Another Milestone For The President

In 2008 Barack Obama complained that Bush raised the debt $3 trillion to $8.8 trillion, and promised “Pay as you go rules”

ScreenHunter_6101 Jan. 16 05.19

Obama has now borrowed more money than all other presidents combined, increased the debt by almost $10 trillion, and more than doubled the national debt.


And the latest news is he wants to increase spending an additional 7%.

ScreenHunter_6102 Jan. 16 05.24

Obama Said to Seek 7% Budget Boost, Setting Up Fight With Congress – Bloomberg Politics


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Another Milestone For The President

  1. Robertv says:

    Your biggest problem will be that at the end he will leave you with a worthless dollar.

  2. Aren’t you Americans lucky you’ve got those printing presses!

  3. ralphcramdo says:

    “Fiscal Discipline”, something else for the Obama legacy.

  4. Edmonton Al says:

    That is the published number. I have read that some economists estimate that the real figure is several times this amount. Sorry no proof. Someone may wish to google this claim.

    • Gail Combs says:

      There are all those ‘off budget’ items so the actual debt is certainly much higher. Also there is the state and local debts.

      As E.M. Smith noted the highest amount you can skim from the gross domestic product in the USA is 18% MAXIMUM. So why not just slap an 18% – 20% tax rate on everybody with an income over 20K and be done with it. And while you are at it get rid of all the excess red tape strangling small business. Of course that puts all those tax accountants out of business but they can go to work as straight accountants for all the extra small businesses that start up.

      Cameron meets Smith, Keynes, and Laffer

      It never ceases to amaze me just how many Politicians think that they are Economists. And fail spectacularly in the process….

      The basic idea is not all that hard to grasp (at least, not for those folks who bother to think, even just a little…) You get less of something if you tax it. The more you tax it, the greater the decline in the thing taxed. If that tax is applied to, say, productivity, you get less productivity. If it is applied to incomes, you get less income….

      The goal of the taxing authority is to find that level of tax rate that yields the most total tax revenue….

      For the USA we know that no matter what tax rate is set, the maximum Federal Revenue is about 18%. (We know this from all the screwing around that the Congress has done to the Federal Income Tax rates. As high as 90% in some eras – with a significant depression of economic activity – and much lower in other times. Reagan cut tax rates to below 40% and revenue rose dramatically as economic activity improved.)

      Perhaps we can get Mr. Cameron and Governor Jerry Brown to share a Basic Econ class…

      Dear Progressive (taxation) Politicians: Just because you don’t LIKE it, that does not let you CHANGE it.

      The laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of nature.
      “Reality just is. -E.M.Smith”.

      Please learn that. I’m really tired of seeing you all, one at a time, try the same error, over and over, and yet never learning.

      ……No amount of hiding, wiggling, lying about what it is, or redefining things changes the results. Folks notice that working more gets them less, so they stop. Folks find other ways that are not taxed to make the marginal money. They move investments to other places. Sometimes they move themselves….

      REVENUE has a max amount and that is very nearly 18% of the GDP. All the “gimmicks” do is to move exactly from whom and how it is collected. Obama has stated he wants ‘only’ 25% of GDP as the Federal Goal. He simply can not get it PERIOD FULL STOP.

      The way to get more REVENUE is to grow GDP, then you get 18% of a larger total. That’s why Reagan and Kennedy both cut tax rates and got more total revenue… Economics does not care what party you belong to, nor what your “motive” is. It doesn’t care if you are an “Evil Republican” or a “Nice Democrat”. It works the same for all comers and regardless of motivation…..

      And yes E.M. does know economics — about

      • rah says:

        Hell Gail from what I have seen the vast majority of school trained economists “fail spectacularly in the process”. In fact as far as I’m concerned Economics is not a viable science really and though useful as a learning tool for certain other course of study it is at the higher levels, more like astrology than anything else. I mean after all what can one think when a fellow like Krugman get’s Nobel Prize for it?

        • omanuel says:

          I agree, except astrology seems more scientific than economics.

        • futuret says:


        • Gail Combs says:

          E.M. Smith (ChiefIO) has the training but thinks Keynes was full of bull feces.

  5. omanuel says:

    These are the consequences of an insane effort on 24 OCT 1945 to “save the world from nuclear annihilation” by prohibiting public information on the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – NEUTRON REPULSION [1].

    Falsehoods replaced Facts in the very foundation of the Standard Nuclear Model and the Standard Solar Model after WWII:

    a.) Neutron attraction rather than neutron repulsion
    b.) Stars consumed rather than stars generated hydrogen

    Perhaps unintended consequences of the seemingly noble international undertaking were:

    1. A tyrannical, one-world government replaced all the national governments that mankind had generated earlier;

    2. Society was isolated from the real Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the solar system [1]; and

    3. Mental illness, addictions and social insanity increased as the public lost faith in government words and deeds (e.g., recent AGW propaganda from the UN’s IPCC)

    . . . after the UN was established on 24 OCT 1945.

