a modest level of national debt.  The nation could readily carry the debt service.
          NOT so our current trajectory.  This is the equivalent of buying the Lear Jet when you have a few dump truck that are profitable.

          • I know your absolutist mind….

            Wow, you went into Erbian smear mode rather quickly, for no damned reason.
            You’re wrong about me and your response is a non sequitur.

          • Oh, come, come.  It was not an insult.  You are one of the most absolutist of thinkers in my acquaintance.
            And my response was not in the least a non sequitur, but it did not appeal to you mode of thinking.
            If I, as a father and farmer borrow carefully and leave my children with a serviceable debt and the means to produce to service it and still prosper, have I “robbed my children” by leaving them a debt?  Of course not!
            If I am profligate and eat up all I have and borrow more, leaving my children with a debt to pay out of too small an estate, have I robbed them?  We would all say, Yes!
            Hence we see it is not borrowing that is, itself, any form of evil.  It is, as with so many things in life, how, how much, and to what end.

          • People act like Reagan had Dictatorial powers to balance the budget.  The driver of deficit spending then was Tip O’Neil & Company.  The only thing he could do and did do in small amounts was shutdown the government.
             
            Yes Reagan did have his pet project, ending the Cold War. Ironically that gave us the ‘peace dividend’ and allowed a future president to take credit for allegedly balancing the budget. The other note is that revenue growth under Reagan would have offset that spending if Congress hadn’t decided to go spend happy.  They purposely went spend happy to grow the deficit and blame Reagan’s tax cuts.

          • “Oh, come, come.  It was not an insult.  You are one of the most absolutist of thinkers in my acquaintance.”

            If you fill your mind with parasitically indecisive mush, you’re not equipped to differentiate between someone who acts in blind faith and someone who has confidence in well-tested ideas.  I never figured you for being such a person.  This is something I would expect from Erb, who is certain that acting with certainty leads to false results.
            Do you know any religious people who wear their faith on their sleeve and spend an inordinate amount of time talking about their religion?  If so, you know someone who has real absolutist thinking.  That’s the sort of thing which pushed me away from religion.  And, the stupidity and moral failings of elements of the Republican party pushed me away from them.  I don’t follow anyone’s dogma and I change my mind when something doesn’t work out or I get new information.
            I’m probably more broad-minded and adaptable than most of the people you’ll meet.  That you take my rejection of both major parties as limited thinking or closed-mindedness speaks more of your affinity to the GOP than anything.

            “And my response was not in the least a non sequitur, but it did not appeal to you mode of thinking.”

            My what?  You give me not one, but two lectures, on the prudence of a limited amount of debt, as though I was some sort of rube.
            I understand the concepts, but I disagree with you that they are pertinent to the original discussion.

          • Goodness…

          • If you fill your mind with parasitically indecisive mush…..

            That should have been: “If you fill your mind with paralytically indecisive mush….”  That’s what I get for not paying attention to the spell correction I clicked.

            Ragspierre:Goodness…

            gracious, great balls of fire!
             

          • Note that you were the one who…at least implicitly…equated Reagan with Obama.
            That will not stand.
            It was either 1) your absolutist bent (borrowing is borrowing), or just stupid.

          • Note that you were the one who…at least implicitly…equated Reagan with Obama.
            That will not stand.
            It was either 1) your absolutist bent (borrowing is borrowing), or just stupid.

            Equate?  No.  There is a significant difference in the degree to which those two men took things, and deficit spending is just part of it.  But principles matter and Reagan didn’t live up to his myth or to the speeches he gave about reining in the growth of government, balancing the budget, or trusting the free market.  Are you aware of the Greenspan Commission?
            Your analogy to business debt or private debt is a non sequitur because of the fundamental difference between borrowing money in your own name, for which you promise to pay back from your own productivity, and what government does, which is to forcibly take the productive efforts of others and use them for their own ends.

          • See…???
            No.  I thought not.

          • You’d see better if you took the party plank from your eyes.

          • “There you go again…”

          • Ignoring all the gilded trinkets and focusing on that which is most valuable, most useful, does not make one absolutist.  It makes one perceptive and not easily distracted by impertinent appeals to ignore basic facts.
            Yes, I can suspend my objections to government and have a discussion about the numbers: managing debt, sustainability, etc..  But I will not countenance a metaphor which foolishly disregards not only the source of money (voluntary or not), but also ignores what drives deficit spending.  If you borrow money to grow your business so that it is more productive, and use part of that to pay off the debt, you benefit from the added profits and the continued growth beyond the point at which you are debt free.  But when government borrows money or increases taxes so it can grow the size and scope of government, it’s not just milking the private sector cow, it’s bleeding it.  More business means more productivity.  More government means more government, which means less productivity.
            Greenspan and Reagan dealt with the Social Security Ponzi scheme not by ending it–which they asserted was their preferred choice.  Instead, they raised taxes and tied employment to a legal obligation to be part of the system.  The acolyte of the Russian radical and the saint of the small government conservatives fed more people to the very beast for which they are falsely given credit for trying to slay.
            And, we’re also not looking at an even bigger elephant in the room: George W. Bush (#43).  Long before the 2008 campaign, many of us were blasting that guy for his insane deficit spending, all while he had a Republican Congress.  Anyone who thought the GOP was a bulwark against Democrat excess should have been cured of that delusion in the period between 2001 and 2006.

