Monday, December 3, 2012


I think your family should, after considering whatever debt you now have, add about $49,568.00 to it, don’t you?


Why not?

Your president does. So does much of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It turns out that is exactly what the $5,696,206.400,691.90 added to the national debt during President BO (the amateur president)’s time in office does.

It also turns out that the amount added to the national debt since PBO (tap) took office is more than the total of all of the debt incurred by the U.S. since George Washington.

When George W. Bush took office, the debt was $5,693,220,327,798.14.

When GWB left office, after two terms, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08, an increase of $4,933,656,721,114.94.

At the close of business last Thursday, the debt was $16,323,083,449,604.98 according to the Treasury Department (and shouldn’t they know?).

That’s an increase of $5,696,206,400,691.90 under PBO (tap) after only ONE term!

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has proposed that Congress give President BO (the amateur president) unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling. (For liberals educated in government schools, “unilateral” means all by himself, without consulting Congress or anybody else).

What a great idea!

Then we could all stand by and watch our children and grandchildren get saddled with even more than $49,568.00.

And we know ALL liberals think we should do that to our children. That’s because to them, it’s ALL about the children. (Really?)
For most of our country’s life, we have lived on some amount of debt, both as a nation and as individual citizens of the nation.

We have been given the impression that debt is natural, good and productive.

That, of course, is a lie.

Eventually, if not controlled, excessive debt will financially drown both individuals and the nation.

To some the answer to the national debt is to just raise taxes, specifically on rich people. That this approach would produce less than a 3% increase in funds available for the debt makes no difference to them. Do it any way.

To others, the answer lies in reducing spending to a reasonable level. In other words, live within your means.

Successful families do it. Why shouldn't the government?

Debt creates a sense of false security. It also lulls us into thinking it is a good way to get what we want sooner than we can afford to have it.

Families that do not learn to control their debt eventually go bankrupt.

So do nations.


sue hanes said...

Joe - 'In other words, live within your means.'

Now there's a good idea. I wonder how many people really do that. That is the best way to live.

For people AND governments. Why didn't someone suggest that before it became too late.

One way that can be done is to pay cash for everything.

Joe said...

sh: " cash for everything."

That's what we do in our home.

sue hanes said...

Joe - I had a feeling that you would say that.

No wonder you are so down on accumulating debts.

Anyway - you are smart to have gotten into that habit. Now if the government could just come to that.
Not likely - though.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - First of all, let me say I am also on a paycheck-to-paycheck, cash-only basis as well.

Joe, you don't seem to understand what the Federal Debt Limit is.

It's not a limit on how much the Federal Government can spend, it's an arbitrary limit on how much the government can pay.

Big difference.

What the government is authorized to spend is dictated by budget bills passed by both houses of congress and signed by the President. Those bills become law.

There is no direct connection between what congress passes and the Debt Ceiling. The Debt Ceiling isn't a credit limit on government spending. It's a limit on government bill paying.

Here, let me explain it in terms your readers can understand.

Let's say you and me and all our friends go out to dinner. We look over the menu order what we want, enjoy our meal, have a few drinks and have a great time.

That's the Federal Budget. We all ordered what we want, got it, enjoyed it with no objections from anyone at the table.

Then the waiter brings the bill. Everyone looks at it and says "We're not paying that. The bill for the stuff we just ordered and enjoyed was $1000.00, but we decided before dinner that no matter how much the bill is, we were only going to pay $300.00."

That's the Federal Debt Limit. The only thing it does is insure that the country will default on it's legally incurred debt unless it is raised to match the level of spending that both houses of congress and the president have already agreed to spend!

Eliminate the debt limit because it's stupid and, attention Tea Party, it has absolutely no Constitutional basis.

Or give the president the authority to unilaterally increase it as needed. Then, if the United States fails to honor our legally incurred debt by just refusing to pay the bill, it's all on the president and every member of congress has cover.

This whole argument is so stupid.

Joe said...

XO: "It's not a limit on how much the Federal Government can spend, it's an arbitrary limit on how much the government can pay."

Fiscal nonsense and a redefining of terms that have meant what they meant until President BO (the amateur president) was elected. Then they got changed to whatever liberals want them to mean.

Debt is what one owes as a result of borrowing. The Federal Debt is what the United States owes other entities, such as other governments.

The Debt Ceiling is a limit on how much the United States can OWE those other entities. That debt results from borrowing money.

"...the debt limit...has absolutely no Constitutional basis."

Well I tend to agree with that as far as it goes, but borrowing money, which creates debt, has been going on almost from the beginning of the country's history.

The Debt Ceiling was intended to prevent us from borrowing so much that we would default on the loans, you know: the same thing that caused the housing bubble to burst.

The result of the liberal approach will be to bankrupt the country unless we adopt the concept, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which would do here what it has done in dozens of other countries: eleminate the incentive to work productively.

So from a practical standpoint, the Debt Ceiling is a near necessity, if only temporarily.

Its removal at this time in history would lead us to more debt than we alread have, resulting in eventual bankruptcy.

Fredd said...

Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. You have to pay the piper. Or any number of lame expressions that are as true as can be.

We will get another dose of debt in the next four years that will create a different atmosphere, once these poor people that are the recipients of Obama's largess find that they are steadily becoming worse off.

Joe said...

Fredd: Why is this so difficult for liberals to understand?

Why can they not see that too much debt is a bad thing?

Are they so used to defaulting on their debts that they think it is OK for the country, too?

Joe said...

XO: " arbitrary limit on how much the government can pay."

Then why, in the name of honesty and openness, is it not called the "Payment Limit" instead of the "Debt Limit?"

Surely liberals would fight for calling a specific activity what it really is and would never cloak it in some obscure phrasiology, would they?

Xavier Onassis said...

Oh, Joe - Once again I find myself in the position of having to give you a history lesson. Were you home schooled before that was a thing? Because you seem to be critically under-educated.

Here is some of the most easily accessible information about the Debt Ceiling from Wikipedia (


US government indebtedness has been the norm in the financial history of the nation.

The carriage of debt in Western Europe and North America by governments has been normal for the past 200 years, so the US situation is not unique.

The US has only been "without a debt or deficit" for under 1% of its legal existence since the 1778 Treaty of Paris.

Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly report on the amount of the debt ($75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791).

Every President since Harry Truman has added to the national debt expressed in absolute dollars.

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962, including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W. Bush and three times (to August 2011) under Barack Obama.

The process of setting the debt ceiling is separate and distinct from the regular process of financing government operations, and raising the debt ceiling neither directly increases nor decreases the budget deficit.

The US government passes a federal budget every year. This budget details projected tax collections and outlays and, therefore, the amount of borrowing the government would have to do in that fiscal year.

A vote to increase the debt ceiling is, therefore, usually seen as a formality, needed to continue spending that has already been approved previously by the Congress and the President.

The Government Accountability Office explains, "the debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred."

The apparent redundancy of the debt ceiling has led to suggestions that it should be abolished altogether."

Joe said...

XO: "US government indebtedness has been the norm in the financial history of the nation."


I said, "...borrowing money...has been going on almost from the beginning of the country's history." 1778 IS almost from the beginning of the country's history.

Why did you imply that I had not said that?

"...neither directly increases nor decreases the budget deficit."

I did not address and said not a single word about the budget deficit.

I have made it a point on this blog to consistantly point out the difference between the budget deficit and the national debt. They are not the same thing at all.

"The US government passes a federal budget every year."

NO, it has been over three years since the Senate has passed a budget.