    1. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted for on-line review, 6 Jan 2015)

    Click to access Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf

    • omanuel says:

      The seventy-year path from 1945 to 2015 was not moved uniformly toward totalitarianism. Theses are a few major turning points:

      1957: The USSR launched Sputnik and prepared to take totalitarian control of planet Earth.
      1960: Thanks perhaps to Joseph Kennedy’s political influence and wealth, his son – JFK – became President instead of Nixon and started the Apollo program to prevent Russian domination of the world.
      1963: President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
      1971: Henry Kissinger secretly flew to China to restart international peace agreements by agreeing to end Kennedy’s Apollo Program.
      1972: At the 3rd Lunar Science Conference we were told the Apollo program was ending now so Nixon, Brezhnev and the leader of China could circle the Earth in a spacecraft and announce an international peace agreement.
      2015: The United States no longer competes with Russia for control of space but relies on Russia for travel to the International Space Station.

  6. gator69 says:

    Great, another milestone for Skeeter, and another millstone for us.

  7. futuret says:


  8. rah says:

    Don’t like American football? Well that’s fine. But if your a conservative you gotta love what this legendary college football coach has to say. So take a couple minutes and read the wisdom from Lou Holtz on what is happening to America.

  9. Tom Moran says:

    When the regressive left/Obama supporters attempt to flout low unemployment, increased GDP, record levels of stock market indices etc…etc… Remind them that it only cost $9 Trillion dollars to do what the markets would’ve done on their own for free.

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is NOT low unemployment it is Clinton’s shell game that was used to hide the export of American jobs via the World Trade Organization.

      At one time ~ ten years ago I had a World Trade Organization report (2005?) that point blank said the USA was going to lose millions of jobs due to the WTO ‘Free Trade Agreement’ but that was just fine and dandy (for the international Corporations).

      Explanation of the shell game by John Williams

      August 24th, 2004

      …. Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year….

      The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

      Somehow, the Clinton administration successfully set into motion reestablishing the full 60,000 survey for the benefit of the current Bush administration’s monthly household survey….

      What that means now:

      John Williams ( on the December payroll jobs report and unemployment rate:

      As increasingly has become the common circumstance, the upside revisions in headline monthly numbers simply are constructs of highly unstable, inconsistent and questionable seasonal adjustments being shifted between months. The unadjusted data do not revise, but the adjusted data pick up bogus growth from gimmicked reporting . . .

      Counting All Discouraged Workers, December 2014 Unemployment Was 23.0%. . . . More than anything else, though, what removes headline-unemployment reporting from broad underlying economic reality and common experience simply is definitional. To be counted among the headline unemployed (U.3), an individual has to have looked for work actively within the four weeks prior to the unemployment survey. If the active search for work was in the last year, but not in the last four weeks, the individual is considered a “discouraged worker” by the BLS [and not counted in the U.3 measure]. ShadowStats defines that group as “short-term discouraged workers,” as opposed to those who become “long-term discouraged workers” after one year.

      Moving on top of U.3, the broader U.6 unemployment measure includes only the short-term discouraged workers. The still-broader ShadowStats-Alternate Unemployment Measure includes an estimate of all discouraged workers, including those discouraged for one year or more, as the BLS used to measure the series pre-1994, and as Statistics Canada still does…..

      The Progressives REALLY REALLY HATE John Williams and Shadowstats.

  10. A C Osborn says:

    You should watch the BBC programme “The Super Rich and Us”.
    It shows how this was all designed in the 70s and 80s.

    • Gail Combs says:

      You are off a bit in timing. It goes all the way back to the American and French Revolution, Classic Liberalism and the measures the Elite took to regain control of the peons who had now become the middle class. Unless of course you were talking of 1770s, 1780s….

  11. rah says:

    If I remember correctly even when the democrats had control of both houses they did not pass Obama’s proposed budgets and at least once it did not get a single vote from either side of the isle. So what they heck do they think is going to happen now?

  12. SMS says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I recall during the last year of G W Bush’s tenure in office he increased the debt by 700 billion to head off a potential melt down of the The melt down was a product of the Democratic caused housing crisis. It was Bush’s idea to “lend” the money out to needing financial institutions until they were on their feet, at which time they would pay back what was owed. Bush had loaned out less than half of the money approved when Obama took office. Obama then “gave” away the remaining money and when any money was repaid, he gave that away as well. Bush got tagged with the portion of the debt that Obama spent.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes it goes back to Clinton’s Five new Banking Laws.

      The McFadden Act of 1927 or Amendment to the National Banking Laws and the Federal Reserve Act (P.L. 69-639, 44 STAT. 1224): Prohibited interstate banking.