          • Greenspan and Reagan dealt with the Social Security Ponzi scheme not by ending it–which they asserted was their preferred choice.  Instead, they raised taxes and tied employment to a legal obligation to be part of the system.  The acolyte of the Russian radical and the saint of the small government conservatives fed more people to the very beast for which they are falsely given credit for trying to slay.

            When you refer to “the Russian radical” are you referencing Ayn Rand?  What success did Rand enjoy in changing the Ponzi scheme?
            Did Reagan have dictatorial powers to effect all he wanted?  Or are you being an absolutist again?
            When Reagan acceded to a tax increase, what else was part of the deal?
            Do you fault Reagan for not accomplishing that which was politically impossible?  Seems a lil’ bit “absolutist” to me.
            See what I mean?

          • The #43 elephant is still in the room, even if you won’t mention him.
            The acolyte of the Russian radical is Alan Greenspan.  He contributed to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.  Rand was dead or near dead when the Greenspan Commission was shoring up the pyramid construction with more slave labor.

            Do you fault Reagan for not accomplishing that which was politically impossible?

            If he knew he was going to play the game of continuously ceding half the distance to the goal to the Democrats, which seems to be the entire game plan of the Stupid Party, then he should have at least had the decency not to play the role of a laissez faire proponent.  He should have just told it like it was.
            Even more significant, every Republican and conservative talking head should stop referring to “Reagan Republicanism” as the noblest aspiration.
            You concede that he failed because he didn’t have dictatorial powers.  OK.  So why admire him?

          • So why admire him?

            Wow.  Pretty absolutist thinking there, huh?
            See, I can admire Reagan and still recognize his very human nature and history.
            Not so you.  Why, how dare he espouse positions he might never realize!!!!
            And, witness, you are…and really were all along…equating Reagan with Obama.
            Slave labor is slave labor, right?

          • Pretty absolutist thinking there….

            You keep using that word.  I do not think you know what it means.
            There has to be a reason to admire someone, not just that they aren’t as horrible as their competitors.  And, holding him up as an exemplar of certain ideals, even giving that set of principles the man’s appellation, only makes sense if that man held fast to those principles.  If he compromised those principles, if he showed he was just human, we can say, “At least he wasn’t Carter.”  But to make him an iconic figure?  Lame.

          • Nope, and you keep proving my use of ABSOLUTIST is dead on.
            Take Thomas Jefferson, for instance…
            Great man.  Still a man, with foibles and all.  Never DID quite live up to what he thought was right, did he?
            See…???

          • Take Thomas Jefferson, for instance…Great man.  Still a man, with foibles and all.  Never DID quite live up to what he thought was right, did he?

            If I were and absolutist, I wouldn’t cite Jefferson’s words, disregarding anything the man wrote because he owned slaves.
            But I’m not.

          • Ha ha ha…
            Just a very selective absolutist.
            But we all see you.
            And I still love you, my brother.

    • Oh, and nice attempt at deflection.
      The thread addresses the FACT (unless refuted) that we BORROWED DOUBLE what our increase in productivity was in the same period.
      Which is sort of the definition of “unsustainable“.
      Focus, focus, focus…

    • You are correct that the Republicans share the blame for the debt by passing bills which include exorbitant deficit spending.  You spell out the simple way for the Republicans to stop this madness: just say no.
      Now that you know the answer to the problem, you need to review all of your comments, posts, and any other missive in which you accused the “tea party” types of being horrible terrorist extremist poop heads, attack Republicans for not compromising, or otherwise criticize anyone who calls for shutting down the government.  For each one, take a marker and mark a segment of a finger (between the knuckles–three per finger, two per thumb).  Then, come back here and try to type that condescending lecture again without using any finger which has a free segment.

      • He’ll just use his nose…

      • “…without using any finger which has a free segment.”
        That should be: “…only using fingers which have at least one unmarked segment.”
        The bottom line, I’m betting that the number of Erb’s direct attacks on people who support saying no (which he describes as the way to avoid over-spending) exceeds 28.

    • “So if they want to say “no,” they do so by not passing bills to spend so much money.”

      No. That’s not how it works. Here, let me school you:  since most of the spending is “mandatory”, passed by previous Congresses, the solution is to pass bills that revoke that spending. Hence, the growing Tea Party movement. :)

      It’s too bad Harry Ried won’t let these things come up for a vote, nor would Obama sign them, so we can really just blame Harry and Obama again for being obstructionists. :)

    • So answer the question….Scott….if you can without haring off in some other non-sequitur direction.
       
       
      Why are we using CR’s to fund the government.   So now you can defeat two of us in verbal mano a mano here on the internet.
       