      Law: Negating above:
      Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994
      (P.L. 103-328, 108 STAT. 2338).
      Permits bank holding companies to acquire banks in any state one year Beginning June 1, 1997, allows interstate mergers.

      The Glass-Steagall Act or Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162): Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.

      Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133): Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.

      Law: Negating both of the above laws:
      Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
      (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338)
      Repeals last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. Modifies portions of the Bank Holding Company Act to allow affiliations between banks and insurance underwriters. Law creates a new financial holding company authorized to engage in: underwriting and selling insurance and securities, conducting both commercial and merchant banking, investing in and developing real estate and other “complimentary activities.”

      Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-242, 105 STAT. 2236).
      Also known as FDICIA. FDICIA [b]greatly increased the powers and authority of the FDIC. Major provisions recapitalized the Bank Insurance Fund and [b]allowed the FDIC to strengthen the fund by borrowing from the Treasury.

      Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550, 106 STAT. 3672).

      RTC Completion Act[/b] (P.L. 103-204, 107 STAT. 2369):
      implement provisions designed to improve the agency’s record in providing business opportunities to minorities and women.. Expands the existing affordable housing programs of the RTC and the FDIC by broadening the potential affordable housing stock of the two agencies.
      Increases the statute of limitations on RTC civil lawsuits. In cases in which the statute of limitations has expired, claims can be revived for fraud and intentional misconduct resulting in unjust enrichment or substantial loss to the thrift.

      • Gail Combs says:

        If by now you have figured out I HATE Slick Willy you would be correct.

        • rah says:

          Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550, 106 STAT. 3672).

          RTC Completion Act[/b] (P.L. 103-204, 107 STAT. 2369):
          implement provisions designed to improve the agency’s record in providing business opportunities to minorities and women.. Expands the existing affordable housing programs of the RTC and the FDIC by broadening the potential affordable housing stock of the two agencies.
          Increases the statute of limitations on RTC civil lawsuits. In cases in which the statute of limitations has expired, claims can be revived for fraud and intentional misconduct resulting in unjust enrichment or substantial loss to the thrift.

          THOSE two were the real killers. And actually the bill that originally got the housing finance scam rolling started under Carter. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.)

        • SMS says:

          That’s how I remember it. Carter approved the CRA but this legislation was ignored under Reagan and GHW Bush. Bill Clinton ordered Janet Reno to implement the regulation that Carter had enacted. When GW Bush tried to stop the CRA (made 18 attempts to stop this financial disaster of a program). It was Barney Frank and the Democrats who would not let any change to the CRA get out of committee.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I tried to post this earlier and it got kicked into neverneverland by WordUnimpressed.
          The banks did not care if they had to lend to poor credit risks, The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 allowed unregulated credit default swaps to cover the mortgage. With multiple policies a bank could earn $500,000 or more on a $100,000 mortgage AND get the property too. All for a couple of keystrokes that created the fairy dust backed loan.

          The federal government poured tax payer money into AIG who then paid off the credit default swaps. That was the ‘bank bailout’

          Here are the crucial moves:
          1.CDSs, credit default swaps were exempted from regulation in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in the year 2000 ( sponsored by Phil Gramm)

          2.Hank Paulson was the Treasury secretary who engineered the AIG bailout. He worked for Goldman Sachs.

          3. If a bank had the credit default swap insurance policies on a mortgage, especially if they had more than one, it was to their advantage to force foreclosure.

          4. Obama mortgage program sets up homeowners for defaulting on their mortgage by reducing payments up front before qualification. The bank then stalled making a decision for a year by asking for different paperwork. They then handing homeowners a staggering bill, due in one month when they do not qualify. If the homeowners could meet the bill the banks then refused to name an actual amount due. (First hand experience. Took 6 months and a lawyer to nail bank down.)
          A link I found this morning state only about 2% of the millions of homeowners who fell for the Obama mortgage program trap actually got a modified mortgage!

          Senior investors, who are typically financial institutions, own the AAA tranches that are insured against default by AIG, and they WANT to foreclose on the Middle Class so that insurance payments kick in. Conversely, the junior tranche investors want workouts with homeowners because their investment is not insured.

          “To ensure that the mortgage servicer pushes default instead of workout, the servicer is paid double (50 basis points versus 25 basis points) by the MBS to service a loan in default. Why do you think your servicer tells you that you must be in default before it will consider a mortgage modification, a practice known as invited default?

          “Simply put,” says Parker, “the government bailout of AIG has actually encouraged foreclosures because the taxpayers continue to fill AIG’s coffers with enough cash to pay out insurance on defaulted home loans.”

          “A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties,” says Wikipedia. “The buyer makes periodic payments to the seller, and in return receives a payoff if an underlying financial instrument defaults. CDS contracts have been compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if one of the specified events occur…

          Instead of cars or houses, credit default swaps were used to guarantee mortgage-backed securities (MBS), a safe bet according to the best-available mathematical models. Why? Because most homeowners pay off their home loans with the certainty of an ATM.
          The is no reserve requirement with CDS because there’s no government regulation. Each insurance company can set aside as much — or as little — as it wants for reserves. In fact, a company could set aside nothing for potential losses without violating regulatory requirements.
          The money NOT set aside for reserves can be invested in high-risk securities to create a larger cash flow for the insurance company. This means that with CDS, insurers expected not only premiums but also bigger investment returns then would be possible with regular insurance products.
          CDS premium revenue is not restricted to those who might have actual losses or real assets to protect. You can bet as much as you want and create as many CDS as you want….


          In other words there maybe more than one CDS on a mortgage and therefore it is much more profitable to collect the multiple payoffs than to refinance the mortgage.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The other link I could not find:
          Obama’s Mortgage Modification Program A Colossal Flop

          …The high unemployment rate alone explains why all of the “stimulus” and bailouts in the financial sector have been to so little effect in improving the market so far……

          …..Obama’s mortgage modification program was a colossal failure, with hardly any principal modifications occurring. Obama blames this on Federal Housing Finance Agency Chairman Edward DeMarco, who blocked such measures.

          But even under the agency’s best-case scenario, DeMarco estimated just 248,000 borrowers would have even been eligible for the Home Affordable Modification Program Principal Reduction Alternative — or just 2.3% of the 10.4 million borrowers nationwide who are underwater. Meanwhile, the program likely would have been a net loss to taxpayers….

        • Gail Combs says:

          Cash No Longer Reigns Supreme – Over half (53%) of American Adults now say they’ve gone an entire week without paying for anything with cash or coins,

          Making “Cents” of Credit Card Processing Fees

          Deciding whether or not to accept credit cards at your restaurant can be a tough call. On one hand, people who don’t have enough cash on hand may decide to eat somewhere else if you don’t take cards — but on the other hand, though you may get more customers, credit card fees can take a big chunk out of your profits.
          …On average, however, credit card transaction fees on a $100 charge would amount to between $2.50 and $3.

          ….Additionally, for traditional credit card processing, you will need to purchase a physical terminal, which generally costs around $150.

          ….Mobile payment processing 2.7% – 2.75%

          …..under new legislation that’s valid in 40 of the 50 states, businesses are now permitted to impose a surcharge of up to 4% of their customers’ purchase prices.

          For businesses that previously avoided accepting credit cards due to the extra cost, the ruling can make accepting credit cards a no-brainer….

          Of course all of the ‘money’ involved is created on the spot by the banks. In my small business we insist on cash and very reluctantly will take checks although that has become increasingly chancy.

          The goal of course is to do away with cash so the banksters get their slice of your wealth and the Government gets theirs.

          More Americans Work in the Underground Economy

          March 28, 2013
          …. Added together, economists estimate that the income generated by the underground economy in the U.S. could be $2 trillion.

          Such arrangements, while providing a safety net of last resort, also may provide answers to puzzling discrepancies in economic data. Retail sales have outpaced gains in reported income for almost four years, says Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group. “There could very well be a much larger than expected underground economy at work here that is making a contribution,” he says….

          In a paper last year, two economists estimated that 18 percent to 19 percent of income nationwide is not reported to the Internal Revenue Service. “The estimated $2 trillion of unreported income gives rise to an annual tax gap of $450 billion to $500 billion,” ….
          The underground economy runs on cash, which can’t be traced.
          The total number of physical bills has surged since the onset of the recession, reaching a record $1.18 trillion on March 13, up from $803 billion in 2007, according to the Federal Reserve….

          To give you an idea of how much the shadow economy has grown there is this older article: America’s ‘shadow economy’ is bigger than you think – and growing
          “The informal, or ‘shadow,’ economy is as big as $1 trillion. And in poor economic times, it’s growing.” November 12, 2009 (wwwDOT)

  13. Pathway says:

    All spending bills originate the the House of Representatives and the Republicans have controlled the House for about the last 20 years, except the two years that San Fran Nan and the other fascists took control and gave us the Unaffordable Health Care Act.

    • futuret says:


    • rah says:

      No actually not all spending bills “originate” in the HR though the Constitution in it’s Origination Clause states that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

      Notice that the Constitution says “raising revenue” and not “appropriations” (spending).

      There are various legislative tricks for getting around even that clause so plenty of spending (appropriations) bills have originated in the Senate and especially when one part controls both houses though of course in order to get passed the HR must concur.

      • nielszoo says:

        That’s how we got stuck with Obamacare. The original “bill” was a shell in the House and the only thing remaining was the title. The Senate filled it in and then they pulled that “reconciliation” BS and we’re stuck with an ongoing disaster that would have been stopped had our government followed the law as written.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s