      Answer
      The
      Question.
       
       

    • Debt not accrued by Obama.
      But of course, and raising the debt limit doesn’t raise the debt.
      And the check is in the mail.
       
      Is that the sort of truth you teach your kids to tell?
      Is that the sort of truth you allow them to tell you when you ask them questions?
       

    • They already passed many spending bills. So their job is done. No?
      Really, the whole problem is Obama can hide behind Reid, which is great tactically, but it robs the American people of knowing what is really going on.
      They can be sold the illusion that Congress is “do nothing” whereas, the real do-nothing would be the President or more charitably, all of them.

    • THey passed a bill that curtailed the money pit called Obamacare. Look how that’s turned out.  Pretty obvious the House doesn’t function in a vacuum, you twit.

    • So now, when the Republicans in the House of Representatives don’t want to spend as much money, their spending bills are voted down by Democrats in the Senate.  And the Democratic President threatens to veto any bill that doesn’t contain all the spending he wants.
       
      But the deficits are all the fault of Republicans.

    • What budget, dickbrain?
      Geez, psycho, get your tongue out of the dictators anus!

  • So the GOP is to blame for this increase in debt – so says Erb.  What a POS lickspittle you are, Erb.  You will say and do anything to prop up this worthless POS President you so adore and the democrats who side with him.  Tell me something – When was the last Budget signed into law?  2009!!!  We have been living under CRs ever since that time.  Why?  Because the Democrats, when they controlled both houses, refused to pass a budget because they did not want to be criticized for the debt they were pushing.  And the GOP led House has passed budgets, passed them off to the Democrats in the Senate, who then SAT ON THEM!!!  So, since about May of 2009 we have been living under CRs because those wonderfully Brave (LOL) Democrats you so love will not pass a budget.  (Now you can go collect your 30 pieces of silver from your Masters for your efforts here.)

    • Thank you for the rundown. This, if it was made national news would have helped our polity a lot. Megan Mcardle is saying the institutional damage being done is huge, but the reality is that damage was done from 2009 until now by the Press. The press must make the Dems feel some pain for doing CRs and not budgets…but instead they get a pass.

    • And Harry Reid want’s another trillion walking around money without a budget to tide him over till 2015, clear of any messy budget fights during the election, again.
       
      I missed when Harry declared himself to be a Republican.
       
       

      • Actually, the Senate passed a budget this year, but there was no conference. That was a mistake if you ask me.

    • No, I’m not blaming just the GOP.  I’m noting that the spending has been approved by Congress — and Republicans have been in control of the House most of the time since 1994, and the Senate much of the time.  So it’s not “Obama’s debt” it’s a bipartisan debt.  Don’t refuse to pay our bills, rather, cut spending.  That takes a bipartisan effort.  I hope they do it!

      • “cut spending”

        The Democrats are already whining about the Sequester which was tiny.

        Obama refused the Simpson-Bowles plan.

        I hate to tell you this, but they will not cut spending unless forced to by the GOP.
        There’s been too many chances for them to cut spending and they never do…they only want to increase taxes.

      • And defunding Obamacare would be what?  A spending increase?

      • So you would support a balanced budget amendment…????

      • Debt accrued by Obama and approved by Dem Congress can safely be called “Obama’s debt” which is the recent unprecedented growth in the the Federal spending. But the Tea Party has been successful beyond expectations from keeping it from growing even faster.

      • Don’t refuse to pay our bills, rather, cut spending.  That takes a bipartisan effort.  I hope they do it!

        If you meant that, you would retract all the attacks you’ve made over the years against those politicians who tried to push Congress to cut spending.
        I’m not holding my breath.

      • Don’t grasp how the budget process works, huh?
        Go back to 4th grade and learn it.

      • Why haven’t we had a budget since 2009? Why do the Democrats refuse to have a budget?

  • Erb says, “No, I’m not blaming just the GOP.”  Really Erb?  Really?  Let’s review your comment shall we: “The problem is that the debt is accrued not by Obama, but by spending that passes Congress, and is initiated in – you guessed it – the GOP led House of Representatives.”  Now if we can get in our way-back machine to the good old days of W, you will see many here in these very pages criticizing Bush and the GOP for their spending.  Adding 3 Trillion to the debt during the 6 years of GOP control.  But since then, the Democrats have either had control of both houses or the Senate and WH and they have added, wait for it, 9 Trillion!!! (Note:  You get there by totaling the deficit since 2006, when the Dems regained control of the houses)  And now you have the gall to say, “I did not just blame the GOP”???  Yes, you did!!!  Nowhere did you refer to the generic “Congress” until the last word of your comment, and that is not entirely true – the President signs into law the budget passed by the House and the Senate.  And you call yourself a Political Science Professor?!?!?!?!?!  I don’t.  I call you a liar!!!

  • Give the makeup of “GDP”, how much of the increase in GDP comes from the increase in the debt?
    GDP, GNP, all that crap is based on demand-side Keynesianism, a total cludge.